The Remains of John Corbet, Text 1
MATRIMONIAL PƲRITY.
§ 1. MArriage is the Bond of an individual Conjunction between Man and Woman, inſtituted of God to an individual Converſation or Courſe of Life. This Bond cannot be diſſolved by man, becauſe it is not man but God that makes it, tho the Married parties voluntarily enter into it, and publick Officers inſtrumentally authorize their Act according to Gods Law. Hence it is ſaid, Whom God hath joyned, let no man put aſunder. But this Rule puts no bar to Gods right of diſſolving this Bond by an Act of his Law upon cauſes therein declared.
§ 1. By the Church of Rome, Matrimony is held a Sacrament upon this ground, That God hath conſecrated it to be a Symbol of the indiſſoluble Conjunction of Chriſt with the Church, and of Grace to be conferred upon thoſe that enter into it. Indeed it is uſed in Scripture as a ſimilitude to expreſs or illuſtrate the Myſtical Union betwixt Chriſt and his Church: But every ſimilitude uſed in Scripture to expreſs a holy Myſtery (as that of the Vine and Branches, to expreſs the Union between Chriſt and the faithful), doth not thereby become a conſecrated Symbol thereof, with a promiſe of Grace annexed to it, as ſo conſecrated. Nevertheleſs, tho Matrimony be not an inſtituted Symbol of Divine Grace, yet Grace ſuitable to this ſtate of Life is promiſed to the faithful; and this ſtate (as all other things) is ſanctified by the word of God and prayer, unto thoſe holy ends which God hath deſigned in it.
§ 3. The Cauſes for which Matrimony was ordained, are excellently ſet by the Church of England in theſe words. Firſt, It was ordained for the Procreation of Children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praiſe of his holy Name. Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy againſt ſin, and to avoid Fornication, that ſuch as have not the gift of continency might Marry and keep themſelves undefiled Members of Chriſts Body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual Society, help and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in proſperity and adverſity.
It belongs to the ſubſtance of Matrimony, that the Man and the Woman give and take the power of their bodies mutually unto the conjugal due, called benevolence, 1 Cor. 7.3, 4. And they are ſo equal in the matter of Wedlock, that both of them are both ſuperior and inferior in asking and rendering the ſaid due. Hence it is a reſolved caſe, That ſterillity is not an impediment of Marriage; becauſe, tho the primary end, which is Procreation, be thereby hindred; yet the ſecondary end, to be a remedy againſt ſin, which is alſo of Gods ordaining, is obtained: But Frigidity or total Impotency, is a juſt impediment, becauſe in that caſe both the primary and ſecondary end of Marriage is made void, and the eſſential due thereof cannot be rendered.
§ 4. As concerning the ancient Polygamy, or plurality of Wives at once, ſome conceive that it was only by Divine connivence, and that it was a ſinful practice, which God winked at. Others conceive that it was by Divine diſpenſation, and that the law of the Conjunction of one Man, and one Woman, was moſt conſentaneous to nature; but that it was not in nature immutable and indiſpenſable, but ſuch as might be changed, the ſtate of things and perſons being changed; yet then not to be changed but by his authority from whom all the Laws of nature do proceed. But whether Polygamy were allowed, or only winked at, it appears to be wholly diſallowed by the Law of Chriſt, and was never as yet admitted in any Chriſtian Commonwealth. If according to the words of Chriſt, a Man putting away his Wife, and Marrying another, commiteth Adultery; much more doth he commit Adutery, if keeping the former Wife he Marry another.
The Concubines mentioned in the Old-Teſtament, were not, as in our days, unmarried, but properly Wives, tho in reſpect of ſome Matrimonial Priviledges inferior to Wives, ſtrictly ſo called. For their carnal Conjunction with any beſides him, whoſe they were, was a defiling of the Marriage-bed. Concerning Reuben, who lay with Bilhah, Jacobs Concubine, this is denounced, Thou ſhalt not excel, becauſe thou wenteſt up to thy Fathers bed, then defiledſt thou it, Gen. 49.4.
§ 5. As concerning the honour of Matrimony, it is written, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable among all men, and the bed undefiled; but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judg. This is the law of Chriſt. On the contrary, the hypocriſie, and the countefeit ſanctity of thoſe lyars, who were to bring in the great Apoſtacy upon the Chriſtian Church, is foretold to conſiſt, among other things, in forbidding to Marry, 1 Tim. 4.3. And the prohibition of it to divers orders of men, and other unjuſt reſtrictions laid upon it, are one kind of the forbidding to Marry, intended in that prediction.
The wiſeſt and moſt civilized Commonwealths, that were not Chriſtians, have teſtified their great reſpect to Marriage, by encouraging it with many Priviledges, as more conducing to the publick good, than the ſingle Life. By the Roman Laws, in times of Gentiliſm, Marriage was priviledged, and the ſingle Life diſadvantaged.
§ 6. The debaſing of Matrimony, came in with the degeneracy of the Church. Quickly after the Apoſtles age, Chriſtians departed from the ſimplicity that is in Chriſt, by deviſing rules of Life which Chriſt required not; and built upon the precious foundation, which had been laid, Wood, Hay, and Stubble. And the Devotion both of men and women was carried forth to a ſelf-deviſed religiouſneſs, yet the eſſentials of Chriſtianity were preſerved ſound.
Accordingly many of the Fathers of the Church extolled Celibate and Virginity with exceſſive praiſes; and thought of Marriage, as of a ſtate leſs perfect; and ſome of them, as Jerome, were almoſt contumelious againſt it. Yet in thoſe times ſome appeared to give ſome check to thoſe contumelies caſt upon Marriage.
When Chriſtianity obtained the Empire, thoſe Laws which were made in ſpecial favour of Marriage, and diſadvantage of ſingle Life, were abrogated; and the Monaſtick ſtate was greatly propagated and priviledged. Yea, in later times Married perſons were encouraged to forſake their yokefellows, and go into Monaſteries.
§ 7. Upon this occaſion, I am led to conſider, what worth or excellence in celebate and virginity, more than in the Married Life, can be ſhewed from the Holy Scripture, or from right reaſon.
