Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 1
MATT. 19. 3, 4. &c.
3 And the Phariſes alſo came unto him tempting him, &c.
IT hath beene ſaid.] What hitherto hath beene ſpoke upon the law of God touching Matrimony or divorce, hee who will deny to have bin argu'd according to reaſon, and all equity of Scripture, I cannot edifie how, or by what rule of proportion that mans vertue calculates, what his elements are, not what his analytics. Confidently to thoſe who have read good bookes, and to thoſe whoſe reaſon is not an illiterate booke to themſelves I appeale, whether they would not confeſſe all this to bee the commentary of truth and juſtice, were it not for theſe recited words of our Saviour. And if they take not backe that which they thus grant, nothing ſooner might perſwade them that Chriſt heer teaches no new precept, and nothing ſooner might direct them to finde his meaning, then to compare and meaſure it by the rules of nature and eternall righteouſnes, which no writt'n law extinguiſhes, and the Goſpel leaſt of all. For what can be more oppoſite and diſparaging to the cov'nant of love, of freedom, & of our manhood in grace, then to bee made the yoaking pedagogue of new ſeverities, the ſcribe of ſyllables and rigid letters, not only greevous to the beſt of men, but different and ſtrange from the light of reaſon in them, ſave only as they are fain to ſtretch & diſtort their apprehenſions, for feare of diſpleaſing the verbal ſtraightneſſe of a text, which our owne ſervil feare gives us not the leiſure to underſtand aright. If the law of Chriſt ſhall be writt'n in our hearts, as was promis'd to the Goſpel, Jer. 31, how can this in the vulgar and ſuperficiall ſenſe be a law of Chriſt, ſo farre from beeing writt'n in our hearts, that it injures and diſſallowes not onelyonly the free dictates of nature and morall law, but of charity alſo and religion in our hearts. Our Saviours doctrine is, that the end, and the fulfilling of every command is charity; no faith without it, no truth without it, no worſhip, no workes pleaſing to God but as they partake of charity. He himſelfe ſets us an example, breaking the ſolemneſt and the ſtricteſt ordinance of religious reſt, and juſtify'd the breaking, not to cure a dying man, but ſuch whoſe cure might without danger have beene deſerr'd. And wherefore needes muſt the ſick mans bed be carried home on that day by his appointment, and why were the Diſciples who could not forbeare on that day to pluck the corne, ſo induſtriouſly deſended, but to ſhew us that if he preferr'd the ſlighteſt occaſions of mans good before the obſerving of higheſt and ſevereſt ordinances, hee gave us much more eaſie leave to breake the intolerable yoake of a never well joyn'd wedlocke for the removing of our heavieſt afflictions. Therefore it is that the moſt of evangelick precepts are given us in proverbiall formes, to drive us from the letter, though we love ever to be ſticking there. For no other cauſe did Chriſt aſſure us that whatſoever things wee binde, or ſlacken on earth are ſo in heaven, but to ſignifie that the chriſtian arbitrement of charity is ſupreme decider of all controverſie, and ſupreme reſolver of all Scripture; not as the Pope determines for his owne tyrany, but as the Church ought to determine for its owne true liberty. Hence Euſebius not far from beginning his Hiſtory, compares the ſtate of Chriſtians to that of Noah and the Patriarkes before the Law. And this indeede was the reaſon, why Apoſtolick tradition in the antient Church was counted nigh equall to the writt'n word, though it carried them at length awry, for want of conſidering that tradition was not left to bee impos'd as law, but to be a patterne of that Chriſtian prudence, and liberty which holy men by right aſſum'd of old, which truth was ſo evident, that it found entrance even into the Councell of Trent, when the point of tradition came to be diſcusſt. And Marinaro a learned Carmelite for approaching too neere the true cauſe that gave eſteeme to tradition, that is to ſay, the difference betweene the Old and New Teſtament, the one punctually preſcribing writt'n Law, the other guiding by the inward ſpirit, was reprehended by Cardinall Poole as one that had ſpoken more worthy a German Collequie, then a generall councell. I omit many inſtances, many proofes and arguments of this kind, which alone would compile a juſt volume, and ſhall content me heer to have ſhew'n breifly, that the great and almoſt only commandment of the Goſpel, is to command nothing againſt the good of man, and much more no civil command, againſt his civil good. If we underſtand not this, we are but crackt cimbals, we do but tinckle, we know nothing, we doe nothing, all the ſweat of our toilſomeſt obedience will but mock us. And what wee ſuffer ſuperſtitiouſly returnes us no thankes. Thus med'cining our eyes wee neede not doubt to ſee more into the meaning of theſe our Saviours words, then many who have gone before us.
