Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage, Treatise · Part 1 – Part 2

Exposition Upon Marriage or Nullities of Marriage · Treatise · Part 1 – Part 2

p. 1Gen. 1. 27.

So God created man in his owne image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28. And God bleſſed them, and God ſaid unto them be fruitfull, &c.

Gen. 2. 18.

And the Lord God ſaid, It is not good that man ſhould be alone, I will make him a helpe meet for him.

23. And Adam ſaid, This is now bone of my bones, and fleſh of my fleſh; ſhe ſhall be called Woman, becauſe ſhe was taken out of Man.

24. Therefore ſhall a man leave his father and his mother, and ſhall cleave unto his wife, and they ſhall be one fleſh.

Gen. 1. 27.

SO God created man in his owne image.] To be inform'd aright in the whole Hiſtory of Mariage, that we may know for certain, not by a forc't yoke, but by an impartial definition, what Mariage is, and what is not Mariage; it will undoubtedly be lafeſt, faireſt, and moſt with our obedience, to enquire, as our Saviours direction is, how it was in the beginning. And that we begin ſo high as man created after Gods owne Image, there want not earneſt cauſes. For nothing now adayes is more degenerately forgott'n, then the true dignity of man, almoſt in every reſpect, but eſpecially in this prime inſtitution of Matrimony, wherein his native pre-eminence ought moſt to ſhine. Although if we conſider that juſt and naturall privileges men neither can rightly ſeek, nor dare fully claime, unleſſe they be ally'd to inward goodneſſe, and ſtedfaſt knowledge, and that the want of this quells them to a ſervile ſenſe of their own p. 2conſcious unworthineſſe, it may ſave the wondring why in this age many are ſo oppoſite both to human and to Chriſtian liberty, either while they underſtand not, or envy others that do; contenting, or rather priding themſelves in a ſpecious humility and ſtrictneſſe bred out of low ignorance that never yet conceiv'd the freedome of the Goſpel; and is therefore by the Apoſtle to the Coloſſians rankt with no better company, then Will-worſhip and the meer ſhew of wiſdome. And how injurious herein they are, if not to themſelves, yet to their neighbours, and not to them only, but to the all-wiſe and bounteous grace offer'd us in our redemption, will orderly appear.

[In the Image of God created he him.] It is anough determin'd, that this Image of God wherin man was created, is meant Wiſdom, Purity, Juſtice, and rule over all creatures. All which being loſt in Adam, was recover'd with gain by the merits of Chriſt. For albeit our firſt parent had lordſhip over ſea, and land, and aire, yet there was a law without him, as a guard ſet over him. But Chriſt having cancell'd the hand writing of ordinances which was againſt us, Coloſſ. 2. 14. and interpreted the fulfilling of all through charity, hath in that reſpect ſet us overlaw, in the free cuſtody of his love, and left us victorious under the guidance of his living Spirit, not under the dead letter; to follow that which moſt edifies, moſt aides and furders a religious life, makes us holieſt and likeſt to his immortall Image, not that which makes us moſt conformable and captive to civill and ſubordinat precepts; whereof the ſtricteſt obſervance may oftimes prove the deſtruction not only of many innocent perſons and families, but of whole Nations. Although indeed no ordinance human or from heav'n can binde againſt the good of man; ſo that to keep them ſtrictly againſt that end, is all one with to breake them. Men of moſt renowned vertu have ſometimes by tranſgreſſing, moſt truly kept the law; and wiſeſt Magiſtrates have permitted and diſpenc't it; while they lookt not peeviſhly at the letter, but with a greater ſpirit at the good of mankinde, if alwayes not writt'n in the characters of law, yet engrav'n in the heart of man by a divine impreſſion. This Heathens could ſee, as the well-read in ſtory can recount of Solon and Epaminondas, whom Cicero in his firſt booke of invention nobly defends. All law, ſaith he, we ought referr to the common good, and interpret by that, not by the ſcrowl of letters. No man obſerves law for laws ſake, but for the good of them for whom it was made. The reſt might ſerv well to lecture theſe times, deluded through belly-doctrines into a devout ſlavery. The Scripture alſo affords us David in the ſhew-bread, Hezechiah p. 3in the paſſeover ſound and ſafe tranſgreſſors of the literall command, which alſo diſpenc'd not ſeldom with it ſelf; and taught us on what juſt occaſions to doe ſo: untill our Saviour for whom that great and God-like work was reſerv'd, redeem'd us to a ſtate above preſcriptions by diſſolving the whole law into charity. And have we not the ſoul to underſtand this, and muſt we againſt this glory of Gods tranſcendent love towards us be ſtill the ſervants of a literall indightment?

[Created he him.] It might be doubted why he ſaith, In the Image of God created he him, not them, as well as male and female them; eſpecially ſince that Image might be common to them both, but male and female could not, however the Jewes fable, and pleaſe themſelvs with the accidentall concurrence of Plato's wit, as if man at firſt had bin created Hermaphrodite: but then it muſt have bin male and female created he him. So had the Image of God bin equally common to them both, it had no doubt bin ſaid, In the image of God created he them. But St. Paul ends the controverſie by explaining that the woman is not primarily and immediatly the image of God, but in reference to the man. The head of the woman, ſaith he, 1 Cor. 11. is the man: he the image and glory of God, ſhe the glory of the man: he not for her, but ſhe for him. Therefore his precept is, Wives be ſubject to your huſbands as is fit in the Lord, Coloſſ. 3. 18. In every thing, Eph. 5. 24. Nevertheleſſe man is not to hold her as a ſervant, but receives her into a part of that empire which God proclaims him to, though not equally, yet largely, as his own image and glory: for it is no ſmall glory to him, that a creature ſo like him, ſhould be made ſubject to him. Not but that particular exceptions may have place, if ſhe exceed her husband in prudence and dexterity, and he contentedly yeeld, for then a ſuperior and more naturall law comes in, that the wiſer ſhould govern the leſſe wiſe, whether male or female. But that which far more eaſily and obediently follows from this verſe, is that, ſeeing woman was purpoſely made for man, and he her head, it cannot ſtand before the breath of this divine utterance, that man the portraiture of God, joyning to himſelf for his intended good and ſolace an inferiour ſexe, ſhould ſo becom her thrall, whoſe wilfulnes or inability to be a wife fruſtrates the occaſionall end of her creation, but that he may acquitt himſelf to freedom by his naturall birth-right, and that indeleble character of priority which God crown'd him with. If it be urg'd that ſin hath loſt him this, the anſwer is not far to ſeek, that from her the ſin firſt proceeded, which keeps her juſtly in the ſame proportion ſtill beneath. She is not to gain by being p. 4firſt in the tranſgreſſion, that man ſhould furder looſe to her, becauſe already he hath loſt by her means. Oft it happens that in this matter he is without fault; ſo that his puniſhment herein is cauſeles: and God hath the praiſe in our ſpeeches of him, to ſort his puniſhment in the ſame kind with the offence. Suppoſe he err'd; it is not the intent of God or man, to hunt an error ſo to the death with a revenge beyond all meaſure and proportion. But if we argue thus, this affliction is befaln him for his ſin, therefore he muſt bear it, without ſeeking the only remedy, firſt it will be falſe that all affliction comes for ſin, as in the caſe of Joh, and of the man born blind, Joh. 9. 3, was evident: next by that reaſon, all miſeries comming for ſin, we muſt let them all lye upon us like the vermin of an Indian Cathariſt, which his fond religion forbids him to moleſt. Were it a particular puniſhment inflicted through the anger of God upon a perſon, or upon a land, no law hinders us in that regard, no law but bidds us remove it if we can: much more if it be a dangerous temptation withall, much more yet, if it be certainly a temptation, and not certainly a puniſhment, though a pain. As for what they ſay we muſt bear with patience, to bear with patience, and to ſeek effectuall remedies, implies no contradiction. It may no leſſe be for our diſobedience, our unfaithfulnes, and other ſins againſt God, that wives becom adulterous to the bed, and queſtionles we ought to take the affliction as patiently, as chriſtian prudence would wiſh; yet hereby is not loſt the right of divorcing for adultery. No you ſay, becauſe our Saviour excepted that only. But why, if he were ſo bent to puniſh our ſins, and try our patience in binding on us a diſaſtrous mariage, why did he except adultery? Certainly to have bin bound from divorce in that caſe alſo had bin as plentifull a puniſhment to our ſins, and not too little work for the patienteſt. Nay perhaps they will ſay it was too great a ſufferance: And with as ſlight a reaſon, for no wiſe man but would ſooner pardon the act of adultery once and again committed by a perſon worth pitty and forgivnes, then to lead a weariſom life of unloving & unquiet converſation with one who neither affects nor is affected, much leſſe with one who exerciſes all bitternes, and would commit adultery too, but for envy leſt the perſecuted condition ſhould thereby get the benefit of his freedom. 'Tis plain therefore that God enjoyns not this ſuppoſed ſtrictnes of not divorcing either to puniſh us, or to try our patience.

Moreover, if man be the image of God, which conſiſts in holines, and woman ought in the ſame reſpect to be the image and companion of man, in ſuch wiſe to belov'd, as the Church is belov'd of Chriſt, and if, as God p. 5is the head of Chriſt, and Chriſt the head of man, ſo man is the head of woman; I cannot ſee by this golden dependance of headſhip and ſubjection, but that Piety and Religion is the main tye of Chriſtian Matrimony: So as if there be found between the pair a notorious diſparity either of wickednes or hereſie, the husband by all manner of right is diſingag'd from a creature, not made and inflicted on him to the vexation of his righteouſnes; the wife alſo, as her ſubjection is terminated in the Lord, being her ſelf the redeem'd of Chriſt, is not ſtill bound to be the vaſſall of him, who is the bondſlave of Satan: ſhe being now neither the image nor the glory of ſuch a perſon, nor made for him, nor left in bondage to him; but hath recours to the wing of charity, and protection of the Church; unless there be a hope on either ſide; yet ſuch a hope muſt be meant, as may be a rationall hope, and not an endles ſervitude. Of which hereafter.