In the Scripture we find no greater excellence aſcribed to ſingle continence, than to Matrimonial chaſtity. It is ſaid, 1 Cor. 7.1. It is good for a man not to touch a Woman. The goodneſs here ſpoken of, is a moral convenience; and in that reſpect to abſtain from Marriage is here ſaid to be foreign, or vertuous. For it is vertuous to chooſe that which is moſt commodious to Chriſtian life, and to avoid all avoidable hinderances of the freer exerciſe of godlineſs. Now divers cares and troubles which accompany Marriage, may well be avoided by one who hath the ſpecial gift of continence. And thoſe difficulties and ſufferings which come upon us in times of the Churches calamities, may be better born, and the temptations thereof more eaſily eſcaped in a ſingle, than in a Married Life.
In the ſame Chapter, verſ. 25, 26. Virginity is commended, not from its intrinſick excellency (as far as that appears), but from its conveniency, in regard of the diſtreſſes of the Church. The Apoſtle ſaith, It is good for the preſent diſtreſs. Here alſo he uſeth the word foreign, which ſhews, that the thing is vertuouſly good; but upon what account? foreign. It had in that ſtate of things a Moral convenience, and therefore to make choice of it was vertuous. Yet he ſhews, verſ. 28. that to Marry in ſuch a time, is no ſin, tho not to Marry be more expedient. Likewiſe, verſ. 32, 33, 34. and ſo to the end of the Chapter, ſingle Life is prefered before Marriage, by reaſon of its convenience, and on no other account.
§ 8. Marriage was inſtituted for man in the ſtate of innocence. And it muſt needs be acknowleeged by all, that in that ſtate it would have been altogether as pure and perfect as Celibate and Virginity. If Matrimony, by reaſon of the fall be accompanied with ſome unavoidable irregularities, or inordinate motions in the ſenſitive Nature, ſingle life is a like, yea perhaps more obnoxious in that reſpect.
Matrimonial chaſtity is as truly chaſtity, as Virginal chaſtity. And the ſame degree of Matrimonial chaſtity is equally pure, with the ſame degree of Virginal chaſtity; or to ſpeak in other terms, there may be as great chaſtity both of body and mind in Matrimony, as in Virginity.
If there be a glory and excellency in that Victory over ſenſe, which they have, who having the gift of continence, abſtain from the ſenſitive pleaſure of the Marriage-bed; it may be equalled by the ſobriety and regularity of the uſe of the Marriage bed, being accompanied with a Chriſtian Wiſdom, Fortitude, and Patience in bearing and managing the difficulties of the Married condition, for the glory of God, and the good of the Church and Commonwealth, beſides the private good of Families. And there appears much leſs ſelf-denial in a ſingle, than in a married life, to be exerciſed by thoſe that have the gift of continence.
§ 9. Principles tending to render Marriage vile and loathſome, have been propagated by ſome out of an exceſſive admiration of Virginity, and total abſtinence from carnal conjunction; and by others, whoſe intereſt it was to inhance the reputation of ſingle life, for the ſtrengthning of the Papal Kingdom. Of which ſort are theſe, viz. The natural deſire of copulation is prohibited luſt: That corporeal delight may not be intended in the conjugal act: That a mans deſire of pleaſure with his own Wife cannot be without ſin: That a man doth ſin, except he come to the act with grief. Accordingly ſome Popiſh Writers have ſaid, That moſt frequently mortal ſin, and always venial ſin, is committed in the conjugal act. And the truth is, if theſe things were true, they were enough to deter from Marriage all thoſe that have a due care of their own ſouls.
Some of great name among the Ancients held, That there ſhould have been no commixtion of Sexes in the ſtate of innocence, becauſe tho it were uſed for procreation alone, yet (as they thought) it could not have been without ſhameful luſt.
§ 10. Now for the redargation of ſuch opinions, let it be conſidered, that when men otherwiſe very worthy, ſhall give ſcope to their own conceits, and ſhall advance ſelf-choſen ways, they will overlook the cleareſt evidence both of Scripture and Reaſon. For what other cauſe could be rendered for the creation of the different Sexes, but the foreſaid commixtion? And of a man and his wife in the ſtate of innocence it was ſaid, They ſhall be one fleſh. And for the vehement deſire of the ſaid conjunction, it is in it ſelf an Animal Faculty for the conſervation of the Species, as the like deſire of ingeſtion and egeſtion is for the conſervation of the individual.
Since the Fall, the ſenſitive appetite ought to be diſtinguiſhed from its inordinacy, from which by grace it may be ſeparated, and ſo it may be alike pure and ſinleſs with other parts of human nature in this imperfect ſtate. And this being granted in other kinds of ſenſitive appetite, why ſhould it be denied in the kind here treated of? Some ſay of it, That it is a brutifying act; and that the mind is ſo carried away therein, that it can think nothing worthy of a wiſe man. But I make no queſtion, but godly perſons know the contrary by experience. And I can ſee no reaſon, but that they who have crucified the fleſh with its affections and luſts (as all true Chriſtians have) may by due care carry themſelves in this matter with a due ſobriety and regularity, and that the more perfect Chriſtians ordinarily do ſo. And tho herein they be not perfectly, yet they are prevalently pure. And that it is perfectly pure, can ſcarce be ſaid of any good act in the preſent ſtate of mankind. The delight of eating and drinking after hunger and thirſt, or of reſt after labour, doth ſwallow up Reaſon in the Vicious, or more or leſs diſturb it, according to the degree of their intemperance. And ſo the delight here conſidered, doth ſwallow up Reaſon in them that uſe it inordinately, and that more or leſs, according to the degree of their inordinacy. But as the delight of eating and drinking doth not brutifie the temperate; ſo the delight here conſidered, doth not brutifie them that uſe it purely and ſoberly, not in oppoſition, but ſubordination to ſpiritual delights.
§ 11. Indeed it is undeniable, and witneſſed by the common ſenſe of human nature, that ſince the Fall a ſhameful turpitude doth inſeperably adhere to this act. And this is a natural intimation to mankind of their vicious propagation in their fallen ſtate (I mean in reſpect of original ſin) and a manifeſt ſign of the common viciouſneſs and brutiſhneſs in this caſe, as alſo of the impotence of paſſion or ſenſual commotion, to which all are obnoxious herein, and ordinarily more than in other ſenſualities, if it be not carefully brought under the due governnance of reaſon. Wherefore that Cynical impudence which ſome are reported to have acted herein, is to be abhorred of all men. And even Human, much more Chriſtian modeſty, requires the greateſt reſervedneſs herein. Nevertheleſs, this inſeparably adhering turpitude is not always and directly, or of it ſelf a ſinfulneſs. That there is a natural, where there is not a ſinful turpitude, many inſtances do ſhew. That many things juſt, and honeſt, and neceſſary, have a kind of ſhamefulneſs in them, is acknowledged by men in general. If in the preſent inſtance there be always ſome ſinfulneſs, it is no other than what is found in all the good acts of men in this their imperfect ſtate. And thoſe acts are not counted nor called ſins by reaſon of ſuch adhering ſinfulneſs, for that they are prevalently, tho not perfectly good and virtuous.
