Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 2
Verſ. 4. And he anſwered and ſaid unto them, have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them Male and Female?
Verſ. 5. And ſaid, for this cauſe ſhall a man leave Father and Mother, and ſhall cleave to his wife, and they twaine ſhall be one fleſh?
Verſ. 6. VVherefore they are no more twaine but one fleſh, what therefore God hath joyned together, let no man put aſunder.
[4. and 5 Made them Male and Female, And ſaid for this cauſe, &c.] We ſee it here undeniably, that the law which our Saviour cites to prove that divorce was forbidd'n, is not an abſolute and tyrannicall command without reaſon, as now adaies wee make it little better, but is grounded upon ſome rationall cauſe not difficult to be apprehended, being in a matter which equally concernes the meaneſt and the plaineſt ſort of perſons in a houſhold life. Our next way then will be to inquire if there bee not more reaſons then one, and if there be, whether this be the beſt and cheifeſt. That we ſhall finde by turning to the firſt inſtitution, to which Chriſt referrs our owne reading; He himſelfe having to deale with treacherous affailants, uſeth brevity, and lighting on the firſt place in Geneſis that mentions any thing tending to Marriage in the firſt chapter, joynes it immediately to the 24. verſe of the 2 chapter, omitting all the prime words between, which create the inſtitution, and containe the nobleſt and pureſt ends of Matrimony, without which attain'd, that conjunction hath nothing in it above what is common to us with beaſts. So likewiſe beneath in this very chapter, to the young man who came not tempting him, but to learne of him, asking him which commandments hee ſhould keepe, he neither repeates the firſt table, nor all the ſecond, nor that in order which he repeates. If heere then being tempted, hee deſire to bee the ſhorter, and the darker in his conference, and omitt to cite that from the ſecond of Geneſis, which all Divines confeſſe is a commentary to what he cites out of the firſt, the making them Male and Female; what are we to doe, but to ſearch the inſtitution our ſelves; and we ſhall finde there his owne authority giving other manner of reaſons why ſuch firme union is to bee in matrimony, without which reaſons their being male and female can be no cauſe of joyning them unſeparably: for if it be, then no Adultery can ſever. Therefore the prohibition of divorce depends not upon this reaſon heere expreſt to the Phariſes, but upon the plainer & more eminent cauſes omitted heere and referr'd to the inſtitution; which cauſes not being found in a particular and caſuall Matrimony, this ſenſitive and materious cauſe alone can no more hinder a divorce againſt thoſe higher and more human reaſons urging it, then it can alone without them to warrant a copulation, but leaves it arbitrary to thoſe who in their chance of marriage finde not why divorce is farbidd them, but why it is permitted them; and finde both here and in Geneſis, that the forbidding is not abſolute, but according to the reaſons there taught us, not here. And that our Saviour taught them no better, but uſes the moſt vulgar, moſt animal and corporal argument to convince them, is firſt to ſhew us, that as through their licentious divorces they made no more of mariage then as if to marry, were no more then to be male and female, ſo hee goes no higher in his confutation; deeming them unworthy to be talkt with in a higher ſtraine, but to bee ty'd in marriage by the meere material cauſe thereof, ſince their owne licence teſtify'd that nothing matrimonial was in their thought but to be male and female. Next it might be don to diſcover the brute ignorance of theſe carnall Doctors, who taking on them to diſpute of marriage and divorce, were put to ſilence with ſuch a ſlender oppoſition as this, and outed from their hold with ſcarce one quarter of an argument. That we may beleeve this, his entertainment of the young man ſoon after may perſwade us. Whom, though he came to preach eternall life by faith only, he diſmiſſes with a ſalvation taught him by workes only. On which place Paraeus notes. That this man was to be convinc'd by a falſe perſwaſion; and that Chriſt is wont otherwiſe to anſwer hypocrites, otherwiſe thoſe that are docible. Much rather then may we thinke that in handling theſe tempters, he forgot not ſo to frame his prudent ambiguities and concealements, as was to the troubling of thoſe peremtory diſputants moſt wholſome. When therefore we would know what right there may be, in ill accidents, to divorce, wee muſt repaire thither where God profeſſes to teach his ſervants by the prime inſtitution, and not where we ſee him intending to dazle ſophiſters: Wee muſt not reade hee made them Male and Female, & not underſtand he made them more intendedly a meet helpe to remove the evill of being alone. We muſt take both theſe together, and then we may inferre compleatly as from the whole cauſe why a man ſhall cleave to his wife, and they twaine ſhall be one fleſh: but if the full and cheife cauſe why we may not divorce, be wanting heer, this place may skirmiſh with the rabbies while it will, but to the true chriſtian it prohibits nothing beyond the full reaſon of it's own prohibiting, which is beſt knowne by the inſtitution.
Verſ. 6. [Wherefore they are no more twaine, but one fleſh.] This is true in the generall right of marriage, but not in the chance medley of every particular match. For if they who were once undoubtedly one fleſh, yet become twain by adultery, then ſure they who were never one fleſh rightly, never helps meete for each other according to the plain preſcript of God, may with leſſe adoe then a volume be concluded ſtill twaine. And ſo long as we account a Magiſtrate no Magiſtrate, if there be but a flaw in his election, why ſhould we not much rather count a Matrimony no Matrimony, if it cannot be in any reaſonable manner according to the words of Gods inſtitution.
[What therefore God hath joyned, let no man put aſunder.] But heare the chriſtian prudence lies to conſider what God hath joyn'd; ſhall wee ſay that God hath joyn'd error, fraud, unfitneſſe, wrath, contention, perpetuall lonelineſſe, perpetuall diſcord; what ever luſt, or wine, or witchery, threate, or inticement, avarice or ambition hath joyn'd together, faithfull with unfaithfull, chriſtian with antichriſtian, hate with hate, or hate with love, ſhall we ſay this is Gods joyning?
[Let not man put a ſunder.] That is to ſay, what God hath joyn'd; for if it be, as how oft we ſee it may be, not of Gods joyning, and his law tells us he joynes not unmachable things but hates to joyne them, as an abominable confuſion, then the divine law of Moſes puts them aſunder, his owne divine will in the inſtitution puts them aſunder, as oft as the reaſons be not extant, for which only God ordain'd their joyning. Man only puts aſunder when his inordinate deſires, his paſſion, his violence, his injury makes the breach: not when the utter want of that which lawfully was the end of his joyning, when wrongs and extremities, and unſupportable greevances compell him to disjoyne: when ſuch as Herod & the phariſes divorce beſide law, or againſt law, then only man ſeparates, and to ſuch only this prohibition belongs. In a word, if it be unlawful for man to put aſunder that which God hath joyn'd, let man take heede it be not deteſtable to joyne that by compulſion which God hath put aſſunder.