But uſually it is objected, that if it be thus, then there can be no true mariage between misbeleevers and irreligious perſons? I might anſwer, let them ſee to that who are ſuch; the Church hath no commiſſion to judge thoſe without, 1 Cor. 5. But this they will ſay perhaps, is but penuriouſly to reſolv a doubt. I anſwer therefore, that where they are both irreligious, the mariage may be yet true anough to them in a civill relation. For there are left ſom remains of Gods image in man, as he is meerly man; which reaſon God gives againſt the ſhedding of mans bloud, Gen. 9. as being made in Gods image, without expreſſion whether he were a good man or a bad, to exempt the ſlayer from puniſhment. So that in thoſe mariages where the parties are alike void of Religion, the wife owes a civill homage and ſubjection, the husband owes a civill loyalty. But where the yoke is miſ-yok't, heretick with faithfull, godly with ungodly, to the grievance and manifeſt endangering of a brother or ſiſter, reaſons of a higher ſtrain then matrimoniall bear ſway; unleſſe the Goſpel inſtead of freeing us, debaſe it ſelf to make us bondmen, and ſuffer evill to controule good.

[Male and female created he them.] This contains another end of matching man and woman, being the right, and lawfulnes of the marige bed; though much inferior to the former end of her being his image and helpo in religious ſociety. And who of weakeſt inſight may not ſee that this creating of them male and female, cannot in any order of reaſon, or Chriſtianity, be of ſuch moment againſt the better and higher purpoſes of their creation, as to enthrall husband or wife to duties or to ſufferings, unworthy and unbeſeeming the image of God in them? Now when as p. 6not only men, but good men doe ſtand upon their right, their eſtimation, their dignity in all other actions and deportments with warrant anough and good conſcience, as having the image of God in them, it will not be difficult to determin what is unworthy and unſeemly for a man to do or ſuffer in wedlock; and the like proportionally may be found for woman: if we love not to ſtand diſputing below the principles of humanity. He that ſaid, Male and female created he them, immediatly before that ſaid alſo in the ſame verſe, In the Image of God created he him, and redoubl'd it, that our thoughts might not be ſo full of dregs as to urge this poor conſideration of male and female, without remembring the noblenes of that former repetition; leſt when God ſends a wiſe eye to examin our triviall gloſſes, they be found extremly to creep upon the ground: eſpecially ſince they confeſſe that what here concerns mariage is but a brief touch, only preparative to the inſtitution which follows more expreſſely in the next Chapter: and that Chriſt ſo took it, as deſiring to be briefeſt with them who came to tempt him, account ſhall be given in due place.

V. 28. And Godbleſſed them, and God ſaid unto them, be fruitfull, and multiply, and repleniſh the earth, &c.

This declares another end of Matrimony, the propagation of mankind; and is again repeated to Noah and his ſons, Many things might be noted on this place not ordinary, nor unworth the noting; but I undertook not a generall Comment. Hence therefore we ſee the deſire of children is honeſt and pious; if we be not leſſe zealous in our Chriſtianity, then Plato was in his heatheniſm; who in the ſixt of his laws, counts off-ſpring therefore deſirable, that we may leav in our ſtead ſons of our ſons, continuall ſervants of God: a religious and prudent deſire, if people knew as well what were requir'd to breeding as to begetting; which deſire perhaps was a cauſe why the Jews hardly could endure a barren wedlock: and Philo in his book of ſpeciall laws eſteems him only worth pardon that ſends not barrennes away. Carvilius the firſt recorded in Rome to have ſought divorce, had it granted him for the barrennes of his wife, upon his oath that he maried to the end he might have children; as Dionyſius and Gellius are authors. But to diſmiſſe a wife only for barrennes, is hard: and yet in ſom the deſire of children is ſo great, and ſo juſt, yea ſomtime ſo neceſſary, that to condemn ſuch a one to a childles age, the fault apparently not being in him, might ſeem perhaps more ſtrict then p. 7needed. Somtimes inheritances, crowns, and dignities are ſo intereſted and annext in their common peace and good to ſuch or ſuch lineall deſcent, that it may prove a great moment both in the affairs of men and of religion, to conſider throughly what might be don heerin, notwithſtanding the way wardnes of our School Doctors.

Gen. 2. 18.

And the Lord ſaid, It is not good that man ſhould be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

V. 23. And Adam ſaid, &c. V. 24. Therefore ſhall a man leave, &c.

THis ſecond Chapter is granted to be a Commentary on the firſt; and theſe verſes granted to be an expoſition of that former verſe, Male and female created he them, and yet when this male and female is by the explicite words of God himſelfe heer declar'd to be not meant other then a fit help, and meet ſociety; ſom who would ingroſſe to themſelves the whole trade of interpreting, will not ſuffer the cleer text of God to doe the office of explaining it ſelf.

[And the Lord God ſaid it is not good.] A man would think that the conſideration of who ſpake, ſhould raiſe up the attention of our minds to enquire better, and obey the purpos of ſo great a Speaker: for as we order the buſines of Mariage, that which he heer ſpeaks is all made vain; and in the deciſion of matrimony, or not matrimony, nothing at all regarded. Our preſumption, hath utterly chang'd the ſtate and condition of this ordinance: God ordain'd it in love and helpfulnes to be indiſſoluble, and we in outward act and formality to be a forc't bondage; ſo that being ſubject to a thouſand errors in the beſt men, if it prove a bleſſing to any, it is of meer accident, as mans law hath handl'd it, and not of inſtitution.

[It is not good for man to be alone.] Hitherto all things that have bin nam'd, were approv'd of God to be very good: lonelines is the firſt thing which Gods eye nam'd not good: whether it be a thing, or the want of ſomthing, I labour not; let it be their tendance, who have the art to be induſtriouſly idle. And heer alone is meant alone without woman; otherwiſe Adam had the company of God himſelf, and Angels to convers with; all creatures to delight him ſeriouſly, or to make him ſport. God could have created him out of the ſame mould a thouſand friends and brother Adams to have bin his conſorts, yet for all this till Eve was giv'n him, God reckn'd him to be alone.

p. 8[It is not good.] God heer preſents himſelf like to a man deliberating; both to ſhew us that the matter is of high conſequence, and that he intended to found it according to naturall reaſon, not impulſive command, but that the duty ſhould ariſe from the reaſon of it, not the reaſon be ſwallow'd up in a reaſonleſſe duty. Not good, was as much to Adam before his fall, as not pleaſing, not expedient; but ſince the comming of ſin into the world, to him who hath not receiv'd the continence, it is not only not expedient to be alone, but plainly ſinfull. And therefore he who wilfully abſtains from mariage, not being ſupernaturally gifted, and he who by making the yoke of mariage unjuſt and intolerable, cauſes men to abhorr it, are both in a diabolicall ſin, equall to that of Antichriſt who forbids to marry. For what difference at all whether he abſtain men from marying, or reſtrain them in a mariage hapning totally diſcommodious, diſtaſtfull, diſhoneſt and pernicious to him without the appearance of his fault? For God does not heer preciſely ſay, I make a female to this male, as he did briefly before, but expounding himſelfe heer on purpos, he ſaith, becauſe it is not good for man to be alone, I make him therefore a meet help. God ſupplies the privation of not good, with the perfect gift of a reall and poſitive good; it is mans pervers cooking who hath turn'd this bounty of God into a Scorpion, either by weak and ſhallow conſtructions, or by proud arrogance and cruelty to them who neither in their purpoſes nor in their actions have offended againſt the due honour of wedlock.

Now whereas the Apoſtle ſpeaking in the Spirit, 1 Cor. 7. pronounces quite contrary to this word of God, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, and God cannot contradict himſelf, it inſtructs us that his commands and words, eſpecially ſuch as bear the manifeſt title of ſom good to man, are not to be ſo ſtrictly wrung, as to command without regard to the moſt naturall and miſerable neceſſities of mankind. Therefore the Apoſtle adds a limitation in the 26 v. of that chap. for the preſent neceſſity it is good; which he gives us doubtleſſe as a pattern how to reconcile other places by the generall rule of charity.

