To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
MArk sets down the same story recorded by Mat∣thew, that not to be denyed. Yes, 'tis evidently to be deny∣ed, Matth. 19. 3. The Pha∣risees asked him about divorce, so Mark 10. 2. the Pharisees asked him about that matter; but read fur∣ther, verse the 10th; and in the house the Disciples asked again of the same mat∣ter, and he saith unto them, whosoever puts away his Wife, and marries ano∣ther, commits Adultery, Luk, 16. 1. The chapter begins
He saith unto his Disciples, not to the Pharisees; Then at the 19th. verse, whosoe∣ver puts away his Wife, and marries another, commits Adultery; To his Disci∣ples our Saviour spake in Gospel rules, repealing the license given to the Jews in their Law Judicial to marry again, if Divorced for Adul∣tery; I dissent from Cal∣vine, who will have the same carriage of the story to be in all the three Evange∣lists.
I humbly conceive that the two Evangelists relate the same story, both from the matter of it, and all the cir∣cumstances that attend it, 'tis said in the 19th. of Mat∣thew, in the beginning of the Chapter▪ our Saviour came into Judaea beyond Jordan, and in the beginning of Mark 10. 'tis said he came into the same place, and in both the Evangelists 'tis said the multitude came unto him, and the discourse related be∣tween him and the Pharisees appears evidently in both Evangelists to have been the
same, at the same time, and in the same place, and be∣fore the same company, on∣ly somewhat varied in the relation, which is usual; In the 10th. of Mark there is no mention made, that our Saviour gave to the Pha∣risees any allowance of Di∣vorce in any case, which is expressed in the 19th. of Matthew, and 'tis granted our Saviour admitted it to the Jews; what our Saviour saith about it in the 19th. of Matthew, was as much spoken to the Disciples, as what he sayes in the 10th. of Mark, as appears from hence, that the Disciples themselves make immedi∣ately
the answer; In the 19th. of Matthew, where our Saviour saith, Whoever puts away his wife, except for Fornication, &c. If the case be so, say the Disciples, taking it to themselves, 'tis good not to marry, looking upon it as a strict doctrine, even with that exception and such a one as the world had not been acquainted with, and which they thought un∣supportable. Calvin says, 'tis the same passage that is reported in Mark, only Mark reporteth 'twas spo∣ken in the House to the Disciples, and Matthew omit∣ting that circumstance sets down barely our Saviours
speech; Dr. Hammond agrees with Calvin in this mat∣ter, speaking of these places and about this very occa∣sion, sayes he, that these places, That in Matthew on the one side, and in the other two Evangelists, at least in St. Mark on the other side, are a report of the same pas∣sage of story, and of the same part of Christs speech, appealing from the Mosaical permission to the first insti∣tution of marriage, there is no ground of making any question, and therefore it fol∣lows that one must be in∣terpreted by the other, so thinks he. But suppose it were otherwise, when seve∣ral
of the Evangelists relate discourses of our Saviour about the same subject, by all judgement of reason those Evangelists that are more explicite and large must in∣terpret those that are more implicite and brief, and there is no fitness at all in it to interpret those that are most large, and say most upon a subject, by those that are more brief and say least of it.
But that which overrules me in this case is, that I find our Saviour no where Preaching one doctrine to the Jews and another to his Disciples, and that must be proved in this case, or else
the point of Divorce and remarriage is visibly esta∣blished in case of Fornica∣tion, if our Saviour gave that liberty only to the Jews, and made the excepti∣on singly for them, Then when he speaks generally to his Disciples, he must not only repeal the liberty Moses gave to the Jews, but the liberty which himself gave to the Jews, which is not fit to suppose; Nor indeed has our Saviour throughout the whole Gospel given any one new Law peculiar only to the Jews, which this about Divorce in case of Fornication only must needs be, if it be restrained to
Them, for they had no such Law before; Moses permis∣sion of Divorce, and this of our Saviour could not be the same, for our Saviour would never have condemn∣ed what Moses did, and im∣mediately have instituted the same thing himself: Nay, it must not only, if restrained to them, be a new Law to them, but a new Ju∣dicial Law, which were strange to suppose our Savi∣our should Then institute; for if we deny it to be Judicial, and acknowledge it to be (as indeed it is) a Law moral, sounded up∣on mans first Creation and the first institution of mar∣riage,
then it cannot be re∣strained to the Jews, but must needs by the nature of it belong to all.