§ 12. Continence in ſingle life is not a common, but a ſpecial gi…t, which all have not received, Mat. 19 10, 11. When the Diſciples ſaid, If the caſe of a man be ſo with his Wife, it is good not to marry; Our Saviour anſwered, All men cannot receive this ſaying, ſave they to whom it is given. And v. 12. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. The Apoſtle ſaith, 2 Cor. 7.7. I would that every man were even as my ſelf; but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, another after that. And of the unmarried and Widows he ſpeaks, If they cannot contain, let them marry. This ſhews that all have not that ſingular gift from God to preſerve themſelves in pureneſs of body and ſpirit, without the remedy of Marriage. And nothing can be produced from Scripture or Reaſon to argue that the bare want of the ſaid ſingular gift is a ſinful incontinence. The general impetus of nature to the conjunction of Male and Female, is neceſſary to the perpetuating of mankind. And if it were not ſo generally implanted in nature, there is reaſon to think, that conſidering the many great intanglements and moleſtations that accompany Marriage, many would not encumber themſelves therewith, and ſo would refuſe to ſerve the Providence of God, in the ſucceſſive Generations of men upon Earth, in that regular way of Procreation, which he hath appointed for mankind from the beginning.
And who knows, but in the ſtate of Innocence, as there might be vehement Hunger and Thirſt, ſo there might be an impetus of Nature to this conjuction? I ſuppoſe that in the ſtate of innocence, the motions of the ſenſitive appetite would not be raiſed, and laid immediately, at the call of the rational appetite; but from the ſenſitive nature it ſelf as the immediate ſource and ſpring from which they iſſue, and to which they return. Yet I firmly hold, that in that ſtate, the ſaid motions were ſo perfectly under the government of the rational appetite, doing its Office, as thereby to be always diverted from whatſoever would be diſhoneſt. But I think, that that good government muſt have been maintained by prudence and diligence; not indeed with trouble and difficulty (as now it is), but with a pleaſant and facile induſtry. In caſe of Hunger and Thirſt, Innocent nature might admit a ſimple motion of ſenſe to Eat and Drink in a time unſeaſonable for ſuch an act; but Reaſon, and the rational appetite, would ſo bridle it, that no irregular act of Mind or Body ſhould follow.
§ 13. In the want of the gift of continence, legitimate Matrimony is the remedy appointed of God, 1 Cor. 7.1. It is good for a man not to touch Woman. Nevertheleſs to avoid Fornication, let every Man have his own Wife, and every Woman her own Husband. The meaning whereof is, Tho in divers reſpects it be more convenient to be unmarried; yet there is one reſpect of greater moment, which commands the uſe thereof, viz. to avoid Fornication. And verſ. 9. It is better to Marry than to burn. God doth not give to all, to overcome the inordinacy of carnal deſire, without Marriage, where it may be duly had; and ſuch as cannot otherwiſe overcome the ſaid inordinacy, muſt Marry if they can, to keep themſelves pure in Body and Mind, or (as 'tis expreſſed in the Liturgy), undefiled Members of Chriſts Body.
§ 14. They who are unavoidably kept from Marriage, or being in Wedlock are d…p…ived of conjugal imbraces by their yokefellows infirmities, or neceſſary abſence, muſt rely upon God for ſtrength to repreſs inordinate motions, and to keep themſelves in that purity of heart and life, which is acceptable to him. For the neceſſary help of his Grace is never wanting to thoſe that uſe his means, and keep within the bounds which he hath ſet.
God will not have his order broken, nor his univerſal perpetual law tranſgreſſed, (ſuch as the Law of Marriage is) to ſatisfie mens natural deſires. But when they are debarred of Gods appointed remedy, or when they have uſed it, but are by his providence fruſtrated of the benefit thereof, they muſt not tranſgreſs the limits which he hath ſet them; but they muſt have patience, and ſtrive againſt nature, and expect ſuch relief from Gods Grace, as ſhall be ſufficient for them.
§ 15. To be regulated by thoſe Laws which God hath ſet in Nature and Scripture, is mans uprightneſs; but to depart from them to ſelf-deviſed ways, is his ſin and folly, under a ſhew of Wiſdom; and by pleaſing himſelf therein, he deviates more and more from the right way. The general admiring of Monkery and Vows of ſingle Life, hath as much contributed to the corruption of the Chriſtian Religion, and the advancing of the Antichriſtian Impurity and Superſtition, as any inſtitution or cuſtom that ever was taken up in the Chriſtian Church.
Howbeit ſome may be called to ſingle Life for Religions ſake, according to the Words of our Saviour, Matt. 19.12. There he Eunuchs, which have made themſelves Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heavens ſake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Such as clearly know, they have received the gift above mentioned, may be called of God to ſingle Life, to imploy themſelves more freely in ſerving God, either in a publick or private calling. All that are ſo gifted, are not hereunto called; becauſe many of them may be required to glorifie God, and do good in a Married ſtate, either in reſpect of their own Families, or the Commonwealth. But in regard there be few comparatively, who have received this gift, it is moſt rationally ſuppoſed, that they who have received it, ſhould make uſe of it (yet not under the conſtraint of a Vow, but freely) for thoſe holy and good e…ds which are beſt obtained by it, except ſome ſpecial reaſon, as aforeſaid, doth oblige them to Marry. But let them know, that in uſing their gift, they do no more than what is their duty to do. The diſtinction between Counſels and Precepts in this and other matters, is but vain. For it is the bounden duty of all, to do their utmoſt for the Glory of God, and their own, and others good.
§ 16. As ſelf-deviſed religiouſneſs by degrees increaſed among Chriſtians, accordingly many rigorous Prohibitions and Limitations about Marrying, both groundleſs and unreaſonable, were deviſed. Many of the Ancients, both Fathers of the Church, and Hereticks, were averſe to, or at leaſt not much pleaſed with ſecond ſucceſſive Marriages, either in Clergy or Laity. And ſome degree of Penance for the ſame was injoyned by the Canons of ſome Councils.