[For man to be alone.] Som would have the ſenſe heerof to be in reſpect of procreation only: and Auſtin conteſts that manly friendſhip in all other regards had bin a more becomming ſolace for Adam, then to ſpend ſo many ſecret years in an empty world with one woman. But our Writers deſervedly reject this crabbed opinion; and defend that there is a peculiar comfort in the maried ſtate beſides the genial bed, which no other ſociety affords. No mortall nature can endure either in the actions p. 9of Religion, or ſtudy of wiſdome, without ſomtime ſlackning the cords of intenſe thought and labour: which leſt we ſhould think faulty, God himſelf conceals us not his own recreations before the world was built; I was, ſaith the eternall wiſdome, dayly his delight, playing alwayes before him. And to him indeed wiſdom is as a high towr of pleaſure, but to us a ſteep hill, and we toyling ever about the bottom: he executes with eaſe the exploits of his omnipotence, as eaſie as with us it is to will: but no worthy enterpriſe can be don by us without continuall plodding and weariſomnes to our faint and ſenſitive abilities. We cannot therefore alwayes be contemplative, or pragmaticall abroad, but have need of ſom delightfull intermiſſions, wherin the enlarg'd ſoul may leav off a while her ſevere ſchooling; and like a glad youth in wandring vacancy, may keep her hollidaies to joy and harmles paſtime: which as ſhe cannot well doe without company, ſo in no company ſo well as where the different ſexe in moſt reſembling unlikenes, and moſt unlike reſemblance cannot but pleaſe beſt and be pleas'd in the aptitude of that variety. Wherof leſt we ſhould be too timorous, in the aw that our flat ſages would form us and dreſſe us, wiſeſt Salomon among his graveſt Proverbs countenances a kinde of raviſhment and erring fondnes in the entertainment of wedded leiſures; and in the Song of Songs, which is generally beleev'd, even in the jollieſt expreſſions to figure the ſpouſals of the Church with Chriſt, ſings of a thouſand raptures between thoſe two lovely ones farre on the hither ſide of carnall enjoyment. By theſe inſtances, and more which might be brought, we may imagine how indulgently God provided againſt mans lonelines; that he approv'd it not, as by himſelf declar'd not good; that he approv'd the remedy therof, as of his own ordaining, conſequently good; and as he ordain'd it, ſo doubtles proportionably to our fal n eſtate he gives it; els were his ordinance at leaſt in vain, and we for all his gift ſtill empty handed. Nay ſuch an unbounteous giver we ſhould make him, as in the fables Jupiter was to Ixion, giving him a cloud inſtead of Juno, giving him a monſtrous iſſue by her, the breed of Centaures a neglected and unlov'd race, the fruits of a delufive mariage, and laſtly giving him her with a damnation to that wheele in hell, from a life thrown into the midſt of temptations and diſorders. But God is no deceitfull giver, to beſtow that on us for a remedy of lonelines, which if it bring not a ſociable minde as well as a conjunctive body, leavs us no leſſe alone then p. 10before; and if it bring a minde perpetually avers and diſagreeable, betraies us to a wors condition then the moſt deſerted lonelines. God cannot in the juſtice of his own promiſe and inſtitution ſo unexpectedly mock us by forcing that upon us as the remedy of ſolitude, which wraps us in a miſery worſe then any wildernes, as the Spirit of God himſelf judges, Prov. 19. eſpecially knowing that the beſt and wiſeſt men amidſt the ſincere and moſt cordiall deſignes of their heart doe dayly erre in chooſing. We may conclude therfore ſeeing orthodoxall Expoſiters confeſſe to our hands, that by lonelines is not only meant the want of copulation, and that man is not leſſe alone by turning in a body to him, unleſſe there be within it a minde anſwerable, that it is a work more worthy the care and conſultation of God to provide for the worthieſt part of man which is his minde, and not unnaturally to ſet it beneath the formalities and reſpects of the body, to make it a ſervant of its owne vaſſal, I ſay we may conclude that ſuch a mariage, wherin the minde is ſo diſgrac't and vilify'd below the bodies intereſt, and can have no juſt or tolerable contentment, is not of Gods inſtitution, and therfore no mariage. Nay in concluding this, I ſay we conclude no more then what the common Expoſiters themſelves give us, both in that which I have recited and much more hereafter. But the truth is, they give us in ſuch a manner, as they who leav their own mature poſitions like the eggs of an Oſtrich in the duſt; I do but lay them in the ſun; their own pregnancies hatch the truth; and I am taxt of novelties and ſtrange producements, while they, like that inconſiderat bird, know not that theſe are their own naturall breed.

[I will make him a help meet for him.] Heer the heavnly inſtituter, as if he labour'd, not to be miſtak'n by the ſupercilious hypocriſie of thoſe that love to maiſter their brethren, and to make us ſure that he gave us not now a ſervil yoke, but an amiable knot; contents not himſelf to ſay, I will make him a wife, but reſolving to give us firſt the meaning before the name of a wife, ſaith graciouſly, I will make him a help meet for him. And heer again, as before, I doe not require more full and fair deductions then the whole conſent of our Divines uſually raiſe from this text, that in matrimony there muſt be firſt a mutuall help to piety, next to civill fellowſhip of love and amity, then to generation, ſo to houſhold affairs, laſtly the remedy of incontinence. And commonly they reck'n them in ſuch order, as leavs generation and incontinence p. 11to be laſt conſider'd. This I amaze me at, that though all the ſuperior and nobler ends both of mariage and of the maried perſons he abſolutely fruſtrat, the matrimony ſtirs not, looſes no hold, remains as rooted as the center: but if the body bring but in a complaint of frigidity, by that cold application only, this adamantine Alpe of wedlock has leav to diſſolve; which els all the machinations of religious or civill reaſon at the ſuit of a diſtreſſed mind, either for divine worſhip or humane converſation violated, cannot unfaſten. What courts of concupiſcence are theſe, wherin fleſhly appetite is heard before right reaſon, luſt before love or devotion? They may be pious Chriſtians together, they may be loving and friendly, they may be helpfull to each other in the family, but they cannot couple; that ſhall divorce them though either party would not. They can neither ſerv God together, nor one be at peace with the other, nor be good in the family one to other, but live as they were dead, or live as they were deadly enemies in a cage together; tis all one, they can couple, they ſhall not divorce till death, no though this ſentence be their death. What is this, beſides tyranny, but to turn nature upſide down, to make both religion, and the minde of man wait upon the ſlaviſh errands of the body, and not the body to follow either the ſanctity, or the ſovranty of the mind unſpeakably wrong'd, and with all equity complaining? What is this but to abuſe the ſacred and miſterious bed of mariage to be the compulſive ſtie of an ingratefull and malignant luſt, ſtirr'd up only from a carnall acrimony, withour either love or peace, or regard to any other thing holy or human. This I admire how poſſibly it ſhould inhabit thus long in the ſenſe of ſo many diſputing Theologians, unleſſe it be the loweſt lees of a canonicall infection livergrown to their ſides; which perhaps will never uncling, without the ſtrong abſterſive of ſom heroick magiſtrat, whole mind equall to his high office dares lead him both to know and to do without their frivolous caſe-putting. For certain he ſhall have God and this inſtitution plainly on his ſide. And if it be true both in divinity and law, that conſent alone, though copulation never follow, makes a mariage, how can they diſſolv it for the want of that which made it not, and not diſſolv it for that not continuing which made it, and ſhould preſerve it in love and reaſon, and difference it from a brute conjugality.

[Meet for him.] The originall heer is more expreſſive then other p. 12languages word for word can render it; but all agree effectuall conformity of diſpoſition and affection to be heerby ſignify'd; which God as it were not ſatisfy'd with the naming of a help, goes on deſcribing another ſelf, a ſecondſelf, a very ſelf it ſelf. Yet now there is nothing in the life of man through our miſconſtruction, made more uncertain, more hazardous and full of chance then this divine bleſſing with ſuch favorable ſignificance heer conferr'd upon us, which if we do but erre in our choice the moſt unblamable error that can be, erre but one minute, one moment after thoſe mighty ſyllables pronounc't which take upon them to joyn heavn and hell together unpardnably till death pardon, this divine bleſſing that lookt but now with ſuch a human ſmile upon us, and ſpoke ſuch gentle reaſon, ſtrait vaniſhes like a fair skie and brings on ſuch a ſcene of cloud and tempeſt, as turns all to ſhipwrack without havn or ſhoar but to a ranſomles captivity. And then they tell us it is our ſin; but let them be told again, that ſin through the mercy of God hath not made ſuch waſt upon us, as to make utterly void to our uſe any temporall benefit, much leſſe any ſo much a vailing to a peacefull and ſanctify'd life, meerly for a moſt incident error which no warines can certainly ſhun. And wherfore ſervs our happy redemption, and the liberty we have in Chriſt, but to deliver us from calamirous yokes not to beliv'd under without the endangerment of our ſouls, and to reſtore us in ſom competent meaſure to a right in every good thing both of this life, and the other. Thus we ſee how treatably and diſtinctly God hath heer taught us what the prime ends of mariage are, mutuall ſolace and help. That we are now, upon the moſt irreprehenſible miſtake in chooſing, defeated and defrauded of all this originall benignity, was begun firſt through the ſnare of Antichriſtian canons long ſince obtruded upon the Church of Rome, and not yet ſcour…d off by reformation, out of a lingting vain-glory that abides among us to make fair ſhews in formall ordinances, and to enjoyn continence & bearing of croſſes in ſuch a garb as no Scripture binds us, under the thickeſt arrows of temptation, where we need not ſtand. Now we ſhall ſee with what acknowledgement and aſſent Adam receiv'd this new aſſociat, which God brought him.

p. 13V. 23. And Adam ſaid this is now bone of my bones, and fleſh of my fleſh, ſhe ſhall be called Woman, becauſe ſhe was tak'n out of Man.

That there was a neerer alliance between Adam and Eve, then could be ever after between man and wife, is viſible to any. For no other woman was ever moulded out of her husbands rib, but of meer ſtrangers for the moſt part they com to have that conſanguinity which they have by wedlock. And if we look neerly upon the matter, though mariage be moſt agreeable to holines, to purity and juſtice, yet is it not a naturall, but a civill and ordain'd relation. For if it were in nature, no law or crime could diſanull it, to make a wife, or husband, otherwiſe then ſtill a wife or husband, but only death; as nothing but that can make a father no father, or a ſon no ſon. But divorce for adultery or deſertion, as all our Churches agree but England, not only ſeparats, but nullifies, and extinguiſhes the relation it ſelf of matrimony, ſo that they are no more man and wife; otherwiſe the innocent party could not marry elſe-where, without the guilt of adultery; next were it meerly naturall why was it heer ordain'd more then the reſt of morall law to man in his originall rectitude, in whoſe breſt all that was naturall or morall was engrav'n without externall conſtitutions and edicts. Adam therfore in theſe words does not eſtabliſh an indiſſoluble bond of mariage in the carnall ligaments of fleſh and bones, for if he did, it would belong only to himſelf in the literall ſenſe; every one of us being neerer in fleſh of fleſh, and bone of bones to our parents then to a wife; they therfore were not to be left for her in that reſpect. But Adam who had the wiſdom giv'n him to know all creatures, and to name them according to their properties, no doubt but had the gift to diſcern perfectly, that which concern'd him much more; and to apprehend at firſt ſight the true fitnes of that conſort which God provided him. And therfore ſpake in reference to thoſe words which God pronounc't before; as if he had ſaid, this is ſhe by whoſe meet help and ſociety I ſhall no more be alone; this is ſhe who was made my image, ev'n as I the Image of God; not ſo much in body, as in unity of mind and heart. And he might as eaſily know what were the words of God, as he knew ſo readily what had bin don with his rib, while he ſlept ſo ſoundly. He might well know, if God took a rib out of his inſide, to form of it a double good to him, he would far p. 14ſooner diſ-joyn it from his outſide, to prevent a treble miſchief to him: and far ſooner cut it quite off from all relation for his undoubted eaſe, then nail it into his body again, to ſtick for ever there a thorn in his heart. When as nature teaches us to divide any limb from the body to the ſaving of his fellows, though it be the maiming and deformity of the whole; how much more is it her doctrin to ſever by inciſion, not a true limb ſo much, though that be lawfull, but an adherent, a ſore, the gangrene of a limb, to the recovery of a whole man. But if in theſe words we ſhall make Adam to erect a new eſtabliſhment of mariage in the meer fleſh, which God ſo lately had inſtituted, and founded in the ſweet and mild familiarity of love and ſolace and mutuall fitnes, what do we but uſe the mouth of our generall parent, the firſt time it opens, to an arrogant oppoſition, and correcting of Gods wiſer ordinance. Theſe words therfore cannot import any thing new in mariage, but either that which belongs to Adam only, or to us in reference only to the inſtituting words of God which made a meet help againſt lonelines. Adam ſpake like Adam the words of fleſh and bones, the ſhell and rinde of matrimony: but God ſpake like God, of love and ſolace and meet help, the ſoul both of Adams words and of matrimony.

