Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 4
V. 9. And I ſay unto you, who ſo ſhall put away his wife, except it be for Fornication, and ſhall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoſe marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery.
[And I ſay unto you] That this reſtrictive denouncement of Chriſt contradicts and refutes that permiſſive precept of Moſes, common expoſiters themſelves diſclaime: and that it does not traverſe from the cloſet of conſcience to the courts of civil or canon law, with any Chriſtian rightly commenc't requires not long evincing. If Chriſt then did not heer check permiſſive Moſes, nor did reduce matrimony to the beginning more then all other things, as the reaſon of mans condition could beare, we would know preciſely what it was which he did, and what the end was of his declaring thus auſterely againſt divorce. For this is a confesſt oracle in law, that he who lookes not at the intention of a precept, the more ſuperſtitions he is of the letter, the more he miſinterprets. Was it to ſhame Moſes? that had beene monſtrous: or all thoſe pureſt ages of Iſrael, to whom the permiſſion was granted? that were as incredible. Or was it that he who came to abrogate the burden of law, not the equity, ſhould put this yoke upon a blameleſſe perſon, to league himſelfe in chaines with a begirting miſcheif, not to ſeparat till death? hee who taught us that no man puts a peece of new cloth upon an old garment, nor new wine into old bottles, that he ſhould ſow this patch of ſtrictnes upon the old apparel of our frailty, to make a rent more incurable, when as in all other amendments his doctrine ſtill charges, that regard be had to the garment, and to the veſſel, what it can endure; this were an irregular and ſingle peece of rigor, not onelyonly ſounding diſproportion to the whole Goſpel, but outſtretching the moſt rigorous nervs of law and rigor it ſelfe. No other end therefore can bee left imaginable of this exceſſive reſtraint, but to bridle thoſe erroneous and licentious poſtillers the Phariſes; not by telling them what may bee done in neceſſity, but what cenſure they deſerve who divorce abuſively, which their Tetrarch had done. And as the offence was in one extreme, ſo the rebuke, to bring more efficaciouſly to a rectitude and mediocrity, ſtands not in the middle way of duty, but in the other extreme. Which art of powerfull reclaiming, wiſeſt men have alſo taught in their ethical precepts and gnomologies; reſembling it, as when wee bend a crooked wand the contrary way; not that it ſhould ſtand ſo bent, but that the overbending might reduce it to a ſtraitneſſe by its own reluctance. And as the Phyſician cures him who hath tak'n down poyſon, not by the middling temper of nouriſhment, but by the other extreme of antidote, ſo Chriſt adminiſters heer a ſharpe & corroſive ſentence againſt a foul and putrid licence; not to eate into the fleſh, but into the ſore. And knowing that our divines through all their comments make no ſcruple, where they pleaſe, to ſoften the high and vehem ent ſpeeches of our Saviour, which they call hyperbolics, why in this one text ſhould they be ſuch crabbed maſorites of the Letter, as not to mollifie a tranſcendence of literal rigidity, which they confeſſe to find often elſewhere in his manner of delivery, but muſt make their expoſition heer ſuch an obdurat Cyclops, to have but one eye for this text, and that onelyonly open to cruelty and enthralment, ſuch as no divine, or human law before ever heard of. No, let the foppiſh canouiſt with his fardel of matrimonial caſes goe and be vendible where men bee ſo unhappy as to cheap'n him; the words of Chriſt ſhall be aſſerted from ſuch elementall notaries, and reſolv'd by the now-only lawgiving mouth of charity; which may be done undoubtedly by underſtanding them as followes.