[It hath beene ſaid, whoſoever ſhall put away his wife.] Our Saviour was by the doctors of his time ſuſpected of intending to diſſolve the law. In this chapter he wipes off this aſperſion upon his accuſers, and ſhewes how they were the law brea kers. In every common wealth when it decayes, corruption makes two maine ſteps; firſt when men ceaſe to doe according to the inward and uncompell'd actions of vertue, caring only to live by the outward conſtraint of law, and turne the Simplicity of reall good, into the craft of ſeeming ſo by law. To this hypocritical honeſty was Rome declin'd in that age, wherein Horace liv'd and diſcover'd it to Quintius.
Whom doe we count a good man, whom but he
Who keepes the lawes and ſtatutes of the Senate,
Who judges in great ſuits and controverſies,
Whoſe witneſſe and opinion winnes the cauſe;
But his owne houſe, and the whole neighbourhood
Sees his foule inſide through his whited skin.
The next declining is, when law becomes now too ſtraight for the ſecular manners, and thoſe too looſe for the cincture of law. This brings in falſe and crooked interpretations to ecke out law, and invents the ſuttle encroachment of obſcure traditions hard to be diſprov'd. To both theſe deſcents the Phariſes themſelves were fall'n. Our Saviour therefore ſhews them both where they broke the law in not marking the divine intent thereof, but onelyonly the letter, and where they deprav'd the letter alſo with ſophiſticall expoſitions. This law of divorſe they had deprav'd both waies. Firſt, by teaching that to give a bill of divorſe was all the duty which that law requir'd, what ever the cauſe were. Next by running to divorſe for any triviall, accidentall cauſe; whenas the law evidently ſtayes in the grave cauſes of naturall and immutable diſlike. [It hath been ſaid ſaith he Chriſt doth not put any contempt or diſeſteeme upon the law page missing ſtruct, but if he diſcerne his willingneſſe and candor made uſe of to intrapp him, will ſuddainly draw in himſelfe, and laying aſide the facil vein of perſpicuity, will know his time to utter clouds and riddles; If he be not leſſe wiſe then that noted Fiſh, when as he ſhould bee not unwiſer then the Serpent. Our Saviour at no time expreſt any great deſire to teach the obſtinate and unteachable Phariſes; but when they came to tempt him, then leaſt of all. As now about the liberty of divorce, ſo another time about the puniſhment of adultery they came to ſound him, and what ſatisfaction got they from his anſwer, either to themſelves or to us, that might direct a law under the Goſpel, new from that of Moſes, unleſſe we draw his abſolution of adultery into an edict. So about the tribute, who is there can picke out a full ſolution, what and when we muſt give to Caeſar, by the anſwer which he gave the Phariſes? If we muſt give to Caeſar that which is Caeſars, and all be Caeſars, which hath his image, wee muſt either new ſtamp our Coine, or we may goe new ſtamp our Foreheads with the ſuperſcription of ſlaves in ſtead of freemen. Beſides it is a generall precept, not only of Chriſt, but of all other Sages, not to inſtruct the unworthy and the conceited who love tradition more then truth, but to perplex and ſtumble them purpoſely with contriv'd obſcurities. No wonder then if they who would determine of divorce by this place, have ever found it difficult, and unfatisfying through all the ages of the Church, as Auſtine himſelfe and other great writers confeſſe. Laſtly it is manifeſt to be the