V. 24. Therefore ſhall a man leav his father and his mother, and ſhall cleav unto his wife; and they ſhall be one fleſh.

This vers, as our common heed expounds it, is the great knot tier, which hath undon by tying, and by tangling, millions of guiltles conſciences: this is that greiſly Porter, who having drawn men and wiſeſt men by ſuttle allurement within the train of an unhappy matrimony, claps the dungeon gate upon them, as irrecoverable as the grave. But if we view him well, and hear him with not too haſty and prejudicant ears, we ſhall finde no ſuch terror in him. For firſt, it is not heer ſaid abſolutely without all reaſon he ſhall cleave to his wife, be it to his weal or to his deſtruction as it happens, but he ſhall doe this upon the premiſes and conſiderations of that meet help and ſociety before mention'd, Therefore he ſhall cleave to his wife, no otherwiſe a wife, then a fit help. He is not bid to leave the dear cohabitation of his father, mother, brothers and ſiſters, to link himſelf inſeparably with the meer carcas of a Mariage, perhaps an enemy. p. 15This joyning particle Therefore is in all equity, nay in all neceſſity of conſtruction to comprehend firſt and moſt principally what God ſpake concerning the inward eſſence of Mariage in his inſtitution: that we may learn how far to attend what Adam ſpake of the outward materials therof in his approbation. For if we ſhall bind theſe words of Adam only to a corporall meaning, and that the force of this injunction upon all us his ſons to live individually with any woman which hath befaln us in the moſt miſtak'n wedlock, ſhall conſiſt not in thoſe morall and relative cauſes of Eves creation, but in the meer anatomy of a rib, and that Adams inſight concerning wedlock reacht no furder, we ſhall make him as very an idiot as the Socinians make him; which would not be reverently don of us. Let us be content to allow our great forefather ſo much wiſdom, as to take the inſtituting words of God along with him into this ſentence, which if they be well minded, wil aſſure us that fleſh and ribs are but of a weak and dead efficacy to keep Mariage united where there is no other fitnes. The rib of Mariage, to all ſince Adam, is a relation much rather then a bone; the nerves and ſinews therof are love and meet help, they knit not every couple that maries, and where they knit they ſeldom break, but where they break, which for the moſt part is where they never truly joyn'd, to ſuch at the ſame inſtant both fleſh and rib ceaſe to be in common; ſo that heer they argue nothing to the continuance of a falſe or violated Mariage, but muſt be led back to receive their meaning from thoſe inſtitutive words of God which give them all the life and vigor they have.

[Therefore ſhall a man leav his father, &c.] What to a mans thinking more plain by this appointment, that the fatherly power ſhould give place to conjugall prerogative? yet it is generally held by reformed writers againſt the Papiſt, that though in perſons at diſcretion the Mariage in it ſelfbe never ſo fit, though it be fully accompliſht with benediction, board and bed, yet the father not conſenting, his main will without diſpute ſhall diſſolv all. And this they affirm only from collective reaſon, not any direct law: for that in Exod. 22. 17. which is moſt particular, ſpeaks that a father may refuſe to marry his daughter to one who hath deflour'd her, not that he may take her away from one who hath ſoberly married her. Yet becauſe the generall honor due to parents is great, they hold he may, and perhaps hold not amiſſe. But again when the queſtion is of barſh and rugged parents who deferr p. 16to beſtow their childern ſeaſonably, they agree joyntly that the Church or Magiſtrat may beſtow them, though without the Fathers conſent: and for this they have no expreſs autority in Scripture. So that they may ſee by thir own handling of this very place, that it is not the ſtubborn letter muſt govern us, but the divine and ſoftning breath of charity which turns and windes the dictat of every poſitive command, and ſhapes it to the good of mankind. Shall the outward acceſſory of a Fathers will wanting, rend the fitteſt and moſt affectionat mariage in twain, after all nuptial conſummations, and ſhall not the want of love and the privation of all civil and religious concord, which is the inward eſſence of wedlock, doe as much to part thoſe who were never truly wedded? ſhall a Father have this power to vindicate his own wilfull honour and autority to the utter breach of a moſt dearly-united mariage, and ſhall not a man in his own power have the permiſſion to free his Soul, his life, and all his comfort of life from the diſaſtre of a no-mariage. Shall fatherhood, which is but man, for his own pleaſure diſſolve matrimony, and ſhall not matrimony, which is Gods Ordinance, for its own honour and better conſervation, diſſolv it ſelf, when it is wrong, and not fitted to any of the cheif ends which it owes us?

[And they ſhall bee one fleſh.] Theſe words alſo inferre that there ought to be an individualty in Mariage; but without all queſtion preſuppoſe the joyning cauſes. Not a rule yet that we have met with, ſo univerſall in this whole inſtitution, but hath admitted limitations and conditions according to human neceſſity. The very foundation of Matrimony, though God laid it ſo deliberatly, that it is not good for man to bee alone holds not always, if the Apoſtle can ſecure us. Soon after wee are bid leav Father and Mother, and cleav to a Wife, but muſt underſtand the Fathers conſent withall, els not. Cleav to a Wife, but let her bee a wife, let her be a meet help, a ſolace, not a nothing, not an adverſary, not a defertrice; can any law or command be ſo unreaſonable as to make men cleav to calamity, to ruin, to perdition? In like manner heer, They ſhall be one fleſh: but let the cauſes hold, and be made really good, which only have the poſſibility to make them one fleſh. Wee know that fleſh can neither joyn, nor keep together two bodies of it ſelf; what is it then muſt make them one fleſh, but likenes, but fitnes of mind and diſpoſition, which may breed the Spirit of concord, and union between them? If that be not in the nature p. 17of either, and that there has bin a remediles miſtake, as vain wee goe about to compell them into one fleſh, as if wee undertook to weav a garment of drie ſand. It were more eaſy to compell the vegetable and nutritive power of nature to aſſimilations and mixtures which are not alterable each by other; or force the concoctive ſtomach to turn that into fleſh which is ſo totally unlike that ſubſtance, as not to be wrought on. For as the unity of minde is neerer and greater then the union of bodies, ſo doubtles, is the diſſimilitude greater, and more dividuall, as that which makes between bodies all difference and diſtinction. Eſpecially when as beſides the ſingular and ſubſtantial differences of every Soul, there is an intimat quality of good or evil, through the whol progeny of Adam, which like a radical heat, or mortal chilnes joyns them, or disjoyns them irreſiſtibly. In whom therefore either the will, or the faculty is found to have never joyn'd, or now not to continue ſo, 'tis not to ſay, they ſhall be one fleſh, for they cannot be one fleſh. God commands not impoſſibilities; and all the Eccleſiaſtical glue, that Liturgy, or Laymen can compound, is not able to ſoder up two ſuch incongruous natures into the one fleſh of a true beſeeming Mariage. Why did Moſes then ſet down thir uniting into one fleſh? And I again ask, why the Goſpel ſo oft repeats the eating of our Saviours fleſh, the drinking of his blood? That wee are one body with him, the members of his body, fleſh of his fleſh and bone of his bone. Epheſ. 5. Yet leſt wee ſhould be Capernaitans, as wee are told there that the fleſh profiteth nothing, ſo wee are told heer, if we be not as deaf as adders, that this union of the fleſh proceeds from the union of a fit help and ſolace. Wee know that there was never a more ſpiritual myſtery then this Goſpel taught us under the terms of body and fleſh; yet nothing leſs intended then that wee ſhould ſtick there. What a ſtupidnes then is it, that in Mariage, which is the neereſt reſemblance of our union with Chriſt, wee ſhould deject our ſelvs to ſuch a ſluggiſh and underfoot Philoſophy, as to eſteem the validity of Mariage meerly by the fleſh; though never ſo brokn and diſjoynted from love and peace, which only can give a human qualification to that act of the fleſh, and diſtinguiſh it from beſtial. The Text therefore uſes this phraſe, that they ſhall bee one fleſh, to juſtify and make legitimat the rites of Mariage bed; which was not unneedfull, if for all this warrant, they were ſuſpected of pollution by ſome ſects of Philoſophy, and Religions of old, and latelier among the p. 18Papiſts, and other heretics elder then they. Som think there is a high myſtery in thoſe words, from that which Paul ſaith of them, Epheſ. 5. This is a great myſtery, but I ſpeak of Chriſt and the Church: and thence they would conclude mariage to be inſeparable. For me I diſpute not now whether matrimony bee a myſtery or no; if it bee of Chriſt and his Church, certainly it is not meant of every ungodly and miſwedded mariage, but then only myſterious, when it is a holy, happy, and peacefull match. But when a Saint is joyn'd with a reprobate, or both alike, wicked with wicked, fool with fool, a hee drunkard with a ſhe, when the bed hath bin nothing els for twenty yeares or more, but an old haunt of luſt and malice mixt together, no love, no goodnes, no loyalty, but counterplotting, and ſecret wiſhing one anothers diſſolution, this is to me the greateſt myſtery in the world, if ſuch a mariage as this, can be the myſtery of ought, unleſs it bee the myſtery of iniquity: According to that which Paraeus cites out of Chryſoſtom, that a bad wife is a help for the devill, and the like may be ſaid of a bad husband. Since therfore none but a fit and pious matrimony can ſignify the union of Chriſt and his Church, ther cannot hence be any hindrance of divorce to that wedlock wherin ther can be no good myſtery. Rather it might to a Chriſtian Conſcience bee matter of finding it ſelf ſo much leſs ſatisfy'd then before, in the continuance of an unhappy yoke, wherein there can be no repreſentation either of Chriſt, or of his Church.

