Thesis XX

In order that we may prepare the way for the interpretation of the doctrine handed down by Christ in the Gospels, after setting forth the statement of certain varieties of readings, we first establish that in the words of Christ in Matthew V, 32 and XIX, and in the parallels of Mark and Luke, there is contained not a counsel, but a law to have perpetual force, the old covenant having been abrogated; consequently that Christ in these places acted not as interpreter of the Mosaic law, but as legislator of the new covenant. We establish secondly that it is not rightly demanded that the interpretation of the testimonies of Mark and Luke concerning this matter be required according to the norm of the words of Matthew, on the ground that the more obscure are to be explained by the clearer, the fewer by the more numerous.

I. It is known that Theologians, not only Catholics but Protestants also, have labored very much in this century, both generally in the exegesis of the words of Christ according to Matthew V, 31, 32; XIX, 3 seq.; Mark X, 2-16; and Luke XVI, 18, and specifically in composing the disagreement which seemed to them to exist either between the twofold testimony of Matthew or between Matthew himself and the other Evangelists. A sufficiently accurate description of all these can be seen in Augustine de Roskovany in the work de Matrimonio in Ecclesia catholica, year 1837, to which other things also can be added. It is not our part to recite all those interpretations of different men; for it is enough to have account of those which are of some importance and furnish an occasion for explaining the text of the Gospel. This we shall accomplish both in this and in the following thesis; but just as in the following one we shall touch the immediate interpretation of the text, so in this Thesis we shall weigh certain opinions devised for preparing the way for that immediate interpretation.

II. Therefore in the first place there occurs the critical question concerning the reading. And indeed in Matt. V, 31, 32 no variety of readings occurs which is of any moment. Certain Codices indeed omit (from the uncials or more ancient codices, one) the last words: and he who marries one dismissed commits adultery; but these are certainly confirmed more than sufficiently by the testimony of very many codices and Fathers.

As regards the other place, Matt. XIX, 3-9, Leonard Hug, certainly a learned critic, in the work de Coniugii christiani vinculo indissolubili, Commentatio exegetica, 1810, proposed the hypothesis that at first in this place of Matthew those exceptive words except on account of fornication did not exist; and therefore that the sentence of Matthew was altogether equal to that of Mark and Luke. The reason for doubting whether some interpolation occurred is that the reading is varied. For excellent codices, among which are א. C., and almost all the Constantinopolitan codices, read μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ; a few add εἰ, that is, εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ. Clement of Alexandria indeed either read or supplied, for the sake of explanation, πλὴν εἰ μ. ἐ. π.. But other most ancient codices, the Vatican, the Cantabrigian, and other Greek codices, and the Egyptian and Latin versions before Jerome, read παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. Hence a suspicion arises whether this is some addition. Namely, previously no exception occurred there; but afterwards, a collation having been made with the words of c. V, where that exception π. λ. π. certainly exists, with all codices agreeing, since some reader judged that the place c. XIX should be declared by the words of c. V, he first placed those exceptive words in the margin, and afterwards they crept into the text. The author himself does not make much of this hypothesis, and deservedly. For first one may ask why, if the matter stood thus, the same exception was not placed in the words of Mark and Luke. Indeed in this way perhaps the diversity of readings could be explained, why some texts have μ. ἐ. π., others, as in c. V, π. λ. π., inasmuch namely as these last words were first written in the margin at c. XIX by way of elucidation, but afterwards, as clearer, were substituted for the others in the text. But since in all codices the exception exists, expressed in this way or that, and only in Matthew, not according to Mark and Luke, that hypothesis cannot render an account of this fact. On the contrary, from the fact that all codices exhibit the exception, it must be held critically that the exception was written by Matthew himself.