The Scripture ſaith, Marriage is honourable in all, without exception; thereby ſhewing, that no condition of life puts a bar to it, againſt thoſe who are capable of it. And if no condition of Life be a bar thereunto, why ſhould former Marriages be ſo? The Scripture expreſly aſſerts the lawfulneſs of ſecond Marriages, Rom. 7.3. If a Woman, while her husband lives, be married to another, ſhe ſhall be called an adultereſs: but if her husband be dead, ſhe is free from that law: ſo that ſhe is no adultereſs, tho ſhe be married to another man. St. Paul ſaith of Widows, 2 Cor. 7.9 If they cannot contain, let them marry. Verſ. 39. A Wife is bound by the law, as long as her husband lives: but if her husband he dead, ſhe is at liberty to be married to whom ſhe will, only in the Lord.
Thoſe young Widows, whoſe Marriage is condemned, 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. were ſuch as had devoted themſelves to the ſervice of the Church, according to the manner of thoſe times. And they are ſaid to have Condemnation, not ſimply becauſe they married, but becauſe they caſt off their firſt faith, that is, they did violate their engagement to Chriſt, and the Church, to pleaſe the fleſh. Upon this ground the Apoſtle forbids the admitting of younger Women into that ſpecial Miniſtry, that they might not be expoſed to ſuch temptation. And verſ. 14. he exprefly wills, That the younger women ſhould marry; which muſt neceſſarily include young Widows alſo; becauſe it is brought in immediately after the condemning of young Widows in caſe of prevarication againſt their aforeſaid engagement. His meaning is to ſhew, that it is moſt covenient for them to Marry in regard of their age and condition; yet not to bind any abſolutely ſo to do.
Some of the Ancients thought the Apoſtle granted ſecond Marriages only ex Venia, by way of indulgence or diſpenſation; ſo that he who uſed it, ſinned not, as being not forbidden by the Law; but he did not fulfil that high perfection of Life that the Goſpel calls unto. But herein ſuch indulged their own opinion; and I find that they were in other things very fanciful, and over-rigorous in their Principles, and ſomewhat Stoical. But the Evangelical Law, or the New Teſtament, hath not ſo declared.
The prohibiting of ſecond Marriages, tends to the diminution of mankind, and the weakning of Commonwealths, with other inconveniences.
§ 17. Succeſſive Marriages more often reiterated, had a greater ill name among the Ancients. But thoſe places of Scripture which licenſe Widows to marry, do it indefinitely, without limitation, to a Widow of the firſt Husband only. And we find in Scripture no reſtraint againſt third, fourth, or more Marriages. And according to reaſon, if a Widow of the firſt Husband may lawfully Marry, Why not alſo a Widow of the ſecond Husband, ſeeing there may be the ſame juſtifiable cauſe of Marriage? Indeed there may be an exceſs in the reiterating of ſucceſſive Marriages; but then the diſhoneſty or ſinfulneſs lies not in the Reiteration of the Marriage in it ſelf conſidered, but in the exceſs, as undecent and uncomely. The allowable frequency of ſuch Reiteration, is not punctually defined in general, and a like to all; but is varied according to the different caſes of perſons. In the caſe propounded by the Sadduces to our Saviour of ſeven Brethren ſucceſſively married to one Woman, Matt. 22.25. he ſpeaks nothing of the illegitimacy or unſoundneſs of the ſaid Marriages. The caſe of the Samaritan Woman, Job. 4. is to be conſidered. Our Saviour doth tax her for living at that time with one as a husband, who indeed was not her husband; but he doth not expreſly reprove her former plurality of ſucceſſive Husbands; nor do I obſerve that he puts any note of ſinfulneſs upon it; yet for ought I know, there might be ſinfulneſs in the undecent exceſs thereof.
The Papiſts ſay, That the Catholick Church allows ſecond and third Marriages, and in whatſoever number ſucceſſively; yet the benediction ought not to be allowed to ſuch Marriages, becauſe the Conſecration ought not to be reiterated. But this denial of the benediction, and the ill reflection it hath upon ſecond Marriages, is founded upon an error, that Marriage is a Sacrament, and conſecrated to be a Symol of the Myſtical Union between Chriſt and the Church.
§ 18. Seeing the gift of Continence in ſingle Life, is the Priviledg of particular perſons, and not of certain Orders and Callings of men, a Vow or other Obligation to ſingle Life, ſhould not be laid upon all that enter into ſome ſpecial Callings; but particular perſons ſhould be left free therein to marry, or abſtain from Marriage, as they find themſelves qualified, and called to the one, or the other.
That Marriage is lawful and honeſt in the Miniſters of the Goſpel, is evident from Scripture, againſt all prejudices ariſing from cuſtoms introduced, or Canons made in after-ages. That one evidence, that among the qualifications of a Biſhop, it is mentioned that he be the Husband of one Wife, is clear and full againſt all contradiction. As Peter had a Wife, ſo Paul ſhews that he had power to take a Wife, even in his Apoſtleſhip, 2 Cor. 9 5. Have we not power to lead about a Siſter, a Wife, as well as the other Apoſtles? By a Siſter he means a believing Chriſtian; by leading about a Siſter, a Wife, he means living in Matrimony.
That diſeaſe of our fallen nature, for which Marriage is appointed a remedy, is common to all ſorts; and therefore the remedy ſhould be as common. And, as is before noted, the gift of Continence is a priviledg of particular perſons, and not of certain Orders and Callings.
Marriage is in it ſelf no more impure to the Clergy, than to the Laity, Tit. 1.15. Ʋnto the pure all things are pure. There is no Eſtate or Calling polluted by Marriage, or made leſs holy, or leſs worthy by the uſe of it; for it is honourable in all men. And it is to be conſidered, that Gods Law binds every Chriſtian to live as chaſtly and purely, as a Prieſt or Miniſter of the Goſpel. And that which doth not leſſen the holineſs of a Chriſtian, doth not leſſen the holineſs of a Miniſter. Indeed Miniſters are more ſtrongly obliged than others to keep themſelves chaſt in body and mind; becauſe, whereas others are under a ſingle, they are under a double Obligation therunto, both as they are Chriſtians, and as they are Chriſts Miniſters. But the chaſtity to which they are obliged, is the common duty of all Chriſtians. Only where there is a greater engagement to chaſtity, there is a greater aggravation of the ſin of uncleanneſs. And it concerns Miniſters more than others, that they break not the Common Laws of Chriſtianity in this regard, becauſe thereby they give a greater ſcandal than others.