Thus having enquir'd the inſtitution how it was in the beginning, both from the 1 Chap. of Gen, where it was only mention'd in part, and from the ſecond, where it was plainly and evidently inſtituted, and having attended each clauſe and word neceſſary, with a diligence not drouſy, wee ſhall now fix with ſom advantage; and by a ſhort view backward gather up the ground wee have gon; and ſumm up the ſtrength wee have, into one argumentative head, with that organic force that logic proffers us. All arts acknowledge that then only we know certainly, when we can define; for definition is that which refines the pure eſſence of things from the circumſtance. If therfore we can attain in this our Controverſy to define exactly what mariage is, wee ſhall ſoon lern, when there is a nullity thereof, and when a divorce.

The part therfore of this Chapter which hath bin heer treated, doth orderly and readily reſolv it ſelf into a definition of mariage, and a p. 19conſectary from thence. To the definition theſe words cheifly contribute. It is not good, &c. I will make, &c. Where the conſectary begins this connexion Therfore informs us, Therfore ſhall a man, &c. Definition is decreed by Logicians to conſiſt only of cauſes conſtituting the eſſence of a thing, What is not therfore among the cauſes conſtituting mariage, muſt not ſtay in the definition. Thoſe cauſes are concluded to be matter, and, as the Artiſt calls it, Form. But inaſmuch as the ſame thing may be a cauſe more waies then one, and that in relations and inſtitutions which have no corporal ſubſiſtence, but only a reſpective beeing, the Form by which the thing is what it is, is oft ſo ſlender and undiſtinguiſhable, that it would ſoon confuſe, were it not ſuſtain'd by the efficient and final cauſes, which concurre to make up the form invalid otherwiſe of it ſelf, it will bee needfull to take in all the fowr cauſes into the definition. Firſt therfore the material cauſe of matrimony is man and woman; the Author and efficient, God and their conſent, the internal Form and ſoul of this relation, is conjugal love ariſing from a mutual fitnes to the final cauſes of wedlock, help and ſociety in Religious, Civil and Domeſtic converſation, which includes as an inferior end the fulfilling of natural deſire, and ſpecifical increaſe; theſe are the final cauſes both moving the efficient, and perfeting the form. And although copulation be conſider'd among the ends of mariage, yet the act therof in a right eſteem can no longer be matrimonial, then it is an effect of conjugal love. When love findes it ſelf utterly unmatcht, and juſtly vaniſhes, nay rather cannot but vaniſh, the fleſhly act indeed may continue, but not holy, not pure, not beſeeming the ſacred bond of mariage; beeing at beſt but an animal excretion, but more truly wors and more ignoble then that mute kindlyneſs among the heards and flocks: in that proceeding as it ought from intellective principles, it participates of nothing rational, but that which the feild and the fould equalls. For in human actions the ſoule is the agent, the body in a manner paſſive. If then the body doe out of ſenſitive force, what the ſoul complies not with, how can man, and not rather ſomthing beneath man be thought the doer.

But to proceed in the perſute of an accurat definition, it will a vail us ſomthing, and whet our thoughts, to examin what fabric heerof others have already reard. Paraeus on Gen. defines Mariage to be an indiſſoluble conjunction of one man and one woman to an individual and intimat p. 20converſation, and mutual benevolence, &c. Wherin is to be markt his placing of intimat converſation before bodily benevolence; for bodily is meant, though indeed benevolence rather ſounds will then body. Why then ſhall divorce be granted for want of bodily performance, and not for want of fitnes to intimat converſation, when as corporal benevolence cannot in any human faſhion bee without this? Thus his definition places the ends of Mariage in one order, and eſteems them in another. His Tautology alſo of indiſſoluble and individual is not to be imitated; eſpecially ſince neither indiſſoluble, nor individual hath ought to doe in the exact definition, beeing but a conſectary flowing from thence, as appears by plain Scripture, Therfore ſhall a man leav, &c. For Mariage is not true mariage by beeing individual, but therfore individual, if it be true Mariage. No argument but cauſes enter the definition; a Conſectary is but the effect of thoſe cauſes. Beſides, that Mariage is indiſſoluble, is not Catholickly true; wee know it diſſoluble for Adultery, and for deſertion by the verdit of all Reformed Churches. Dr. Ames defines it an individual conjunction of one man and one woman, to communion of body and mutual ſociety of life; But this perverts the order of God, who in the inſtitution places meet help and ſociety of life before communion of body. And vulgar eſtimation undervalues beyond compariſon all ſociety of life and communion of minde beneath the communion of body; granting no divorce, but to the want, or miſcommunicating of that. Hemingius, an approved Author, Melanchtons Scholler, and who next to Bucer and Eraſmus writes of divorce moſt like a Divine, thus compriſes, Mariage is a conjunction of one man and one woman lawfully conſenting, into one fleſh, for mutual helps ſake, ordain'd of God. And in his explanation ſtands punctually upon the conditions of conſent, that it be not in any main matter deluded, as beeing the life of wedloc, and no true marriage without a true conſent. Into one fleſh he expounds into one minde, as well as one body, and makes it the formal cauſe: Heerin only miſſing, while he puts the effect into his definition inſtead of the cauſe which the Text affords him. For one fleſh is not the formal eſſence of wedloc, but one end, or one effect of a meet help; The end oft times beeing the effect and fruit of the form, as Logic teaches: Els many aged and holy matrimonies, and more eminently that of Joſeph and Mary, would bee no true mariage. And that maxim generally receiv'd, would be fals, p. 21that conſent alone, though copulation never follow, makes the mariage. Therefore to conſent lawfully into one fleſh, is not the formal cauſe of Matrimony, but only one of the effects. The Civil Lawyers, and firſt Juſtinian or Tribonian defines Matrimony a conjunction of man and woman containing individual accuſtom of life. Wherin firſt, individual is not ſo bad as indiſſoluble put in by others: And although much cavil might be made in the diſtinguiſhing between indiviſible, and individual, yet the one tak'n for poſſible, the other for actuall, neither the one nor the other can belong to the eſſence of mariage; eſpecially when a Civilian defines, by which Law mariage is actually divorc't for many cauſes, and with good leav, by mutual conſent. Therfore where conjunction is ſaid, they who comment the Inſtitutes, agree that conjunction of minde is by the Law meant, not neceſſarily conjunction of body. That Law then had good reaſon attending to its own definition, that divorce ſhould be granted for the breaking of that conjunction which it holds neceſſary, ſooner then for the want of that conjunction which it holds not neceſſary. And wheras Tuningus a famous Lawyer excuſes individual as the purpos of Mariage, not always the ſucceſs, it ſuffices not. Purpos is not able to conſtitute the eſſence of a thing. Nature her ſelf the univerſal Mother intends nothing but her own perfection and preſervation; yet is not the more indiſſoluble for that. The Pandects out of Modeſtinus, though not define, yet well deſcribe Mariage, the conjunction of male and female, the ſociety of all life, the communion of divine and human right: which Bucer alſo imitates on the fifth to the Epheſians. But it ſeems rather to comprehend the ſeveral ends of Mariage, then to contain the more conſtituting cauſe that makes it what it is.

That I therefore among others (for who ſings not Hylas) may give as well as take matter to be judg'd on, it will be lookt I ſhould produce another definition then theſe which have not ſtood the tryal. Thus then I ſuppoſe that Mariage by the natural and plain order of Gods inſtitution in the Text may be more demonſtratively and eſſentially defin'd. Mariage is a divine inſtitution joyning man and woman in a love fitly diſpos'd to the helps and comforts of domeſtic life. A divine inſtitution. This contains the prime efficient cauſe of Mariage; as for conſent of Parents and Guardians, it ſeems rather a concurrence then a cauſe; for as many, that marry are in thir own power as not; and where they are not thir own, yet are they not ſubjected beyond p. 22reaſon. Now though efficient cauſes are not requiſite in a definition, yet divine inſtitution hath ſuch influence upon the Form, and is ſo a conſerving cauſe of it, that without it the Form is not ſufficient to diſtinguiſh matrimony from other conjunctions of male and female, which are not to be counted mariage. Joyning man and woman in a love, &c. This brings in the parties conſent; until which be, the mariage hath no true beeing. When I ſay conſent, I mean not error, for error is not properly conſent: And why ſhould not conſent be heer underſtood with equity and good to either part, as in all other freindly covnants, and not be ſtrain'd and cruelly urg'd to the miſcheif and deſtruction of both? Neither doe I mean that ſingular act of conſent which made the contract, for that may remain, and yet the mariage not true nor lawful; and that may ceaſe, and yet the mariage both true and lawful, to their ſin that break it. So that either as no efficient at all, or but a tranſitory, it comes not into the definition. That conſent I mean which is a love fitly diſpos'd to mutual help and comfort of life; this is that happy Form of mariage naturally ariſing from the very heart of divine inſtitution in the Text, in all the former definitions either obſcurely, and under miſtak'n terms expreſt, or not at all. This gives mariage all her due, all her benefits, all her beeing, all her diſtinct and proper beeing. This makes a mariage not a bondage, a bleſſing not a curſe, a gift of God not a ſnare. Unleſs ther be a love, and that love born of fitnes, how can it laſt? unleſs it laſt how can the beſt and ſweeteſt purpoſes of mariage be attain'd, and they not attain'd, which are the cheif ends, and with a lawful love conſtitute the formal cauſe it ſelf of mariage, how can the eſſence thereof ſubſiſt, how can it bee indeed what it goes for? Conclude therfore by all the power of reaſon, that where this eſſence of mariage is not, there can bee no true mariage; and the parties either one of them, or both are free, and without fault rather by a nullity, then by a divorce may betake them to a ſecond choys; if thir preſent condition be not tolerable to them. If any ſhall ask, why domeſtic in the definition? I anſwer, that becauſe both in the Scriptures, and in the graveſt Poets and Philoſophers I finde the properties and excellencies of a wife ſet out only from domeſtic vertues; if they extend furder, it diffuſes them into the notion of ſom more common duty then matrimonial.