[Whoſoever ſhall put away his wife.] That is to ſay, ſhall ſo away as the propounders of this queſtion, the Phariſees were wont to doe and covertly defended Herod for ſo doing; whom to rebuke, our Saviour heer mainely intends, and not to determine all the caſes of divorce, as appeares by Saint Paul. Whoſoever ſhall put away, either violently without mutuall conſent for urgent reaſons, or conſpiringly by plot of luſt, or cunning malice, ſhall put away for any ſudden mood, or contingency of diſagreement, which is not daily practice, but may blow ſoone over, and be reconcil'd, except it bee fornication; whoſoever ſhall put away raſhly, as his choler prompts him, without due time of deliberating, and thinke his conſcience diſcharg'd only by the bill of divorce giv'n, and the outward law ſatisfi'd; whoſoever laſtly ſhall put away his wife, that is a wife indeede, & not in name only, ſuch a one who both can and is willing to bee a meet helpe toward the cheif ends of mariage both civil, and ſanctify'd, except fornication be the cauſe, that man, or that pair committ adulcery. Not he who puts away by mutuall conſent, with all the conſiderations and reſpects of humanity and gentleneſſe without malicious or luſtfull drift. Not he who after ſober and coole experience, and long debate within himſelf puts away whom though he cannot love or ſuffer as a wife, with that ſincere affection that marriage requires, yet loves at leſt with that civility and goodneſſe, as not to keepe her under a neglected and unwelcom reſidence, where nothing can be hearty, and not beeing, it muſt needs bee both unjoyous and injurious to any perceaving perſon ſo detain'd, and more injurious, then to be freely, and upon good termes diſmiſt. Nor doth hee put away adulterouſly who complaines of cauſes rooted in immutable nature, utter unfitneſſe, utter diſconformity, not concileable, becauſe not to be amended without a miracle. Nor hee who puts away an unquenſhable vexation from his boſom, and flies an evil then which a greater cannot befall human ſociety. Nor hee who puts away with the the full ſuffrage and applauſe of his conſcience, not relying on the writt'n bill of law, but claiming by faith and fulnes of perſwaſion the rights and promiſes of Gods inſtitution, of which hee finds himſelfe in a miſtak'n wedlock defrauded. Doubtleſſe this man hath baile anough to bee no adulterer giving divorc: for theſe cauſes.
[His Wife.] This word is not to be idle here, a meere word without a ſenſe, much leſſe a fallacious word ſignifying contrary to what it pretends; but faithfully ſignifies a wife, that is, a comfortable helpe and ſociety, as God inſtituted; does not ſignify deceitfully under this name, an intolerable adverſary, not a helpeleſſe, unaffectionate and ſullen maſſe whoſe very company repreſents the viſible and exacteſt figure of lonelines it ſelfe. Such an aſſociate he who puts away, divorces not a wife, but diſjoyns a nullity which God never joyn'd, if ſhe be neither willing, nor to her proper and requiſite duties ſufficient, as the words of God inſtitute her. And this alſo is Bucers explicat…on of this place.
[Except it bee for fornication, or ſaving for the cauſe of fornication, as Matt. 5th. This declares what kind of cauſes our Saviour meant; fornication being no natural and perpetual cauſe, but onelyonly accidental and temporary; therefore ſhewes that head of cauſes from whence it is excepted, to bee meant of the ſame ſort. For exceptions are not logically deduc't from a divers kind, as to ſay who ſo puts away for any naturall cauſe except fornication, the exception would want ſalt. And if they underſtand it, who ſo for any cauſe what ever, they caſt themſelves; granting divorce for frigidity a naturall cauſe of their own allowing, though not heer expreſt, and for deſertion without infidelity when as he who marries, as they allow him for a deſertion, deſerts as well as is deſerted, and finally puts away, for another cauſe beſides adultery. It will with all due reaſon therefore be thus better underſtood, who ſo puts away for any accidental and temporary cauſes, except one of them, which is fornication. Thus this exception finds out the cauſes from whence it is excepted, to be of the ſame kind, that is, caſuall, not continuall.
