Secondly, If the innocent party npon a divorce be not set at liberty, then, —
1. He is deprived of his right by the sin of another; which is against the law of nature; — and so every wicked woman hath it in her power to deprive her husband of his natural right.
2. The divorce in case of adultery, pointed by our Saviour to the innocent person to make use of, is, as all confess, for his liberty, ad- vantage, and relief. But on supposition that he may not marry, it would prove a snai'e and a yoke unto him ; for if hereon he hath not the gift of continency, he is exposed to sin and judgment.
Thirdly, Our blessed Saviour gives express direction in the case, Matt. xix. 9, " Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." Hence it is evident, and is the plain sense of the words, that he who putteth away his wife for fornication and marrieth another doth not commit adultery. Therefore the bond of marriage in that case is dissolved, and the person that put away his wife is at liberty to marry. While he denies putting away and marrying again for every cause, the ex- ception of fornication allows both putting away and marrying again in that case; for an exception always affirms the contrary unto what is denied in the rule whereunto it is an exception, or denies what is affirmed in it in the case comprised in the exception; for every exception is a particular proposition contradictory to the general rule, so that when the one is affirmative, the other is nega- tive, and on the contrary. The rule here in general is affirmative: He that putteth away his wife and marries another committeth adultery. The exception is negative: But he that putteth away his wife for fornication and marrieth another doth not commit adultery. Or they may be otherwise conceived, so that the general rule shall be negative, and the exception affirmative: It is not lawful to put away a wife and marry another; it is adultery. Then the exception is: It is lawful for a man to put away his wife for fornication, and marry another. And this is the nature of all such exceptions, as I could manifest in instances of all sorts.
It is to no purpose to except that the other evangelists (Mark x. 11,12, Luke xvi. 18) do not express the exception insisted on; for, —
1. It is twice used by Matthew, chap. v. 32, and chap. xix. 9, and therefore was assuredly used by our Saviour.
2. It is a rule owned by all, that where the same thing is reported by several evangelists, the briefer, short, more imperfect expressions, are to be measured and interpreted by the fuller and larger. And every general rule in any place is to be limited by an exception annexed unto it in any one place whatever; and there is scarce any general rule but admitteth of an exception.
OF MARRYING AFTER DIVORCE IN CASE OF ADULTERY. 257
It is more vain to answer that our Saviour speaketh with respect unto the Jews only, and what was or was not allowed among them ; for, —
1. In this answer he reduces things to the law of creation and their primitive institution. He declares what was the law of mar- riage and the nature of that relation antecedent to the law and institution of Moses ; and so, reducing things to the law of nature, gives a rule directive to all mankind in this matter.
2. The Pharisees inquired of our Saviour about such a divorce as was absolute, and gave liberty of marriage after it; for they never heard of any other. The pretended separation " a mensa et thoro " only was never heard of in the old testament. Now, if our Sav- iour doth not answer concerning the same divorce about which they inquired, but another which they knew nothing of, he doth not an- swer them, but delude them; — they ask after one thing, and he answers another in nothing to their purpose. But this is not to be admitted; it were blasphemy to imagine it. Wherefore, denying the causes of divorce which they allowed, and asserting fornication to be a just cause thereof, he allows, in that case, of that divorce which they inquired about, which was absolute and from the bond of marriage.
Again: the apostle Paul expressly sets the party at liberty to marry who is maliciously and obstinately deserted, affirming that the Christian religion doth not prejudice the natural right and pri- vilege of men in such cases: 1 Cor. vii. 15, " If the unbelieving de- part, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." If a person obstinately depart, on pretence of religion or otherwise, and will no more cohabit with a husband or wife, it is known that, by the law of nature and the usage of all nations, the deserted party, because, without his or her default, all the ends of marriage are fiaistrated, is at liberty to marry. But it may be it is not so among Christians. What shall a brother or a sister that is a Christian do in this case, who is so departed from? Saith the apostle, "They are not in bondage, they are free, — at liberty to marry again. "