Thus farre of the definition; the Conſectary which flows from p. 23thence, and altogether depends theron, is manifeſtly brought in by this connexive particle Therfore; and branches it ſelf into a double conſequence; Firſt individual Society, therfore ſhall a man leav father and mother: Secondly conjugal benevolence, and they ſhall bee one fleſh. Which as was ſhewn, is not without cauſe heer mention'd, to prevent and to aboliſh the ſuſpect of pollution in that natural and undefiled act. Theſe conſequences therfore cannot either in Religion, Law, or Reaſon bee bound, and poſted upon mankind to his ſorrow and miſery, but receiv what force they have from the meetnes of help and ſolace, which is the formal cauſe and end of that definition that ſuſtains them. And although it be not for the Majeſty of Scripture to humble her ſelf in artificial theorems, and definitions, and Corollaries, like a profeſſor in the Schools, but looks to be analys'd, and interpreted by the logical induſtry of her Diſciples and followers, and to bee reduc't by them, as oft as need is, into thoſe Sciential rules, which are the implements of inſtruction, yet Moſes, as if foreſeeing the miſerable work that mans ignorance and puſillanimity would make in this matrimonious buſines, and endevouring his utmoſt to prevent it, condeſcends in this place to ſuch a methodical and Schoollike way of defining, and conſequencing, as in no place of the whole Law more.

Thus wee have ſeen, and if wee be not contentious, may know what was Mariage in the beginning, to which in the Goſpel wee are referr'd; and what from hence to judge of nullity, or divorce, Heer I eſteem the work don; in this field the controverſie decided; but becauſe other places of Scripture ſeem to look averſly upon this our deciſion, although indeed they keep all harmony with it, and becauſe it is a better work to reconcile the ſeeming diverſities of Scripture, then the reall diſſentions of neereſt friends, I ſhall aſſay in three following Diſcourſes to perform that Office.

Deut. 24. 1, 2.

1. When a man hath taken a Wife, and married her, and it come to paſs that ſhe find no favour in his eyes, becauſe he hath found ſom uncleannes in her, then let him write her a bill of divercement, and give it in her hand, and ſend her out of his houſe.

p. 242 And when ſhe is departed out of his houſe, ſhe may goe and be another mans wife.

THat which is the only diſcommodity of ſpeaking in a cleer matter, the abundance of argument that preſſes to bee utter'd, and the ſuſpence of judgement what to chooſe, and how in the multitude of reaſon, to be not tedious, is the greateſt difficulty which I expect heer to meet with. Yet much hath bin ſaid formerly concerning this Law in the Doctrins of divorce; Wherof I ſhall repeat no more then what is neceſſary. Two things are heer doubted: Firſt, and that but of late, whether this bee a Law or no, next what this reaſon of uncleannes might mean for which the Law is granted; That it is a plain Law no man ever queſtion'd, till Vatablus within theſe hunder'd years profeſs'd Hebrew at Paris, a man of no Religion, as Beza deciphers him. Yet ſom there be who follow him, not only againſt the current of all antiquity, both Jewiſh and Chriſtian, but the evidence of Scripture alſo, Malach. 2. 16. Let him who hateth put away ſaith the Lord God of Iſrael. Although this place alſo hath bin tamper'd with, as if it were to be thus render'd, The Lord God ſaith, that hee hateth putting away. But this new interpretation reſts only in the autority of Junius; for neither Calvin, nor Vatablus himſelf, nor any other known Divine ſo interpreted before. And they of beſt note who have tranſlated the Scripture ſince, and Diodati for one, follow not his reading. And perhaps they might reject it, if for nothing els, for theſe two reaſons: Firſt, it introduces in a new manner the perſon of God ſpeaking leſs Majeſtic then he is ever wont; When God ſpeaks by his Profet, he ever ſpeaks in the firſt perſon; thereby ſignifying his Majeſty and omni-preſence. Hee would have ſaid, I hate putting away, ſaith the Lord; and not ſent word by Malachi in a ſudden faln ſtile, The Lord God ſaith that hee hateth putting away: that were a phraſe to ſhrink the glorious omnipreſence of God ſpeaking, into a kind of circumſcriptive abſence. And were as if a Herald in the Atcheivment of a King, ſhould commit the indecorum to ſet his helmet ſidewaies and cloſe, not full fac't and open in the poſture of direction and command. Wee cannot think therfore that this laſt Profet would thus in a new faſhion abſent the perſon of God from his own words as if he came not along with them. For it would alſo be wide from the proper ſcope of this place: hee that reads attentively will ſoon p. 25perceav, that God blames not heer the Jews for putting away thir wives, but for keeping ſtrange Concubines, to the profaning of Juda's holines, and the vexation of thir Hebrew wives, v. 11. and 14. Judah hath maried the daughter of a ſtrange God: And exhorts them rather to put thir wives away whom they hate, as the Law permitted, then to keep them under ſuch affronts. And it is receiv'd that this Profet livd in thoſe times of Ezra and Nehemiah (nay by ſom is thought to bee Ezra himſelf) when the people were forc't by theſe two Worthies to put thir ſtrange wives away. So that what the ſtory of thoſe times, and the plain context of the 11 verſe, from whence this rebuke begins, can give us to conjecture of the obſcure and curt Ebraiſms that follow, this Profet does not forbid putting away, but forbids keeping, and commands putting away according to Gods Law, which is the plaineſt interpreter both of what God will, and what he can beſt ſuffer. Thus much evinces that God there commanded divorce by Malachi, and this confirmes that he commands it alſo heer by Moſes.

I may the leſs doubt to mention by the way an Author, though counted Apocryphal, yet of no ſmall account for piety and wiſdom, the Author of Eccleſiaſticus. Which Book begun by the Grand-father of that Jeſus who is call'd the Son of Sirach, might have bin writt'n in part, not much after the time when Malachi livd; if wee compute by the Reigne of Ptolemaeus Euergetes. It profeſſes to explain the Law and the Profets; and yet exhorts us to divorce for incurable cauſes, and to cut off from the fleſh thoſe whom it there deſcribes, Eccleſiaſtic. 25. 26. Which doubtles that wiſe and ancient Writer would never have advis'd, had either Malachi ſo lately forbidd'n it, or the Law by a full precept not left it lawful▪ But I urge not this for want of better prooff; our Saviour himſelf allows divorce to be a command, Mark. 10. 3. 5. Neither doe they weak'n this aſſertion, who ſay it was only a ſufferance, as ſhall be prov'd at large in that place of Matthew. But ſuppoſe it were not a writt'n Law, they never can deny it was a cuſtom, and ſo effect nothing. For the ſame reaſons that induce them why it ſhould not bee a law, will ſtrair'n them as hard why it ſhould bee allow'd a cuſtom. All cuſtom is either evil or not evil; if it be evil, this is the very end of Law-giving, to aboliſh evil cuſtoms by wholſom Laws; unleſs wee imagin Moſes weaker then every negligent and ſtartling Politician. If p. 26it be, as they make this of divorce to be, a cuſtom againſt nature, againſt juſtice, againſt chaſtity, how, upon this moſt impure cuſtom tolerated, could the God of purenes erect a nice and preciſe Law, that the wife marryed after divorce could not return to her former husband, as beeing defil'd? What was all this following nicenes worth, built upon the leud foundation of a wicked thing allow'd? In few words then, this cuſtom of divorce either was allowable, or not allowable; if not allowable, how could it be allow'd? if it were allowable, all who underſtand Law will conſent, that a tolerated cuſtom hath the force of a Law, and is indeed no other but an unwritt'n Law, as Juſtinian calls it, and is as prevalent as any writt'n ſtatute. So that thir ſhift of turning this Law into a cuſtom wheels about, and gives the onſet upon thir own flanks; not diſproving, but concluding it to be the more firm law, becauſe it was without controverſy a granted cuſtom; as cleer in the reaſon of common life, as thoſe giv'n rules wheron Euclides builds his propoſitions.