[Saving for the cauſe of fornication.] The New Teſtament, though it be ſaid originally writt in Greeke, yet hath nothing neer ſo many Atticiſms as Hebraiſms, & Syriaciſms which was the Majeſty of God, not filing the tongue of Scripture to a Gentiliſh Idiom, but in a princely manner offring to them as to Gentiles and Foreiners grace and mercy, though not in forein words, yet in a forein ſtile that might induce them to the fountaines; and though their calling were high and happy, yet ſtill to acknowledge Gods ancient people their betters, and that language the Metropolitan language. He therefore who thinks to Scholiaze upon the Goſpel, though Greek, according to his Greek Analogies, and hath not bin Auditor to the oriental dialects, ſhall want in the heat of his Analyſis no accomodation to ſtumble. In this place, as the 5th of Matth, reads it, Saving for the cauſe of fornication, the Greek, ſuch as it is, ſounds it, except for the word, report, ſpeech, or proportion of fornication. In which regard with other inducements, many ancient and learned writers have underſtood this exception as comprehending any fault equivalent and proportional to fornication But truth is, the Evangeliſt heer Hebraizes, taking word or ſpeech for cauſe or matter in the common eaſtern phraſe, meaning perhaps no more then if he had ſaid for fornication, as in this 19th chapter. And yet the word is found in the 5th of Exodus alſo fignifying Proportion; where the Iſraelites are commanded to doe their tasks, The matter of each day in his day. A task we know is a proportion of work not doing the ſame thing abſolutely every day, but ſo much. Whereby it may be doubtfull yet, whether heer be not excepted not only fornication it ſelf, but other cauſes equipollent, and proportional to fornication. Which very word alſo to underſtand rightly, wee muſt of neceſſity have recours again to the Ebrew. For in the Greek and Latin ſenſe by fornication is meant the common proſtitution of body for ſale. So that they who are ſo exact for the letter, ſhall be dealt with by the Lexicon, and the Etymologicon too if they pleaſe, and muſt be bound to forbidd divorce for adultery alſo, untill it come to open whoredom and trade, like that for which Claudius divorc't Meſſalina. Since therfore they take not heer the word fornication in the common ſignificance, for an open exerciſe in the ſtews, but grant divorce for one ſingle act of privateſt adultery, notwithſtanding that the word ſpeakes a public and notorious frequency of fact, not without price, we may reaſon with as good leav, and as little ſtraining to the text, that our Saviour on ſet purpoſe choſe this word Fornication, improperly appli'd to the lapſe of adultery, that we might not think our ſelvs bound from all divorce, except when that fault hath bin actually committed. For the language of Scripture ſignifies by fornication (and others beſide St. Auſtin ſo expounded it) not only the treſpas of body nor perhaps that between maried perſons, unleſſe in a degree or quality as ſhameles as the Bordello, but ſignifies alſo any notable diſobedience, or intractable cariage of the wife to the husband, as Judg. the 192. Whereof at large in the Doctrin of Divorce. l. 2. c. 18 Secondly ſignifies the apparent alienation of mind not to idolatry, (which may ſeeme to anſwer the act of adultery) but farre on this ſide, to any point of will worſhip, though to the true God; ſome times it notes the love of earthly things, or worldly pleaſures though in a right beleever, ſome times the leaſt ſuſpicion of unwitting idolatry. As Num. 15. 39. willſull diſobedience to any the leaſt of Gods commandements is call'd fornication. Pſal. 73. 26, 27. A diſtruſt only in God, and withdrawing from that neernes of zeal and confidence which ought to be, is call'd fornication. We may be ſure it could not import thus much leſs then Idolatry in the borrow'd metaphor between God and man, unleſs it ſignifi'd as much leſs then adultery in the ordinary acception between man and wife. Adde alſo that there was no need our Saviour ſhould grant divorce for adultery, it being death by law, and law then in force. Which was the cauſe why Joſeph ſought to put away his betrothed wife privately, leaſt he ſhould make her an example of capitall puniſhment, as lernedeſt expounders affirm, Herod being a great zelot of the Moſaic law, and the Phariſes great maiſters of the text, as the woman tak'n in adultery doubtleſs had cauſe to fear. Or if they can prove it was neglected, which they cannot doe, why did our Saviour ſhape his anſwer to the corruption of that age, and not rather tell them of their neglect? If they ſay he came not to meddle with their judicatures, much leſs then was it in his thought to make them new ones, or that divorce ſhould be judicially reſtrain'd in a ſtricter manner by theſe his words, more then adultery judicially acquitted by thoſe his words to the adultres. His ſentence doth no more by law forbidd divorce heer, then by law it doth abſolve adultery there. To them therefore, who have drawn this yoke upon Chriſtians