III. The distinguished Vincenzi, in the Appendix of Volume V of the notable Work de Scriptis Origenis, Nysseni, etc., first contends that the exceptive words in c. XIX are to be read with the Vatican codex and the Itala as π. λ. π., except for the cause of fornication, as in c. V; then he contends that the words and shall marry another were absent from the autograph of Matthew, but that they afterwards were introduced into the text of Matthew, these words which at first occurred only according to Mark and Luke, from which, however, the exceptive words are absent. Therefore this Writer judges that once there was a reading of chapter XIX equal to the reading of chapter V, but that afterwards those words and shall marry another were inserted into the words of Christ according to Matthew, not indeed deliberately and from zeal for interpolating the text, but both on account of other causes and on account of the collation of the four Gospels into one, or the Μονοτέσσαρον, which Ammonius of Alexandria had already carried out. For from this it happened that thereafter the things which belonged to one Evangelist were attributed to another. Jerome complains of this in an epistle to Damasus, saying: "Indeed a great error has grown up here in our codices, while, because another Evangelist said more in the same matter, they thought something less in another and added it; or while another expressed the same sense otherwise, he who had first read one of the four judged that the others also should be corrected according to his example. Hence it happened that among us all things are mixed, and in Mark many things of Luke and Matthew, again in Matthew many things of John and Mark, and in the others things which are proper to the rest, are found." Vincenzi contends that the matter stood thus as regards our text, and that the fault persevered in it, first indeed from the difficulty by which the interpretation of the words of Christ is pressed, with that clause and shall marry another retained and at the same time the exception retained; then especially from the testimony of the Ancient Fathers, inasmuch as they sufficiently teach us that they by no means read that clause according to Matthew, and indeed from the authority of a most ancient codex. Certainly, that we may begin from this, the most ancient Vatican codex (middle of the fourth century) in reality lacks this clause at Matt. XIX, 9, and reads as in c. V, 32. Then Tertullian read thus in the ancient Itala Vulgate, who in lib. IV adv. Marcionem, c. 34, weighing the response of Christ to the Pharisees, the preceding words having been reported, recites the words which follow thus: he who shall dismiss his wife except for the cause of adultery, makes her commit adultery. Indeed in the same place he recites the words of Christ with the aforesaid clause: he who shall dismiss his wife and marry another commits adultery; but the omission of the exception, except for the cause of fornication, shows that he is citing the words of Luke. In the same way Origen, on Matthew, Tom. XIV, n. 24, expounding c. XIX, recites the words of Christ: everyone who shall dismiss his wife except for the cause of fornication makes her commit adultery. Cyril of Alexandria, on 1 Cor. c. 7, in Mai, Bib. nov. PP., Tom. III, reports in no other way the words of Christ spoken to the Pharisees.

But not only by the long use of centuries is the reading of this clause of Matt. XIX, and shall marry another, frequent in the Church; it also seems that it was in the old Itala and in the primitive Greek text. For Jerome, the corrector of the old Vulgate according to the fidelity of the Greek codices, shows this, since he retained that reading. Augustine also, who so frequently weighs this sentence of Christ and experiences the difficulty, likewise reads thus. Ancient codices in general, both Greek and Latin, prefer the same reading; the ancient Syriac version also has it, and c. א., equal to the Vatican. Nor is the force of this consensus sufficiently diminished by the authority of those Fathers who, citing the words from c. XIX, reported them in exactly the same way as they are in c. V; for either there was a lapse of memory, not so difficult, or they used some less accurate codex. Nor does the Vatican codex help very much, since so many others are opposed to it. Moreover, since the reading lacking this comma, and shall marry another, cannot be proved as the more probable, an interpreter acts imprudently in a matter of such great moment, and one also disputed with heretics, by preferring the easier reading.

IV. If you ask which of the two exceptive formulas in c. XIX is to be preferred, critics seem to judge that the reading μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ is more certain there. The uncial codices א C. INZ and thirteen others have it, as also 150 minuscules, the Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, and our Vulgate. Moreover I think this question matters little; for finally the sense is the same. For τὸ μὴ among classical Writers occurs in place of τοῦ εἰ μὴ, and because the particle ἐπὶ with the dative also has the force of on account of or because of, hence the whole phrase is rightly rendered unless on account of fornication, which finally is just the same as except for the cause of fornication; unless you wish the meaning of the word λόγου to be different, concerning which question, however, something must be said in the following Thesis.

V. In order that some might defend the sentence which concedes repudiation of a wife from some cause to Christians also, they have not feared to affirm that in the words of Christ a law is not contained. For they say that the words of c. V, 31-32, just as several others contained in that sermon, show the norm of a certain perfection, which is not in precept but permitted to the judgment of the faithful; but the words of c. XIX, as being directed to the Pharisees, indeed exhibit an interpretation of the Mosaic law and show its imperfection; and insofar as He amends it to the norm of the primitive institution, He recalls all causes of dismissal to one, and this for the Jews, to whom He was responding.