Thus beeing every way a Law of God, who can without blaſphemy doubt it to be a juſt and pure Law. Moſes continually diſavows the giving them any ſtatute, or judgement, but what hee learnt of God; of whom alſo in his Song hee ſaith, Deut. 32. Hee is the rock, his work is perfet, all his waies are judgement, a God of truth and without iniquity, juſt and right is hee. And David teſtifies, the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. Not partly right and partly wrong, much leſs wrong altogether, as Divines of now adaies dare cenſure them. Moſes again of that people to whom hee gave this Law ſaith, Deut. 14. Yee are the childern of the Lord your God, the Lord hath choſen thee to bee a peculiar people to himſelf above all the nations upon the earth, that thou ſhouldſt keep all his Commandements; and be high in praiſe, in name, and in honour, holy to the Lord, Chap. 26. And in the fourth, Behold I have taught you ſtatutes and judgements eevn as the Lord my God commanded mee, keep therfore and doe them. For this is your wiſdom and your underſtanding in the ſight of Nations that ſhall hear all theſe Statutes and ſay, ſurely this great Nation is a wiſe and underſtanding people. For what Nation is ther ſo great, who hath God ſo nigh to them? and what Nation that hath Statutes and Judgements ſo righteons as all this Law which I ſet before you this day? Thus whether wee look at the purity and juſtice of God himſelf, the jealouſy of his honour among other Nations, the holines and moral perfection which p. 27hee intended by his Law to teach this people, wee cannot poſſibly think how he could indure to let them ſlugg & grow inveteratly wicked, under baſe allowances, & whole adulterous lives by diſpenſation. They might not eat, they might not touch an unclean thing; to what hypocriſy then were they train'd up, if by preſcription of the ſame Law, they might be unjuſt, they might be adulterous for term of life? forbid to ſoile thir garments with a coy imaginary pollution, but not forbid, but countnanc't and animated by Law to ſoile thir ſoules with deepeſt defilements. What more unlike to God, what more like that God ſhould hate, then that his Law ſhould bee ſo curious to waſh veſtures; and ſo careles to leav unwaſht, unregarded, ſo foul a ſcab of Egypt in thir Soules? what would wee more? the Statutes of the Lord are all pure and juſt: and if all, then this of Divorce.

Becauſe hee hath found ſom uncleannes in her. That wee may not eſteem this law to bee a meer authorizing of licence, as the Phariſes took it, Moſes adds the reaſon, for ſom uncleannes found. Som heertofore have bin ſo ignorant, as to have thought, that this uncleannes means adultery. But Eraſmus, who for having writ an excellent Treatiſe of Divorce, was wrote againſt by ſom burly ſtandard Divine, perhaps of Cullen, or of Lovain, who calls himſelf Phimoſtomus, ſhews learnedly out of the Fathers with other Teſtimonies and Reaſons, that uncleannes is not heer ſo underſtood; defends his former work, though new to that age, and perhaps counted licentious, and fears not to ingage all his fame on the Argument. Afterward, when Expoſiters began to underſtand the Hebrew Text, which they had not done of many ages before, they tranſlated word for word not uncleannes, but the nakednes of any thing; and conſidering that nakednes is uſually referr'd in Scripture to the minde as well as to the body, they conſtantly expound it any defect, annoyance, or ill quality in nature, which to bee joyn'd with, makes life tedious, and ſuch company wors then ſolitude. So that heer will be no cauſe to vary from the generall conſent of expoſition, which gives us freely that God permitted divorce, for whatever was unalterably diſtaſtful, whether in body or mind. But with this admoniſhment, that if the Roman law eſpecially in contracts and dowries left many things to equity with theſe cautions, exfide bonâ, quod aequius melius erit, ut inter bonos bene agier, wee will not grudge to think that God intended not licence heer to every humor, but to ſuch remediles greevances p. 28as might move a good, and honeſt, and faithfull man then to divorce, when it can no more bee peace or comfort to either of them continuing thus joyn'd. And although it could not be avoided, bat that men of hard hearts would abuſe this liberty, yet doubtles it was intended as all other privileges in Law are, to good men principally, to bad only by accident. So that the ſin was not in the permiſſion, nor ſimply in the action of divorce (for then the permitting alſo had bin ſin) but only in the abuſe. But that this Law ſhould, as it were, bee wrung from God and Moſes, only to ſerve the hard heartednes, and the luſt of injurious men, how remote it is from all ſenſe, and law, and honeſty, and therfore ſurely from the meaning of Chriſt, ſhall abundantly be manifeſt in due order.

Now although Moſes needed not to adde other reaſon of this law then that one there expreſt, yet to theſe ages wherin Canons, and Scotiſms, and Lumbard Laws, have dull'd, and almoſt obliterated the lively Sculpture of ancient reaſon, and humanity, it will be requiſit to heap reaſon upon reaſon, and all little enough to vindicat the whitenes and the innocence of this divine Law, from the calumny it findes at this day, of beeing a dore to licence and confuſion. When as indeed there is not a judicial point in all Moſes, conſiſting of more true equity, high wiſdom, and God-like pitty then this Law; not derogating, but preſerving the honour and peace of Mariage, and exactly agreeing with the ſenſe and mind of that inſtitution in Geneſis.

For firſt, if Mariage be but an ordain'd relation, as it ſeems not more, it cannot take place above the prime dictats of nature; and if it bee of natural right, yet it muſt yeeld to that which is more natural, and before it by elderſhip and precedence in nature. Now it is not natural that Hugh marries Beatrice, or Thomas Rebecca, beeing only a civill contract, and full of many chances, but that theſe men ſeek them meet helps, that only is natural; and that they eſpouſe them ſuch, that only is mariage. But if they find them neither fit helps, nor tolerable ſociety, what thing more natural, more original and firſt in nature then to depart from that which is irkſom, greevous, actively hateful, and injurious eevn to hoſtility, eſpecially in a conjugal reſpect, wherin antipathies are invincible, and wher the forc't abiding of the one, can bee no true good, no real comfort to the other. For if hee find no contentment from the other, how can he return p. 29it from himſelf, or no acceptance, how can hee mutually accept? what more equal, more pious then to untie a civil knot for a natural enmity held by violence from parting, to diſſolv an accidental conjunction of this or that man & woman, for the moſt natural and moſt neceſſary diſagreement of meet from unmeet, guilty from guiltles, contrary from contrary? It beeing certain that the myſtical and bleſſed unity of mariage can bee no way more unhallow'd and profan'd, then by the forcible uniting of ſuch diſunions and ſeparations. Which if wee ſee oft times they cannot joyn or peece up to a common friendſhip, or to a willing converſation in the ſame houſe, how ſhould they poſſibly agree to the moſt familiar and united amity of wedlock? Abraham and Lot, though dear friends and brethren in a ſtrange Country, choſe rather to part aſunder, then to infect thir friendſhip with the ſtrife of thir ſervants: Paul and Barnabas joyn'd together by the Holy Ghoſt to a Spiritual work, thought it better to ſeparate when once they grew at variance. If theſe great Saints joynd by nature, friendſhip, religion, high providence, and revelation, could not ſo govern a caſual difference, a ſudden paſſion, but muſt in wiſdom divide from the outward duties of a friendſhip, or a Collegueſhip in the ſame family, or in the ſame journey, leſt it ſhould grow to a wors diviſion, can any thing bee more abſurd and barbarous then that they whom only error, caſualty, art or plot hath joynd, ſhould be compell'd, not againſt a ſudden paſſion but againſt the permanent and radical diſcords of nature, to the moſt intimat and incorporating duties of love and imbracement, therin only rational and human, as they are free and voluntary; beeing els an abject and ſervile yoke, ſcars not brutiſh. And that there is in man ſuch a peculiar ſway of liking, or diſliking in the affairs of matrimony is evidently ſeen before mariage among thoſe who can bee freindly, can reſpect each other yet to marry each other would not for any perſwaſion. If then this unfitnes and diſparity bee not till after mariage diſcover'd, through many cauſes, and colours, and concealements, that may overſhadow; undoubtedly it will produce the ſame effects and perhaps with more vehemence, that ſuch a miſtakn pair, would give the world to be unmarried again. And thir condition Solomon to the plain juſtification of divorce expreſſes, Prov. 30. 21. 23. Where hee rells us of his own accord, that a hated, or a hatefull woman, when ſhee is married, is a thing for which the earth is diſquieted and cannot p. 30bear it; thus giving divine teſtimony to this divine Law, which bids us nothing more then is the firſt and moſt innocent leſſon of nature, to turn away peaceably from what afflicts and hazards our deſtruction; eſpecially when our ſtaying can doe no good, and is expos'd to all evil.

Secondly, It is unjuſt that any Ordinance ordain'd to the good and comfort of man, where that end is miſſing, without his fault, ſhould be forc't upon him to an unſufferable miſery and diſcomfort, if not commonly ruin. All Ordinances are eſtabliſht in thir end; the end of Law is the vertu, is the righteouſnes of Law. And therfore him wee count an ill Expounder who urges Law againſt the intention therof. The general end of every Ordinance, of every ſevereſt, every divineſt, eevn of Sabbath is the good of man, yea his temporal good not excluded. But marriage is one of the benigneſt ordinances of God to man, wherof both the general and particular end is the peace and contentment of mans mind, as the inſtitution declares. Contentment of body they grant, which if it bee defrauded, the plea of frigidity ſhall divorce: But heer lies the fadomles abſurdity, that granting this for bodily defect, they will not grant it for any defect of the mind, any violation of religious or civil ſociety. When as, if the argument of Chriſt bee firm againſt the ruler of the Synagogue, Luk. 13. Thou hypocrite, doth not each of you on the Sabbath day loos'n his Oxe or his Aſſe from the ſtall, and lead him to watering, and ſhould not I unbind a daughter of Abraham from this bond of Satan? it ſtands as good heer, yee have regard in mariage to the greevance of body, ſhould you not regard more the greevances of the mind, ſeeing the Soul as much excells the body, as the outward man excells the Aſs and more; for that animal is yet a living creature, perfet in it ſelf; but the body without the Soul is a meer ſenſeles trunck. No Ordinance therfore givn particularly to the good both ſpiritual and temporal of man, can bee urg'd upon him to his miſchief, and if they yeeld this to the unworthier part, the body, wherabout are they in thir principles, that they yeeld it not to the more worthy, the mind of a good man?