from his words thus wreſted, nothing remaines but the guilt of a preſumption and perverſnes which will be hard for them to anſwer. Thus much that the word fornication is to be underſtood as the language of Chriſt underſtands it, for a conſtant alienation and diſaffection of mind, or for the continual practiſe of diſobedience and croſſnes from the duties of love and peace, that is in ſumm, when to be a tolerable wife is either naturally not in their power, or obſtinatly not in their will, and this opinion alſo is St. Auſtins, leaſt it ſhould hap to be ſuſpected of novelty. Yet grant the thing heer meant were only adultery, the reaſon of things will afford more to our aſſertion, then did the reaſon of words. For why is divorce unlawfull but only for adultery? becauſe, ſay they, that crime only breaks the matrimony. But this, I reply, the inſtitution itſelfe gainſaies: for that which is moſt contrary to the words and meaning of the inſtitution, that moſt breaks the matrimony; but a perpetuall unmeetnes and unwillingneſſe to all the duties of helpe, of love and tranquillity is moſt contrary to the words and meaning of the inſtitution; that therefore much more breaks matrimony then the act of adultery though repeated. For this, as it is not felt, nor troubles him who perceaves it not, ſo beeing perceav'd, may be ſoon repented, ſoon amended, ſoon, if it can be pardon'd, may be redeem'd wth the more ardent love and duty in her who hath the pardon. But this naturall unmeetnes both cannot be unknown long, and ever after cannot be amended, if it be natural, and will not, if it be farregon obſtinat. So that wanting ought in the inſtant to be as great a breach as adultery, it gains it in the perpetuity to be greater. Next adultery does not exclude her other fitnes, her other pleaſingnes; ſhe may be otherwiſe both loving and prevalent, as many adultreſſes be; but in this general unfitnes or alienation ſhe can be nothing to him that can pleaſe. In adultery nothing is given from the husband, which he miſſes, or enjoyes the leſs, as it may be ſuttly giv'n: but this unfitnes defrauds him of the whole contentment which is ſought in wedloc. And what benefit to him, though nothing be giv'n by the ſtealth of adultery to another, if that which there is to give, whether it be ſolace, or ſociety, be not ſuch as may juſtly content him? and ſo not only deprives him of what it ſhould give him, but gives him ſorrow and affliction, which it did not ow him. Beſides is adultery the greateſt breach of matrimony in reſpect of the offence to God, or of the injury to man? if in the former, then other ſins may offend God more, and ſooner cauſe him to diſunite his ſervant from being one fleſh with ſuch an offender. If in reſpect of the latter, other injuries are demonſtrated therein more heavy to mans nature then the iterated act of adultery. God therfore in his wiſedom would not ſo diſpoſe his remedies, as to provide them for the leſs injuries, and not allow them for the greater. Thus is won both from the word fornication, & the reaſon of adultery, that the exception of divorce is not limitted to that act, but enlarg'd to the cauſes above ſpecify'd.
[And who ſo marieth her which is put away doth committ adultery.
By this clauſe alone, if by nothing els, we may aſſure us, that Chriſt intended not to deliver heer the whole doctrin of divorce, but only to condemn abuſes. Otherwiſe to marry after deſertion, which the Apoſtle, and the reformed Churches at this day permitt, is heer forbid, as adultery. Be ſhe never ſo wrongfully deſerted, or put away, as the law then ſuffer'd, if thus forſak'n and expulſt, ſhe accept the refuge and protection of any honeſter man who would love her better, and give her ſelf in mariage to him, by what the letter guides us, it ſhall be preſent adultery to them both. This is either harſh and cruel, or all the Churches teaching as they doe the contrary, are loos and remiſs; beſides that the Apoſtle himſelfe ſtands deeply fin'd in a contradiction againſt our Saviour. What ſhall we make of this? what rather the common interpreter can make of it, for they be his own markets, let him now trie; let him trie which way he can wind in his Vertumnian diſtinctions and evaſions, if his canonical gabardine of text and letter do not now ſit too cloſe about him, and pinch his activity; which if I erre not, hath heer hamper'd it ſelfe in a ſpringe fitt for thoſe who put their confidence in Alphabets. Spanheim a writer of Evangelic doubts comes now and confeſſes that our Saviours words are to be limited beyond the limitation there expreſt and excepted beyond their own exception, as not ſpeaking of what happn'd rarely, but what moſt commonly. Is it ſo rare Spanheim, to be deſerted, or was it then ſo rare to put away injuriouſly, that a perſon ſo hatefully expell'd, ſhould to the heaping of more injury be turn'd like an infectious thing out of all maried fruition upon pain of adultery, as not conſiderable to the brevity of this halfe ſentence? Of what then ſpeakes our Saviour? of that colluſion, ſaith he, which was