It must be established beforehand, what otherwise ought to be known to all, that the doctrine of morals handed down by Christ, by which He Himself affirms that those who act otherwise sin, has the force of a true divine law; for by the very fact that God says some action is sin, He Himself forbids the same under threat of penalty. Besides, it must be held that the law which Christ, by teaching in this mortal life, enacted, from that part by which it abrogated the Mosaic institution, Christ Himself wished to have force when His Church began to exist and the right of the old economy began to cease. Finally it must be noted that the moral precepts which Christ handed down, even if He was addressing Jews alone, did not pertain only to Jews living under the law of Moses; otherwise, since He Himself was sent to the sheep of Israel alone, what would the remaining precepts be for Christians?

These things being posited, it is easily plain that the words of Christ according to Matthew V, 31-32, and XIX, 3 seq., truly contain a law. For not only does He assume the person of a legislator, saying: But I say to you, But I say to you; but He affirms that he sins who acts otherwise, or affirms that he commits adultery who dismisses a wife and who marries one dismissed; but adultery is sin. But because according to the old law it was not true that he commits adultery who marries one dismissed, it is plain that here Christ speaks not according to the norm of the old law, nor has before His eyes only certain customs of the Jews, but sanctions a new law. Then, instituting an opposition between what He Himself says and what Moses had permitted, and at the same time affirming that he commits adultery who acts otherwise than He Himself says, He pronounces the abrogation of the Mosaic permission. But this abrogation could be made only by the authority of a legislator; for it was a permission contained in the law, which law Moses had enacted in the name of God. But how it could happen that Christ, abrogating the disposition of the Mosaic law, acts only as interpreter of the same and wishes to teach only those who live according to the law of Moses, it is not permitted to divine. Moreover Christ, thereafter instructing the disciples separately (Matt. XIX, 10 seq.), does not propose a new or broader doctrine, but inculcates the doctrine already handed down, namely that which the disciples had understood from the prior words of Christ (cf. Mark X, 10 and the following Thesis, n. XI). But instructing the disciples He surely proposes doctrine for His Church. Therefore by this whole disputation Christ wished to establish a law for His Church. This is the certain sentence of the Church, which in words of Christ of this sort understood a law obliging Christians, as is clear from the tradition represented in the preceding Thesis.

VI. Let us now hear those who, wishing to reconcile Matthew with Mark and Luke, affirm that the exception expressed by Matthew is to be understood in the words of Mark and Luke, so that thus it is established that all the Evangelists concede repudiation of a wife in the case of fornication. But why must that exception be supplied in Mark and Luke? Because, namely, the more obscure are to be explained by the clearer, and the fewer by the more numerous; but more words, or more numerous sentences, and those clearer, are in Matthew than in the others. This question is in itself theological; for it seeks the true sense of the word of God. But now we do not wish to use for its solution theological principles taken from the certain doctrine of Faith, but only critical or hermeneutical principles which the adversaries use, lest we seem to assume for ourselves what is now in question. Therefore we concede the prior principle: that the more obscure are to be explained by the clearer; but we deny that the text of Matthew is clearer than Mark and Luke; indeed we affirm that these are clearer. Wherefore, with the same principle assumed, we infer the altogether contrary conclusion. For if one text creates a difficulty for the interpreter, the other none, the former certainly is less clear. But the words of Mark and Luke occasion no difficulty for the interpreter; this difficulty, however, then arises when the words of Matthew are read, for the breadth of that exception and how it coheres with the primitive institution to which Christ appeals is not immediately clear, whereas the words of Mark and Luke cohere with it most fittingly.

As regards the other principle, that the fewer are to be explained by the more numerous, or that the shorter text is to be explained by the longer, we deny that this is a suitable principle of right interpretation. For what if the shorter text says more and is clearer? But this happens in this matter which we have before our hands. For, as we have already admonished, the texts of Mark and Luke are clearer, and the same texts in reality say more, or seem to say more, since they affirm that every man dismissing his wife commits adultery if he receives another; but whether Matthew says this of all is doubted. Wherefore Augustine, comparing these texts together (de Adulter. coniug., L. I, c. 11), says that one reading Matthew must be left in doubt, not indeed concerning what he says, but concerning what he does not say; and as to this the other Evangelists must be consulted.