Moreover, Marriage is no more a hinderance to Miniſters, than to all Chriſtians in their acts of devotion. For all are required to exerciſe themſelves unto godlineſs, to pray always, watching thereunto with all perſeverance. And ſuch exerciſes as require abſtinence from conjugal embraces (as extraordinary prayer, with faſting) do alike concern Clergy and Laity. Notwithſtanding this evidence of Scripture and Reaſon for the Honeſty of Marriage in the Clergy, the Policy of Hypocrites, and the Superſtition of honeſt minds, hath ſo far prevailed againſt it, as to make it no better than Inceſt, and worſe than Fornication.
§ 19 There is no more reaſon to reſtrain the Clergy from ſecond Marriages, than from the firſt. For there is commonly as great reaſon impelling to a ſecond Marriage, as to the firſt. And there is no more impurity or uncomelineſs in the ſecond Marriages of Clergy-men, than in the firſt. The Matrimonial acts of ſecond Marriages, have no more blemiſh nor unſeemlineſs in them, than thoſe of the firſt.
There is no reaſon to reſtrain the Clergy more than the Laity, from ſecond Marriages. For if it may be ſanctified to the one, it may as well be ſanctified to the other alſo; if it may be neceſſary for the one, it may be alſo as neceſſary for the other. And the Matrimonial acts of ſecond Marriages are no more uncomely in a Clerick, than in a Laick. No reaſon can be given why there ought not to be as great a chaſtity in every Chriſtian, as in a Biſhop. Every Chriſtian is in a true ſenſe a Prieſt to God, and a devoted perſon.
The Prieſts under the Law were expreſly forbidden to take a Wife that was a Whore, or prophane, or a woman put away from her Husband, Lev. 21.7. And good reaſon there might be for prohibiting a Prieſts marriage with a divorced woman, becauſe the Law of Divorce was but of divine ſufferance to the Jews, for the hardneſs of their hearts, as our Saviour ſaith. The High-Prieſt was expreſly forbidden to marry a Widow, ver. 14. Some of the ſaid Prohibitions were moſt probably in reference to a ceremonial ſanctity peculiar to the Moſaick diſpenſation. But neither the High Prieſt, nor other Prieſts were forbidden to marry a ſecond Wife upon the death of the firſt.
I ſee no reaſon to conceive, that by the Text 1 Tim. 3.2. any thing is forbidden in a Biſhop which is lawful in other Chriſtians. By the husband of one Wife the Apoſtle means, one that is not married to two Wives at once, according to the cuſtome of the Jews and other Eaſtern Nations; and one that hath not married a ſecond Woman after he hath put away the firſt without lawful cauſe; or that hath not taken one that was unlawfully put away by another, according to the cuſtom of the Weſtern Nations.
§ 20. The forbidding of the innocent party to marry after a juſt divorce, was another groundleſs and unreaſonable prohibition. Now the crime of adultery is the ground of a juſt divorce. Matt. 19.9. Whoſoever putteth away his Wife, except it be for fornication, and ſhall marry another, committeth adultery. Here the putting away of a Wife, and the marrying of another, is declared to be the committing of Adultery, except it be for Fornication. This by the moſt unqueſtionable Rule of interpretation ſhews, that if a man put away his Wife for Fornication, and marry another, he doth not commit adultery. For this is the caſe expreſly excepted from the general propoſition, and therefore exempt from the guilt therein expreſſed; and unleſs ſuch an exemption were thereby ſignified, the exception were in vain. And it is to be further noted, that the excepting of the caſe of Fornication, muſt refer more eſpecially to the later clauſe of marrying another, becauſe by the bare putting away of a Wife in any caſe, without proceeding further, there is no committing of Adultery. Therefore it is the marrying of another in the ſaid caſe of exception, that is deſigned to be exempted from the ſaid guilt. Hereupon thoſe general propoſitions about the ſame matter, Mark 10. Luke 16. muſt according to a juſt interpretation be limited by the exception here expreſſed, which muſt be neceſſarily there underſtood.
Howbeit upon an unjuſt divorce, for the innocent or injured party to marry another, we do not find it lawful. For Chriſt declares, Mart. 5 21. Whoſoever putteth away his Wife, ſ…ving for the cauſe of fornication, cauſeth her to commit adultery: and whoſoever marrieth her that is divorced, committeth adultery. Here he ſeems to reſolve, That he is an Adulterer that marrieth the innocent party that is put away; and that the firſt contracted relation is not diſſolved by the unjuſt divorce; and that the woman unjuſtly put away, ought to ſtay unmarried in hope of being reconciled to her husband, until ſuch time as his Adultery in any kind, and in particular in the marrying of another Wife, doth ſet her at liberty.
§ 21. For the further clearing of the point here diſcuſſed, it is to be noted in what ſenſe the Mar…iage-bond is diſſolved, and in what ſenſe it is not diſſolved by Adultery. Certain it is, that the ſaid bond is not diſſolved ipſo facto by the ſaid crime, ſo that the conjugal relation immediately ce…ſeth, and conjugal famillarity thenceforth becomes unlawful. N…vertheleſs the bond is ſo far diſſolved, that the offending-party hath forfeited the relation, and all the conſequent Rights thereof, and the injured party is no longer bound to continue the relation, and the conſequent duties thereof if he will take the forfeiture; and ſo the bond is actually diſſolved, and the relation ceaſeth by his will: yet he is bound to proceed in it regularly, and according to publick order.
Whereas it is ſaid by many, That the allowed divorce doth not ſignifie the breaking of the conjugal bond in the ſubſtance, but a relaxation thereof as to conjugal duties; it to be noted, that the queſtion put to our Saviour by the Phariſees, was about putting away as to the Matrimonial bond. For there was no other putting away among the Jews, nor among the Romans, nor other Nations among whom Divorce was in uſe. Beſides, to ſpeak of a putting away, and of a being at liberty from bed and board, and all Matrimonial duties, and yet not from the bond of Matrimony, is but idle talk. The ſtate is diſſolved where all the obligations conſequent to ſuch a ſtate are abrogated. Moreover the Papiſts themſelves allow the diſſolving of a Marriage with ſuch an Infidel as will not cohabit without uſing contumely againſt Chriſt, and ſeeking to turn the yokefellow from Chriſt. And is not Adultery, eſpecially if continued, as juſt a cauſe of the diſſolution, ſeeing this cauſe is expreſſed in Gods Law, whereas the other is not? And whereas they ſay there is not the ſame firmneſs in the marriage of Infidels, as of Chriſtians; this they ſpeak without proof, and againſt the Law of God, which hath made Matrimony as inviolable among Infidels, as among Chriſtians. This is a Divine Ordinance belonging not to the Church only, but to all mankind.
