apostle witneffeth, 1 Cor. vii, 15, that in marriage 'God hath called us to peace.' And doubtlefs in what refpect he hath called us to marriage, in that alfo he hath joined us. The reft, whom either disproportion or deadness of fpirit, or fomething diftafteful and averfe in the immutable bent of nature renders conjugal, errour may have joined, but God never joined against the meaning of his own ordinance. And if he joined them not, then is there no power above their own confent to hinder them from unjoining, when they cannot reap the fobereft ends of being together in any tolerable fort. Neither can it be faid properly that such twain were ever divorced, but only parted from each other, as two perfons unconjunctive are unmarriable together. But if, whom God hath made a fit help, frowardness or private injuries hath made unfit, that being the fecret of marriage, God can better judge than man, neither is man indeed fit or able to decide this matter: however it be, undoubtedly a peaceful divorce is a lefs evil, and lefs in fcandal than hateful, hard-hearted, and deftructive continuance of marriage in the judgment of Mofes and of Chrift, that juftifies him in choofing the lefs evil; which if it were an honeft and civil prudence in the law, what is there in the gospel forbidding fuch a kind of legal wisdom, though we should admit the common expofitors? CHAP. XVII. The fentence of Christ concerning divorce how to be expounded. What Grotius hath obferved. Other Additions. HAVING thus unfolded thofe ambiguous reafons, wherewith Chrift (as his wont was) gave to the Pharifees that came to found him, fuch an anfwer as they deferved, it will not be uneafy to explain the fentence itself that now follows; Whofoever fhall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultey.' Firft therefore I will fet down what is obferved by Grotius upon this point, a man of general learning. Next, I produce what mine own thoughts gave me before I had feen his annotations. Origen, faith he, notes that Christ named adultery rather as one example of other like cases, than as one only exception; and that is frequent not only in human but in divine laws, to exprefs one kind of fact, whereby other caufes of like nature may have the like plea, as Exod. xxi, 18, 19, 20, 26; Deut. xix, 5. And from the maxims of civil law he fhews, that even in sharpest penal laws the fame reafon hath the fame right; and in gentler laws, that from like causes to like the law interprets rightly. But it may be objected, faith he, that nothing destroys the end of wedlock fo much as adultery. To which he anfwers, that marriage was not ordained only for copulation, but for mutual help and comfort of life: and if we mark diligently the nature of our Saviour's com mands, we fhall find that both their beginning and their end confifts in charity; whofe will is, that we should fo be good to others, as that we be not cruel to ourselves: and hence it appears why Mark and Luke, and St. Paul to the Corinthians, mentioning this precept of Chrift, add no exception, because exceptions that arife from natural equity are included filently under general terms: it would be confidered therefore, whether the fame equity may not have place in other cafes lefs frequent. Thus far he. From hence is what I add: First, that this faying of Christ, as it is ufually expounded, can be no law at all, that a man for no cause should separate but for adultery, except it be a fupernatural law, not binding us as we now are; had it been the law of nature, either the Jews, or fome other wife and civil nation would have preffed it: or let it be fo, yet that law, Deut. xxiv, 1, whereby a man hath leave to part, whenas for just and natural caufe discovered he cannot love, is a law ancienter and deeper engraven in blameless nature than the other: therefore the infpired lawgiver Mofes took care, that this should be specified and allowed; the other he let vanish in filence, not once repeated in the volume of his law, even as the reafon of it vanished with Paradife. Secondly, this can be no new command, for the gospel enjoins no new morality, fave only the infinite enlargement of charity, which in this refpect is called the new commandment by St. St. John, as being the accomplishment of every command. Thirdly, it is no command of perfection further than it partakes of charity, which is, the bond of perfection.' Thofe commands therefore, which compel us to felf-cruelty above our strength, fo hardly will help forward to perfection, that they hinder and fet backward in all the common rudiments of chriftianity, as was proved. It being thus clear, that the words of Chrift can be no kind of command as they are vulgarly taken, we fhall now fee in what fenfe they may be a command, and that an excellent one, the fame with that of Mofes, and no other. Mofes had granted, that only for a natural annoyance, defect, or diflike, whether in body or mind, (for fo the Hebrew word plainly notes) which a man could not force himfelf to live with, he might give a bill of divorce, thereby forbidding any other caufe, wherein amendment or reconciliation might have place. This law the Pharifees depraving extended to any flight contentious cause whatsoever. Chrift therefore feeing where they halted, urges the negative part of the law, which is neceffarily understood (for the determinate permiffion of Mofes binds them from further licence) and checking their fupercilious