The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce/Bk2 Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII.
HAving thus unfolded those ambiguous reasons, wherewith Christ, as his wont was, gave to the Pharises that came to sound him, such an answer as they deserv'd, it will not be uneasie to explain the sentence it selfe that now follows; Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. First therfore I will set down what is observ'd by Grotius upon this point, a man of generall learning. Next I produce what mine own thoughts gave me, before I had seen his annotations. Origen, saith he, notes that Christ nam'd adultery rather as one example of other like cases, then as one only exception. And that is frequent, not only in human but in divine Laws, to expresse one kind of fact, wherby other causes of like nature may have the like plea: as Exod. 21.18, 19, 20, 26. Deut. 19. 5. And from the maxims of civil Law he shews that ev'n in sharpest penal laws, the same reason hath the same right: and in gentler Lawes, that from like causes to like the Law interprets rightly. But it may be objected, saith hee, that nothing destroyes the end of wedlock so much as adultery. To which he answers, that mariage was not ordaind only for copulation, but for mutuall help and comfort of life; and if we mark diligently the nature of our Saviours commands, wee shall finde that both their beginning and their end consists in charity; whose will is that wee should so be good to others, as that wee bee not cruell to our selves. And hence it appeares why Marke, and Luke, and S. Paul to the Cor. mentioning this precept of Christ, adde no exception: because exceptions that arise from naturall equity, are included silently under generall terms: it would bee consider'd therfore whether the same equity may not have place in other cases lesse frequent. Thus farre he. From hence, is what I adde: first, that this saying of Christ, as it is usually expounded, can be no law at all, that a man for no cause should separate but for adultery, except it bee a supernaturall law, not binding us as we now are had it bin the law of nature, either the Jews, or some other wise and civill nation would have pres't it: or let it be so; yet that law, Deut. 24.1. wherby a man hath leave to part, when as for just and naturall cause discover'd he cannot love, is a law ancienter and deeper ingrav'n in blameles nature then the other: therfore the inspired Law-giver Moses took care that this should be specify'd and allow'd: the other he let vanish in silence, not once repeated in the volume of his law, ev'n as the reason of it vanisht with Paradise. Secondly, this can be no new command, for the Gospel enjoyns no new morality, save only the infinit enlargement of charity, which in this respect is call'd the new commandement by S. John; as being the accomplishment of every command. Thirdly, It is no command of perfection further then it partakes of charity, which is the bond of perfection. Those commands therfore which compell us to self cruelty above our strength, so hardly will help forward to perfection, that they hinder and set backward in all the common rudiments of Christianity, as was prov'd. It being thus clear, that the words of Christ can be no kind of command, as they are vulgarly tak'n, we shall now see in what sence they may be a command, and that an excellent one, the same with that of Moses, and no other. Moses had granted that only for a natural annoyance, defect, or dislike, whether in body or mind (for so the Hebrew words plainly note) which a man could not force himselfe to live with, he might give a bill of divorce, therby forbidding any other cause wherin amendment or reconciliation might have place. This Law the Pharises depraving, extended to any slight contentious cause whatsoever. Christ therfore seeing where they halted, urges the negative part of that law, which is necessarily understood (for the determinate permission of Moses binds them from further licence) and checking their supercilious drift, declares that no accidental, temporary, or reconcileable offence, except fornication, can justify a divorce: he touches not here those natural and perpetual hindrances of society, whether in body or mind, which are not to be remov'd: for such, as they are aptest to cause an unchangeable offence, so are they not capable of reconcilement because not of amendment; they do not break indeed, but they annihilate the bands of mariage more then adultery. For that fault committed argues not alwaies a hatred either natural or incidental against whom it is committed; neither does it inferre a disability of all future helpfulnes, or loyalty, or loving agreement, being once past, and pardon'd, where it can be pardon'd: but that which naturally distasts, and findes no favour in the eyes of matrimony, can never be conceal'd, never appeas'd, never intermitted, but proves a perpetuall nullity of love and contentment, a