§ 22. As touching the allowableneſs of another Marriage to the innocent party in caſe of a declared wilful deſertion by the other, we find this written, 1 Cor. 7.15. If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother and ſiſter is not under bondage in ſuch caſes. It is hence gathered by ſome, that in a Marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, in caſe the unbelieving party depart out of hatred to true Religion, and if the believing party hath uſed all poſſible and reaſonable means to reduce the other to a due Conjunction, and hath ſtaid a convenient time for that purpoſe, and cannot prevail therein, he is looſed from this bond. This inference from the Text, ſeems to me highly probable, that I cannot diſallow it. Many Reformed Churches have determined this, and applied it further to other caſes of obſtinate deſertion, beſides this before mentioned; that the matter being judged by the Magiſtrate, the Innocent party may Marry another. As for the prohibition, Verſ. 11. If ſhe depart, let her remain unmarried; therein another Marriage is forbidden only to ſuch as voluntarily depart. It is to be noted, that there may be a juſt voluntary departing, which is not of the ſame reaſon with a juſt divorce.
§ 23. Abiſhag, who was ſought for David, to cheriſh him in his extream age, 1 King. 1.2. was his Concubine, that is, not his Harlot, but his lawful Wife, in a ſecondary degree, or inferior rank. I mean lawful, only by Gods permiſſion or connivence, in regard of his plurality of Wives at once, according to the cuſtom of the ancient times; yet lawful by Divine Approbation, in caſe he had had no other Wife then in being. From this example, it is at leaſt probable that it is not a ſin in it ſelf in extream old age to take a Wife as a cheriſhing Nurſe, or a boſom companion. For the declared intent of Davids taking Abiſhag, was that ſhe might lie in his boſom, and cheriſh him in his age, when he could get no heat. And it is ſaid, That ſhe cheriſhed him, but he knew her not.
§ 24. The Bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. is that which is not defiled with Adultery, Fornication, or any kind of unchaſtneſs or unſoberneſs. To the maintaining of which undefiledneſs, and the avoiding of all uncleanneſs, Chriſtians are greatly obliged by the purity of their Religion. Here I deſign to ſpeak of uncleanneſs not without, but within the bounds of Matrimony, and to give caution againſt all corrupt behaviour between a Man and his own Wife; becauſe men are commonly leaſt aware of this evil; and becauſe this is the Damnation of multitudes, who defile not themſelves with ſtrange embraces; and while they think they live chaſtly, do ſecurely allow themſelves in very great breaches of the laws of chaſtity. To keep the Bed undefiled, it is neceſſary to obſerve, not only the due object of Conjunction, or the legitimate perſon; but all due eircumſtances of time, place, meaſure, manner, &c. For inordinate ſenſuality or luſt, is not excuſed by being acted between perſons lawfully married. The honeſty and honour of Matrimony cannot make that to be lawful and honeſt, which is in it ſelf diſhoneſt and ſinful. All manner of luſt or evil concupiſcence, and the imperated acts thereof, are forbidden by the Law.
§ 25. There be divers ways of abuſing the Marriage-bed, between a Man and his own Wife, whereof ſome are more foul and groſs than others. There be nefarious irregulaties that ſome fall into by unbridled luſt. There are preternatural ways, by which humane nature cannot be propagated, and which are juſtly to be abhorred by all, who have not loſt the ſenſe of humanity. Moreover a man may come to his Wife, as to a Harlot, with a ſpirit of Whoredom, and ſeek a brutiſh pleaſure, which extinguiſheth the fear of God. Such exceſs as doth notably impair the health of the Body, or vitiate the mind, and make it more carnal, is unqueſtionably to be avoided, and will be avoided by thoſe that are careful to keep a ſound ſtate of body or mind.
§ 26. It is by all confeſſed, that in two caſes the conjugal embraces are without fault: firſt, when they are for the ſake of Procreation; ſecondly, when the due is rendred to the yokefellow requiring it. The reaſon of the former is, becauſe then the action is referred to the primary end for which Matrimony was ordained. The reaſon of the later is, becauſe it is an Act of Juſtice; that being rendred to another, which is his right. For herein the married parties have a mutual power over each other, 2 Cor. 7. Yet be it always minded, that even in the ſaid caſes, it muſt be regulated by the Rules of Chriſtian Purity.
Some have ſaid, That the uſe of the Marriage-bed, without reſpect to Procreation of Children, is baſe or unclean. And ſome chief Schoolmen have determined, that the uſe thereof, to allay the inordinancy of carnal deſire, or to avoid Fornication, when Procreation is not deſigned, is a ſin, tho but a Venial ſin. This requires our animadverſion.
§ 27. Among the ends of Marriage, this is one, and a principal one, and which renders it neceſſary, viz. To be a remedy againſt Fornication, or againſt burning, that is the inordinacy of carnal deſire, 1 Cor. 7.2. Nevertheleſs to avoid Fornication, let every man have his own Wife, and every Woman have her own Husband. Verſ. 9. If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Now if this end of Marriage be ſo momentous, as to make it neceſſary in this caſe; Certainly the uſe of the Marriage-bed for this end cannot be ſin. That which God hath ordained for the cure of this diſeaſe commonly adhering to fallen nature, cannot be ſin, being uſed to that end, tho the diſeaſe it ſelf, which is the occaſion of it, be not without ſin. Moreover, that cannot be ſin which the Apoſtle directs men to make uſe of to avoid Satans temptations to ſin. But the Apoſtle directs to the uſe of the Marriage bed, as a preventive remedy againſt Satans temptations to incontinency, 2 Cor. 7.5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with conſent for a time, that you may give your ſelves to faſting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
If a mans caſe be ſuch, that without the uſe of Marriage, Fornication, or other bodily uncleanneſs, or inward impurity of deſires and motions, cannot be ordinarily avoided by him; and if in that caſe, it be his duty to marry, then the avoiding of Fornication, or other impurity, corporeal or mental, is one lawful and honeſt end of the uſe of the Marriage-bed, even when there is no power of procreation; and the procreation of children is not always neceſſary to be reſpected therein.