principal ſcope of our Saviour both here, and in the 5. of Mat. to convince the Phariſes of what they being evill did licentiouſly, not to explaine what others being good and blameleſſe men might be permitted to doe in caſe of extremity. Neither was it ſeaſonable to talke of honeſt and conſcientious liberty among them who had abuſed legall and civil liberty to uncivil licence. We doe not ſay to a ſervant what we ſay to a ſonne; nor was it expedient to preach freedome to thoſe who had tranſgreſt in wantonneſſe. When we rebuke a Prodigal, we admoniſh him of thrift, not of magnificence, or bounty. And to ſchool a proud man we labour to make him humble, not magnanimous. So Chriſt to retort theſe arrogant inquiſitors their own, tooke the courſe to lay their hautineſſe under a ſeverity which they deſerv'd; not to acquaint them, or to make them judges either of the juſt mans right and privilege or of the afflicted mans neceſſity. And if wee may have leave to conjecture, there is a likelyhood offer'd us by Tertullian in his 4. againſt Marcion, whereby it may ſeeme very probable that the Phariſes had a private drifr of malice againſt our Saviours life in propoſing this queſtion; and our Saviour had a peculiar aim in the rigor of his anſwer, both to let them know the freedome of his ſpirit, and the ſharpeneſſe of his diſcerning. This I muſt now ſhew, ſaith Tertullian, Whence our Lord deduc'd this ſentence, and which way he directed it, whereby it will more fully appeare that he intended not to diſſolve Moſes. And there upon tells us that the vehemence of this our Saviours ſpeech was cheifly darted againſt Herod and Herodias. The ſtory is out of Joſephus: Herod had beene a long time married to the daughter of Aretas King of Petra, til hapning on his jorney towards Rome to be entertain'd at his brother Philips houſe, he caſt his eye unlawfully and ungueſtlike upon Herodias there, the wife of Philip, but daughter to Ariſtobulus their common brother, and durſt make words of marrying her his Neece from his brothers bed. She aſſented upon agreement he ſhould expell his former wife. All was accompliſht, and by the Baptiſt rebuk't with the loſſe of his head. Though doubtleſſe that ſtaid not the various diſcourſes of men upon the fact, which while the Herodian flatterers, and not a few perhaps among the Phariſes endevout'd to defend by wreſting the law, it might be a meanes to bring the queſtion of divorce into a hot agitation among the people, how farre Moſes gave allowance. The Phariſes therefore knowing our Saviour to be a friend of Iohn the Baptiſt, and no doubt but having heard much of his Sermon in the Mount, wherein he ſpake rigidly againſt the licence of divorce, they put him this queſtion both in hope to find him a contradicter of Moſes, and a condemner of Herod; ſo to inſnare him within compaſſe of the ſame accuſation which had ended his friend; and our Saviour ſo orders his anſwer, as that they might perceive Herod and his Adultreſſe only not nam'd; ſo lively it concern'd them both what he ſpake. No wonder then if the ſentence of our Saviour ſounded ſtricter then his cuſtome was; which his conſcious attempters doubtleſſe apprehended ſooner then his other auditors. Thus much we gaine from hence to informe us, that what Chriſt intends to ſpeake here of divorce, will be rather the forbidding of of what we may not doe herein paſſionately and abuſively, as Herod and Herodias did, then the diſcuſſing of what herein we may doe reaſonably and neceſſarily.