drift, declares that no accidental, temporary, or reconcilable offence (except fornication) can juftify a divorce. He touches not here those natural and perpetual hinderances of fociety, whether in body or mind, which are not to be removed; for fuch as they are apteft to cause an unchangeable offence, fo are they not capable of reconcilement, because not of amendment: they do not break indeed, but they annihilate the bands of marriage more than adultery. For that fault committed argues not always a hatred either natural or incidental against whom it is committed; neither does it infer a difability of all future helpfulness, or loyalty, or loving agreement, being once paft and pardoned, where it can be pardoned: but that which naturally diftaftes, and finds no favour in the eyes' of matrimony, can never be concealed, never appeased, never intermitted, but proves a perpetual nullity of love and contentment, a folitude and dead vacation of all acceptable converfing. Mofes therefore permits divorce, but in cafes only that that have no hands to join, and more need feparating than adultery. Chrift forbids it, but in matters only that may accord, and thofe lefs than fornication. Thus is Mofes' law here plainly confirmed, and those causes which he permitted not a jot gainfaid. And that this is the true meaning of this place, I prove by no lefs an author than St. Paul himself, 1 Cor. vii, 10, 11; upon which text interpreters agree, that the apostle only repeats the precept of Chrift: where while he speaks of the wife's reconcilement to her hufband,' he puts it out of controverfy, that our Saviour meant chiefly matters of ftrife and reconcilement; of which fort he would not that any difference fhould be the occafion of divorce, except fornication. And that we may learn better how to value a grave and prudent law of Mofes, and how unadvisedly we fmatter with our lips, when we talk of Christ's abolishing any judicial law of his great father, except in fome circumftances which are judaical rather than judicial, and need no abolishing, but cease of themselves; I fay again, that this recited law of Mofes contains a caufe of divorce greater beyond compare than that for adultery: and whofo cannot fo conceive it, errs and wrongs exceedingly a law of deep wifdom for want of well fathoming. For let him mark, no man urges the just divorcing of adultery as it is a fin, but as it is an injury to marriage; and though it be but once committed, and that without malice, whether through importunity or opportunity, the gofpel does not therefore diffuade him who would therefore divorce; but that natural hatred whenever it arifes, is a greater evil in marriage than the accident of adultery, a greater defrauding, a greater injuftice, and yet not blamable, he who understands not after all this representing, I doubt his will like a hard fpleen draws fafter than his understanding can well fanguify: 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 marriage is. And this alfo will be fomewhat above his reach, but yet no less a truth for lack of his perfpective, that as no man apprehends what vice is fo well as he who is truly virtuous, no man knows Hell like him who converfes most in Heaven; Heaven; fo there is none that can eftimate the evil and the affliction of a natural hatred in matrimony, unless he have a foul gentle enough and fpacious enough to contemplate what is true love. And the reason why men fo difefteem this wife-judging law of God, and count hate, or the not finding of favour,' as it is there termed, a humorous, a dishonest, and flight caufe of divorce, is because themfelves apprehend fo little of what true concord means: for if they did, they would be juster in their balancing between natural hatred and cafual adultery; this being but a tranfient injury, and foon amended, I mean as to the party against whom the trefpafs is: but that other being an unfpeakable and unremitting forrow and offence, whereof no amends can be made, no cure, no ceafing but by divorce, which like a divine touch in one moment heals all, and (like the word of God) in one inftant hufhes outrageous tempefts into a fudden ftillness and peaceful calm. Yet all this fo great a good of God's own enlarging to us is, by the hard reins of them that fit us, wholly diverted and embezzled from us. Maligners of mankind! But who hath taught you to mangle thus, and make more gashes in the miseries of a blameless creature, with the leaden daggers of your literal decrees, to whofe ease you cannot add the tithe of one fmall atom, but by letting alone your unhelpful furgery. As for fuch as think wandering concupifcence to be here newly and more precifely forbidden than it was before; if the apoftle can convince them, we know that we are to know luft by the law,' and not by any new discovery of the gofpel. The law of Mofes knew what it permitted, and the gospel knew what it forbid; he that under a peevish conceit of debarring concupifcence, fhall go about to make a novice of Mofes, (not to fay a worfe thing, for reverence fake) and fuch a one of God himself, as is a horrour to think, to bind our Saviour in the default of a downright promife-breaking; and to bind the difunions of complaining nature in chains together, and curb them with a canon bit; it is he that commits all the whoredom and adultery which himfelf adjudges, befides the former guilt fo manifold that lies upon him. And if none of thefe confiderations, |