§ 28. When there be ſeveral lawful and neceſſary ends of the uſe of Marriage, viz procreation, and the avoiding of fornication or burning, it is not neceſſary that the later of the ſaid ends ſhould be always conjunct with, and referred to the former; but it may be ſometimes ſeparate and independent thereon. For the ſaid ends are not things ſubordinate, but coordinate; each of them is intended for it ſelf, and the one is not in meer ſubſerviency to the other. It is granted, that the former end is more noble, as being neceſſary to Nature in it ſelf conſidered; and the later leſs noble, as being made neceſſary by Nature fallen. Yet it doth not appear from Scripture or right Reaſon, that the uſe of the Marriage-bed is ſinful and impure in the leſs noble, yet neceſſary end thereof, upon the failing of the other, which is the more noble. The truth is, as the ſtate of man is ſince the Fall, there is no end of Marriage of greater moment, than the preſerving of Chaſtity; and the due benevolence, 1 Cor. 7. is one of the eſſential dues of Marriage.
Let it be here noted, that they who hold the uſe of the Marriage bed without reſpect to procreation, to be ſin, do hold it no ſin in that caſe to render the due benevolence when required, becauſe it is a point of juſtice. But if this thing be a ſin on the demanders part, the rendering of it cannot be a due. It is granted, there may be a ſinful demanding of a juſt debt; and in that caſe the rendering of that which is ſinfully demanded, is a point of juſtice; but it is not ſo, if the very thing demanded be the ſin of the demander. For ſin cannot be a matter of right; and there can be no obligation of Juſtice to cooperate to anothers ſin. And therefore if the rendering of this benevolence be a righteouſneſs, the demand thereof is righteous, and the thing demanded is no ſin.
§ 29. They who reject the aforeſaid end, and condemn the aforeſaid uſe of Marriage, which is clearly juſtified, 1 Cor. 7.2, 3, 4, 5 do alledg that which is ſaid ver. 6. This I ſpeak by permiſſion, not of commandment. Wherein they ſay the Apoſtle by way of pardon grants the uſe of luſt within the bounds of Matrimony. Hereupon the true intent of thoſe words is to be examined. The word foreign is uſed both for permiſſion, and for pardon; and here it is evidently uſed for permiſſion, being oppoſed to foreign commandment; and it ſignifies not the remitting of a fault, but the allowing of an honeſt liberty, as contradiſtinct to the injoining of duty. The Apoſtle's meaning is, that he doth not injoyn Marriage, or the uſe of the Marriage due, as a general duty (for he wiſhes that all men were as himſelf) but allows it as a lawful benefit. And not only ſo, but he doth preſcribe it as a remedy againſt ſin, for thoſe that have need of it, in which caſe it becomes a duty.
To ſay that the uſe of luſt is here granted within the bounds of Matrimony, is, I think, an imputation too foul to caſt upon the word of God; and for it to grant by way of pardon the committing of a leſſer ſin, that ſome greater ſin may be avoided, ſeems to derogate from its perfect purity. Never was any moral evil permitted by Gods Moral Law, upon the reaſon of avoiding a greater evil. The permiſſion of Divorce among the Jews, was but political, and did of it ſelf amount to no more than a legal impunity in that Commonwealth. For the Divorcing of a Wife might be a mortal ſin notwithſtanding. Mal. 2 16. The Lord God of Iſrael ſaith, that he hateth putting away. Moreover if the Apoſtles foreign muſt needs ſignifie Pardon, let them who will have it ſo, ſhew cauſe why it muſt not be applied as well to the rendering, as to the demanding of the conjugal due For whatſoever the ſenſe of the word be, neither the expreſs Text, nor rational interpretation doth carry it to one part, excluding the other. But themſelves deny that the rendering of the due doth need pardon.
§ 13. It is common with thoſe who are looſe in the Commandments of God, to be very ſevere in the Traditions of men; according to this kind of principle Popiſh Writers hold, that the intendment of corporeal delight in the uſe of Marriage, is a ſin; and that it is not without fault if it be done partly for procreation, and partly for pleaſure, tho the pleaſure be not chiefly intended. What ſtrange rigor is here impoſed upon mankind againſt human nature it ſelf, to make it ſin for a man to be affected with deſire of pleaſure in the fruition of his own Wife? If ſenſitive pleaſure be naturally connex with the innate appetite, the intended fruition thereof can be no more ſin, than Nature it ſelf. Yea, let theſe rigid Impoſers think, whether the non-fruition, or non-intendment of that which is inſeparable from ſenſitive Nature, be naturally poſſible, and conſequently whether according to this principle, the procreation which they allow, muſt not neceſſarily be accounted ſin. Theſe and the like opinions greatly detract from the purity and honour of Marriage, and manifeſtly leſſen the impurity and diſhonour of Whoredome, by making Marriage it ſelf ſo vile and faulty; and conſequently they intangle the conſciencious ſort of men in cauſeleſs ſcruples, and imbolden the licentious in diſſolute ways. The truth of the caſe is, That if Pleaſure be ultimately intended in this or any other act of the Animal Nature, it is a mortal ſin; but if it be intended in ſubſerviency to holy and ſpiritual ends, it is no ſin at all. Pleaſure, and Luſt, which is the inordinacy of Pleaſure, are very different things. Luſt, tho it keep within the bounds of Marriage, is in it ſelf ever diſhoneſt and repugnant to Reaſon, and cannot be venial, as the Papiſts hold it to be.
The truth is, the aforeſaid Doctrines of Popiſh Writers do but ſerve, according to their known deſign, to debaſe Marriage, and render it a leſs deſirable, yea a more unſafe ſtate to the ſtrictly conſciencious, that they might inhance the eſtimate of ſingle life. The Church of England hath otherwiſe determined in this caſe, That Marriage was ordained for a rem…dy againſt ſin, and to avoid Fornication: That ſuch perſons as have not the gift of Continence, might marry, and keep themſelves undefiled members of Chriſts body. Which ſhews, that to marry for the ſaid end, is not an yielding to Luſt, but a means of that Chaſtity which becomes the members of Chriſt to have.