solitude, and dead vacation of all acceptable conversing. Moses therfore permits divorce, but in cases only that have no hands to joyn, and more need separating then adultery. Christ forbids it, but in matters only that may accord, and those lesse then fornication. Thus is Moses Law here plainly confirm'd, and those causes which he permitted, not a jot gainsaid. And that this is the true meaning of this place, I prove by no lesse an Author then S. Paul himself, 1 Cor. 7.10, 11. upon which text Interpreters agree that the Apostle only repeats the precept of Christ: where while he speaks of the wives reconcilement to her husband, he puts it out of controversie, that our Saviour meant chiefly matters of strife and reconcilement: of which sort he would not that any difference should be the occasion of divorce, except fornication. And that we may learn better how to value a grave and prudent law of Moses, and how unadvisedly we smatter with our lips, when we talk of Christs abolishing any Judiciall law of his great Father, except in some circumstances which are Judaicall rather then Judicial, and need no abolishing, but cease of themselvs, I say again, that this recited law of Moses contains a cause of divorce greater beyond compare then that for adultery; and whoso cannot so conceive it, errs and wrongs exceedingly a law of deep wisdom for want of well fadoming. For let him mark, no man urges the just divorcing of adultery, as it is a sin, but as it is an injury to mariage; and though it be but once committed, and that without malice, whether through importunity or opportunity, the Gospel does not therfore disswade him who would therfore divorce; but that natural hatred whenever it arises, is a greater evil in mariage, then the accident of adultery, a greater defrauding, a greater injustice, and yet not blameable, he who understands not after all this representing, I doubt his will like a hard spleen draws faster then his understanding can well sanguifie. Nor did that man ever know or feel what it is to love truly, nor ever yet comprehend in his thoughts what the true intent of mariage is. And this also will be somwhat above his reach, but yet no lesse a truth for lack of his perspective, that as no man apprehends what vice is, so well as he who is truly vertuous, no man knows hel like him who converses most in heav'n, so there is none that can estimate the evil and the affliction of a naturall hatred in matrimony, unlesse he have a soul gentle anough and spacious anough to contemplate what is true love.
And the reason why men so disesteem this wise judging Law of God, and count hate, or the not finding of favour, as it is there term'd, a humorous, a dishonest, and slight cause of divorce, is because themselves apprehend so little of what true concord means: for if they did they would be juster in their ballancing between natural hatred and casuall adultery; this being but a transient injury, and soon amended, I mean as to the party against whom the trespasse is: but the other being an unspeakable and unremitting sorrow and offence, wherof no amends can be made, no cure, no ceasing but by divorce, which like a divine touch in one moment heals all; and like the word of a God, in one instant hushes outrageous tempests into a sudden stilnesse and peacefull calm. Yet all this so great a good of Gods own enlarging to us, is by the hard rains of them that sit us, wholly diverted and imbezzl'd from us. Maligners of mankind! But who hath taught ye to mangle thus, and make more gashes in the miseries of a blamelesse creature, with the leaden daggers of your literall decrees, to whose ease you cannot adde the tithe of one small atome, but by letting alone your unhelpfull Surgery. As for such as think wandring concupiscence to bee here newly and more precisely forbidd'n, then it was before, if the Apostle can convince them; we know that we are to know lust by the law, and not by any new discovery of the Gospel. The Law of Moses knew what it permitted, and the Gospel knew what it forbid, hee that under a peevish conceit of debarring concupiscence, shall goe about to make a novice of Moses, (not to say a worse thing for reverence sake) and such a one of God himselfe, as is a horror to think, to bind our Saviour in the default of a down-right promise breaking, and to bind the disunions of complaining nature in chains together, and curb them with a canon bit, tis he that commits all the whordom and adultery, which himselfe adjudges, besides the former guilt so manifold that lies upon him. And if none of these considerations with all their wait and gravity, can avail to the dispossessing him of his pretious literalism, let some one or other entreat him but to read on in the same 19. of Math. till he come to that place that sayes, Some make themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom of heavns sake. And if then he please to make use of Origens knife, he may doe well to be his own carver.