then moſt frequent among the Jews of changing wives and husbands, through inconſtancy and unchaſt deſires. Colluders your ſelves, as violent to this law of God by your unmercifull binding, as the Phariſes by their unbounded looſning! Have thouſands of Chriſtian ſouls periſht as to this life, and God knows what hath betided their conſciences, for want of this healing explanation, and is it now at laſt obſcurely drawn forth, only to cure a ſcratch, and leave the main wound ſpouting? Who ſo ever putteth away his wife except for fornication committeth adultery; That ſhall be ſpoke of all ages, and all men, though never ſo juſtly otherwiſe mov'd to divorce: in the very next breath, And who ſo marieth her which is put away committeth adultery, the men are new and miraculous, they tell you now you are to limit it to that age, when it was in faſhion to chop matrimonies; and muſt be meant of him who puts away with his wives conſent through the lightnes, and leudnes of them both. But what rule of Logic, or indeed of reaſon is our commiſſion to underſtand the Anteeedent one way and the Conſequent another; for in that habitude this whole vers may be fider'd: or at leaſt to take the parts of a copulat axiom, both abſolutely affirmative, and to ſay the firſt is abſolutely true, the other not, but muſt bee limited to a certain time and cuſtome; which is no leſſe then to ſay they are both falſe. For in this compound axiom, be the parts never ſo many, if one of them doe but falter, & be not equally abſolute and generall, the reſt are all fals. If therefore, that he who marries her which is put away committs adultery, be not generally true, neither is it generally true that he committs adultery who puts away for other cauſe then fornication. And if the marrying her which is put away muſt be underſtood limited, which they cannot but yeild it muſt, with the ſame limitation muſt be underſtood the putting away. Thus doth the common expoſition confound it ſelfe, and juſtify this which is heer brought; that our Saviour as well in the firſt part of this ſentence as in the ſecond, prohibited onelyonly ſuch divorſes as the Jewes then made through malice or through plotted licence, not thoſe which are for neceſſary and juſt cauſes; where charity and wiſedome disjoyns, that which not God, but Error and Diſaſtre joyn'd.
And there is yet to this our expoſition, a ſtronger ſiding freind, then any can be an adverſary, unleſſe Saint Paul be doubted, who repeating a command concerning divorce, 1 Cor. 7. which is agreed by writers to be the ſame with this of our Saviour, and appointing that the wife remaine unmaried, or be reconcil'd to her husband, leavs it infallible that our Saviour ſpake cheifly againſt putting away for caſual and choleric diſagreements, or any other cauſe which may with human patience and wiſedom be reconcil'd, not hereby meaning to hale and daſh together the irreconcilable averſations of nature, nor to tie up a faultleſſe perſon like a parricide, as it were into one ſack with an enemy, to be his cauſeleſſe tormenter and executioner the length of a long life. Laſtly, let this ſentence of Chriſt bee underſtood how it will, yet that it was never intended for a judicial law, to be inforc'd by the Magiſtrat, beſides that the office of our Saviour had no ſuch purpoſe in the Goſpel, this latter part of the ſentence may aſſure us, And who ſo marrieth her which is put away committs adultery. Shall the exception for adultery belong to this clauſe or not? if not, it would be ſtrange, that he who marries a woman really divorc't for adultery, as Chriſt permitted, ſhould become an adulter by marrying one who is now no other mans wife, himſelf being alſo free, who might by this meanes reclaim her from common whordome. And if the exception muſt belong hither, then it followes that he who marries an adultreſſe divorc'd, commits no adultry; which would ſoone diſcover to us what an abſurd and ſenſeles peece of injuſtice this would be, to make a civil ſtatute of, in penal courts: whereby the adultreſſe put away may marry another ſafely, and without a crime to him that marries her: but the innocent and wrongfully divorc'd ſhall not marry again without the guilt of adultery both to her ſelfe and to her ſecond husband. This ſaying of Chriſt therefore cannot be made a temporal law, were it but for this reaſon. Nor is it eaſie to ſay what coherence there is at all in it from the letter, to any perfet ſenſe not obnoxious to ſom abſurdity, and ſeems much leſſe agreeable to what ever els of the Goſpel is left us written; doubtles by our Saviour ſpok'n in that fiercenes and abſtruſe intricacy, firſt to amuſe his tempters, and admoniſh in general the abuſers of that Moſaic law; next to let Herod know a ſecond knower of his unlawfull act, though the Baptiſt were beheaded; laſt that his Diſciples and all good men might learne to expound him in this place, as in all other his precepts, not by the written letter, but by that unerring paraphraſe of Chriſtian love and Charity, which is the ſumme of all commands, and the perfection.