[Is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife] It might be render'd more exactly from the Greeke, to looſen or to ſet free; which though it ſeeme to have a milder fignification then the two Hebrew words commonly us'd for divorce, yet Interpreters have noted, that the Greeke alſo is read in the Septuagint, for an act which is not without conſtraint. As when Achiſh drove from his preſence David counterfeting madneſſe. Pſal. 34. the Greeke word is the ſame with this here, to put away. And Eraſmus quotes Hilary rendering it by an expreſſion, not ſo ſoft. Whence may be doubted, whether the Phariſes did not ſtate this queſtion in the ſtrict right of the man, not tarrying for the wives conſent. And if our Saviour anſwer directly according to what was askt in the tearm of putting away, it may be queſtionable, whether the rigor of his ſentence did not forbid only ſuch putting away as is without mutuall conſent▪ in a violent and and harſh manner, or without any reaſon, but will, as the Tetrarch did. Which might be the cauſe that thoſe Chriſtian Emperours fear'd not in their conſtitutions to diſſolve mariage by mutuall conſent; In that our Saviour ſeemes here, as the caſe is moſt likely, not to condemne all divorce but all injury and violence in divorce. But no injury can be done to them who ſeeke it, as the Ethics of Aristotle ſufficiently prove. True it is, that an unjuſt thing may be done to one though willing, and ſo may juſtly be forbid'n: But divorce being in it ſelfe no unjuſt or evill thing, but only as it is joyn'd with injury, or luſt, injury it cannot be at law, if conſent be, and Ariſtotle erre not. And luſt it may as frequently not be, while charity hath the judging of ſo many private greevances in a misfortun'd Wedlock, which may pard'nably ſeeke a redemption. But whether it be or not, the law cannot diſcerne, or examine luſt, ſo long as it walkes from one lawfull terme to another, from divorce to marriage both in themſelves indifferent. For if the law cannot take hold to puniſh many actions apparently covetous, ambitious, ingratefull, proud, how can it forbid and puniſh that for luſt, which is but only ſurmiſ'd ſo, and can no more be certainly prov'd in the divorcing now, then before in the marrying. Whence if divorce be no unjuſt thing, but through luſt, a cauſe not diſcernable by law, as law is wont to diſcerne in other caſes, and can be no injury where conſent is, there can be nothing in the equity of law, why divorce by conſent may not be lawfull: leaving ſecrecies to conſcience, the thing which our Saviour here aimes to rectifie, not to revoke the ſtatutes of Moſes. In the meane while the wotd To put away, being in the Gteeke, to looſen or diſolve, utterly takes away that vaine papiſticall diſtinction of divorce from bed, and divorce from bond, evincing plainly that both Chriſt and the Phariſes meane here that divorce which finally diſolves the bond and frees both parties to a ſecond marriage.
[For every cauſe.] This the Phariſes held, that for every cauſe they might divorce, for every accidentall cauſe, any quarrell or difference that might happ'n. So both Joſephus and Philo, men who liv'd in the ſame age, explain; and the Syriac tranſlater, whoſe antiquity is thought parallel to the Evangeliſts themſelves, reads it conformably upon any occaſion or pretence. Divines alſo generally agree that thus the Phariſes meant. Cameron a late writer much applauded, commenting this place not undiligently, affirmes that the Greeke prepoſition foreign tranſlated unuſually (For) hath a force in it implying the ſuddenneſſe of thoſe Phariſaic divorces; and that their queſtion was to this effect, whether for any cauſe, whatever it chanc'd to be, ſtraight as it roſe, the divorſe might be lawfull. This he freely gives what ever mou'd him, and I as freely take, nor can deny his obſervation to be acute & learned. If therfore we inſiſt upon the word of putting away, that it imports a conſtraint without conſent, as might be inſiſted, and may enjoy what Cameron beſtowes on us, that for every cauſe is to be underſtood, according as any cauſe may happen, with a relation to the ſpeedineſſe of thoſe divorces and that Herodian act eſpecially, as is already brought us, the ſentence of our Saviour wil appeare nothing ſo ſtrict a prohibition as hath beene long conceiv'd, forbidding only to divorce for caſuall & temporary cauſes, that may be ſoon ended, or ſoone remedied; & likewiſe forbidding to divorce raſhly, & on theſudden heate, except it be for adultery. If theſe qualifications may be admitted, as partly we offer them, partly are offer'd them by ſome of their own opinion, and that where nothing is repugnant why they ſhould not bee admitted, nothing can wreſt them from us, the ſevere ſentence of our Saviour will ſtraight unbend the ſeeming frowne into that gentleneſſe and compaſſion which was ſo abundant in all his actions, his office and his doctrine, from all which otherwiſe it ſtands off at no meane diſtance.