§ 31. Marriage being ordained, 1. For procreation of Children: 2. For a remedy againſt ſin: 3. For that mutual ſociety, help and comfort that is neceſſary in this Animal life of mankind here upon earth, the ſober and regular uſe of the marriage-bed, in order to any neceſſary help and comfort, doth not defile the conſcience, but is ſanctified to the pure and conſciencious, even then, when reſpect to procreation, or the avoiding of ſin, doth not urge it. Particularly, it is no way againſt Chaſtity or Chriſtian purity, to uſe it for that neceſſary health of body which is evidently promoted by it, and eſpecially if probably it cannot be well procured without it,
§. 32. It hath been judged by ſome of the Ancients, to be not only ſinful, but nefarious for a man to lye with his Wife while ſhe is with child. But I find not this utterly forbidden in Scripture, either expreſly, or by manifeſt conſequence. As for the judgment of Reaſon about it, theſe things may be conſidered, 1. That by Divine perpetual Ordinance towards mankind, one Male is confined to one Female; whereas other creatures are not ſo limited. 2. Conception is not only the end of this duty; for it is to be rendered to thoſe that are barren. 3. That, wherein the brutes are led by natural propenſion, in man falls under the government of Reaſon. And in the preſent caſe it ſeems reaſonable, that the ſenſitive deſire either be gratified or denied, as Reaſon guided by the general Rules of Gods word, doth ſhew what is moſt expedient within the limits of goodneſs and honeſty. This may certainly be determined, That if Congreſs in this caſe will deſtroy the Foetus, whoſoever uſeth it, ſinneth greatly and heinouſly. And if there be danger of deſtroying it, he that uſeth it, expoſeth himſelf to the danger of great and heinous ſin.
§ 33. It is moſt certain, that there are times and occaſions wherein abſtinence from the marriage-bed is ſtrictly enjoined. The Precept forbidding to approach carnally to a woman in the time of that known infirmity which is common to that S…x, was not meerly Moſaical, but moral, that is univerſal and perpetual, as appears Lev. 18.19, 24. Lev. 20 18, 23. For the breach thereof is noted as one of the abominable practiſes of thoſe Nations which were not under the Moſaick inſtitutions; for wh…ch practiſes God took vengeance on them, by caſting them out before his people.
§ 24. The more ſolemn times of Prayer and Faſting, require abſtinence from all manner of ſenſitive pleaſures, tho in themſelves lawful and honeſt; and particularly from conjugal embraces, 1 Cor. 7.5. Defraud not one another, except t… be with conſent for a time, that you may give your ſelves to faſting and prayer. It is not ſaid, that you may pray, but that ye may give your ſelves to Faſting and Prayer; which imports a ſolemn ſetting of themſelves apart to extraordinary Prayer, with F…ſt…ng.
§ 35. Not only ſolemn Religious Faſting, but other ſuch high and ſolemn acts of Religion as require the greateſt raiſing of the mind in ſpiritual cogitations, and retirement to converſe with God; and conſequently the beſt preparedneſs of body and mind, do alſo require abſtinence from the heightned delights of the ſenſitive or animal part. For which cauſe abſtinence from conjugal embraces is moſt requiſite for ſome due ſpace of time before and after the particip…tion of the Holy Sacrament. And I think this abſtinence ought alſo to be obſerved on the Lords day for the ſame reaſon. When the people were to meet with God in that extraordinary way upon Mount Sinai, Moſes gave it them in charge as a part of their preparation for it, That they come not at their Wives, Exod. 19.15.
§ 36. Yet the ordinary daily exerciſes of Religion, and Holy walking before God in them, do not require the like abſtinence. A ſober and regular uſe of Marriage, as of all other delights pertaining to the Animal life, doth not render any man unfit for the daily Service of God. With reference hereunto the Apoſtle ſpeaks, 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. Every creature of God (and ſo every Ordinance of God) is good, and nothing to be refuſed, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is ſanctified by the word of God, and prayer.
Howbeit with this conceſſion a caution alſo muſt here be given, That the married muſt ſo cohabit, that their prayers be not hindered or polluted, 1 Pet. 3.7. And becauſe prayer is a daily duty, they muſt daily manage their mutual converſe, ſo as not to be indiſpoſed to, or diverted from this or any other daily exerciſe of Religion. Wherefore they muſt not indulge themſelves in this or any other high gratification of ſenſe at thoſe times wherein they ſhould every day ſet themſelves to the ſolemn performance of thoſe holy exerciſes. Some due diſtance of time ſhould be always obſerved between the one and the other. But extraordinary Prayer (particularly, Prayer with Faſting) requires abſtinence for a greater interval. Chriſtians muſt keep a ſpiritual decorum, and carefully ſhun whatſoever practiſe doth not become holineſs.
§ 37. It concerns them whoſe aim and care is that their lives may be pure and holy, to endeavour to keep themſelves from all irregularity and inordinate actings in this thing; and thereupon to watch againſt all baſe brutiſhneſs, and unſeemlineſs of behaviour, and prepoſterous ways, and abuſive dalliances in it, as knowing that they are always under the eye of the Holy God. It behoves them ſo to uſe it, as not to weaken their bodies, or corrupt their minds; as not to irritate, but to allay ſenſuality; and to have this as all other lawful gratifications of ſenſe, in a manifeſt and direct ſubſerviency to ſpiritual ends, and ſo to manage themſelves therein, as that they may be able with a good conſcience to pray that it may be ſanctified to them. And there is as great need of prayer for the ſanctifying of the marriage-bed, as of any other enjoyment belonging to the Animal life; and it may be greater, becauſe Reaſon is in danger to be put much beſides its preſent uſe.
Let all that call themſelves Chriſtians, retain in their hearts a deep impreſſion of the words of the holy Apoſtle, 1 Theſ. 4 3, 4. This is the will of God, even your ſanctification, that ye ſhould abſtain from fornication, that every one of you ſhould know how to poſſeſs his veſſel in ſanctification and honour; not in the luſt of concupiſcence, even as the Gentiles, which know not God: for God hath not called us unto uncleanneſs, but unto holineſs. Chriſtians are by the ſame Apoſtle called upon to conſider, that their bodies are the members of Chriſt, and the Temple of the Holy Ghoſt, 1 Cor. 6.15, 19. And in this conſideration they ſhould lothe and dread all manner of obſcenity, and vile abuſe of their own bodies.
JONAH II. ver. 1, 2, 3, 4.
JONAH propheſied in Iſrael in or before the days of Jeroboam the ſon of Joaſh, 2 King. 14 25. He was alſo ſent to preach to Niniveh the chief City of the Aſſyrian Empire. But he diſobeyed the call of God, and endeavoured to flee to Tarſhiſh. The Lord by a mighty ſtorm at Sea purſues him. And being by lot and his own confeſſion found guilty, and the cauſe of the tempeſt, the Mariners by his own direction caſt him into the Sea; where the Lord had prepared a great fiſh to ſwallow him up, and he was in the belly of the fiſh three days and three nights.
This Chapter contains Jonah's exerciſe in the fiſhes belly; the Narrative whereof was penned after his deliverance, with an addition of praiſe.