Thirdly, As no Ordinance, ſo no Covnant, no not between God and man, much leſs between man and man, beeing as all are, intended to the good of both parties, can hold to the deluding or making miſerable of them both. For equity is underſtood in every Covnant, p. 31eevn between enemies, though the terms bee not expreſt. If equity therfore made it, extremity may diſſolv it. But Mariage, they uſe to ſay, is the Covnant of God. Undoubted: and ſo is any covnant frequently call'd in Scripture, wherin God is call'd to witnes: the covnant of freindſhip between David and Jonathan, is call'd the Covnant of the Lord, 1 Sam. 20. The covnant of Zedechiah with the King of Babel, a Covnant to bee doubted whether lawfull or no, yet in reſpect of God invok't thereto, is call'd the Oath, and the Covnant of God, Ezech. 17. Mariage alſo is call'd the Covnant of God, Prov. 2. 17. Why, but as before, becauſe God is the witnes therof, Malach. 2. 14. So that this denomination adds nothing to the Covnant of Mariage, above any other civil and ſolemn contract: nor is it more indiſſoluble for this reaſon then any other againſt the end of its own ordination, nor is any vow or Oath to God exacted with ſuch a rigor, where ſuperſtition reignes not. For look how much divine the Covnant is, ſo much the more equal; So much the more to bee expected that every article therof ſhould bee fairly made good, no fals dealing, or unperforming ſhould be thruſt upon men without redreſs, if the covnant bee ſo divine. But faith they ſay muſt bee kept in Covnant, though to our dammage. I anſwer, that only holds true, where the other ſide performs, which failing, hee is no longer bound. Again, this is true, when the keeping of faith can bee of any uſe, or benefit to the other. But in Mariage a league of love and willingnes, if faith bee not willingly kept, it ſcars is worth the keeping; nor can bee any delight to a generous minde, with whom it is forcibly kept: and the queſtion ſtill ſuppoſes the one brought to an impoſſibility of keeping it as hee ought, by the others default, and to keep it formally, not only with a thouſand ſhifts and diſſimulations, but with open anguiſh, perpetual ſadnes and diſturbance, no willingnes, no cheerfulnes, no contentment, cannot bee any good to a minde not baſely poor and ſhallow, with whom the contract of love is ſo kept. A Covnant therfore brought to that paſſe, is on the unfaulty ſide without injury diſſolv'd.

Fourthly, The Law is not to neglect men under greateſt ſufferances, but to ſee Covnants of greateſt moment faithfulleſt perform'd. And what injury comparable to that ſuſtain'd in a fruſtrat and fals dealing Mariage, to looſe, for anothers fault againſt him, the beſt portion of his temporal comforts, and of his ſpiritual too, as it may fall out. p. 32It was the Law, that for mans good and quiet, reduc't things to propriety, which were at firſt in common; how much more Law-like were it to aſſiſt nature in diſappropriating that evil which by continuing proper becomes deſtructive. But hee might have bewar'd. So hee might in any other covnant, wherin the Law does not conſtrain error to ſo dear a forfeit. And yet in theſe matters wherin the wiſeſt are apt to erre, all the warines that can bee, oft times nothing avails. But the Law can compell the offending party to bee more duteous. Yes, if all theſe kind of offences were fit in public to bee complain'd on, or beeing compell'd were any ſatisfaction to a mate not ſottiſh, or malicious. And theſe injuries work ſo vehemently, that if the Law remedy them not, by ſeparating the cauſe when no way els will pacify, the perſon not releev'd betakes him either to ſuch diſorderly courſes, or to ſuch a dull dejection, as renders him either infamous, or uſeles to the ſervice of God and his Country. Which the Law ought to prevent as a thing pernicious to the Common wealth; and what better prevention then this which Moſes us'd?

Fifthly, The Law is to tender the liberty and the human dignity of them that live under the Law, whether it bee the mans right above the woman, or the womans juſt appeal againſt wrong, and ſervitude. But the duties of mariage contain in them a duty of benevolence, which to doe by compulſion againſt the Soul, where ther can bee neither peace, nor joy, nor love, but an enthrallment to one who either cannot, or will not bee mutual in the godlieſt and the civileſt ends of that ſociety, is the ignobleſt, and the loweſt ſlavery that a human ſhape can bee put to. This Law therfore juſtly and piouſly provides againſt ſuch an unmanly task of bondage as this. The civil Law, though it favour'd the ſetting free of a ſlave, yet if hee prov'd ungratefull to his Patron, reduc't him to a ſervil condition. If that Law did well to reduce from liberty to bondage for an ingratitude not the greateſt, much more became it the Law of God to enact the reſtorement of a free born man from an unpurpos'd, and unworthy bondage to a rightfull liberty for the moſt unnatural fraud and ingratitude that can be committed againſt him. And if that Civilian Emperour in his tide of Donations, permit the giver to recall his guift from him who proves unthankful towards him, yea, though hee had ſubſcrib'd and ſign'd in the deed of his guift, not to recall it though for this very cauſe of ingratitude, with much more equity doth Moſes p. 33permit heer the giver to recall no petty guift, but the guift of himſelf from one who moſt injuriouſly & deceitfully uſes him againſt the main ends and conditions of his giving himſelf, expreſt in Gods inſtitution.

Sixthly, Although ther bee nothing in the plain words of this Law, that ſeems to regard the afflictions of a wife, how great ſo ever, yet Expoſiters determin, and doubtles determin rightly, that God was not uncompaſſionat of them alſo in the framing of this Law. For ſhould the reſcript of Antoninus in the Civil Law give releaſe to ſervants flying for refuge to the Emperours ſtatue, by giving leav to change thir cruel Maiſters, and ſhould God who in his Law alſo is good to injur'd ſervants, by granting them thir freedom in divers caſes, not conſider the wrongs and miſeries of a wife which is no ſervant. Though heerin the counter ſenſe of our Divines, to me, I muſt confeſſe ſeems admirable; who teach that God gave this as a mercifull Law, not for man whom he heer names, and to whom by name hee gives this power, but for the wife whom hee names not, and to whom by name hee gives no power at all. For certainly if man beliable to injuries in mariage, as well as woman, and man be the worthier perſon, it were a prepoſterous law to reſpect only the leſs worthy; her whom God made for mariage, and not him at all for whom mariage was made.

Seventhly, The Law of mariage gives place to the power of Parents: for wee hold that conſent of Parents not had may break the wedlock, though els accompliſht. It gives place to maiſterly power, for the Maiſter might take away from an Hebrew ſervant the wife which hee gave him, Exod. 21. If it be anſwer'd that the mariage of ſervants is no matrimony: tis reply'd, that this in the ancient Roman Law is true, not in the Moſaic. If it bee added, ſhe was a ſtranger not an Hebrew, therfore eaſily divorc't, it will be anſwerd that ſtrangers not beeing Canaanites, and they alſo beeing Converts might bee lawfully maryed, as Rahab was. And her converſion is heer ſuppos'd; for an Hebrew maiſter could not lawfully give a heathen wife to an Hebrew ſervant. However, the divorcing of an Iſraelitiſh woman was as eaſy by the Law, as the divorcing of a ſtranger, and almoſt in the ſame words permitted, Deut. 24. and Deut. 21. Laſtly, it gives place to the right of warr, for a captiv woman lawfully maryed, and afterward not belov'd, might bee diſmiſt, only without ranſom. Deut. 21. If mariage may bee diſſolv'd by ſo p. 34many exterior powers, not ſuperior, as wee think, why may not the power of mariage it ſelf for its own peace and honour diſſolv it ſelf, wher the perſons wedded be free perſons, why may not a greater and more natural power complaining diſſolv mariage? for the ends why matrimony was ordain'd, are certainly and by all Logic above the Ordinance it ſelf, why may not that diſſolv mariage without which that inſtitution hath no force at all? for the prime ends of mariage, are the whole ſtrength and validity therof, without which matrimony is like an Idol, nothing in the world. But thoſe former allowances were all for hardnes of heart. Be that granted, untill we come where to underſtand it better: if the Law ſuffer thus farr the obſtinacy of a bad man, is it not more righteous heer, to doe willingly what is but equal, to remove in ſeaſon the extremities of a good man?

Eightly, If a man had deflowr'd a Virgin, or brought an ill name on his wife that ſhee came not a Virgin to him, hee was amerc't in certain ſhekles of Silver, and bound never to divorce her all his daies, Deut. 22. which ſhews that the Law gave no liberty to divorce, wher the injury was palpable; and that the abſolute forbidding to divorce, was in part the puniſhment of a deflowrer, and a defamer. Yet not ſo but that the wife queſtionles might depart when ſhee pleas'd. Otherwiſe this cours had not ſo much righted her, as deliverd her up to more ſpight and cruel uſage. This Law therfore doth juſtly diſtinguiſh the privilege of an honeſt and blameles man in the matter of divorce from the puniſhment of a notorious offender.

Ninthly, Suppoſe it might bee imputed to a man, that hee was too raſh in his choyſe and why took hee not better heed, let him now ſmart, and bear his folly as he may; although the Law of God, that terrible law doe not thus upbraid the infirmities and unwilling miſtakes of man in his integrity: But ſuppoſe theſe and the like proud aggravations of ſom ſtern hypocrite, more merciles in his mercies, then any literall Law in the vigor of ſeverity, muſt be patiently heard; yet all Law, and Gods Law eſpecially grants every where to error eaſy remitments, eevn where the utmoſt penalty exacted were no undoing. With great reaſon therfore and mercy doth it heer not torment an error, if it be ſo, with the endurance of a whole life loſt to all houſhold comfort and ſociety, a puniſhment of too vaſt and huge dimenſion for an error, and the more unreaſonable for that the like objection may be oppos'd againſt the plea of divorcing for adultery; hee p. 35might have lookt better before to her breeding under religious Parents: why did hee not then more diligently inquire into her manners, into what company ſhe kept? every glaunce of her eye, every ſtep of her gate would have propheci'd adultery, if the quick ſent of theſe diſcerners had bin took along; they had the divination to have foretold you all this; as they have now the divinity to puniſh an error inhumanly. As good reaſon to be content, and forc't to be content with your adultreſs, if theſe objecters might be the judges of human frailtie. But God more mild and good to man, then man to his brother, in all this liberty givn to divorcement, mentions not a word of our paſt errors and miſtakes, if any were, which theſe men objecting from their own inventions proſecute with all violence and iniquity. For if the one bee to look ſo narrowly what hee takes, at the peril of ever keeping, why ſhould not the other bee made as wary what is promis'd, by the peril of looſing? for without thoſe promiſes the treaty of mariage had not proceeded. Why ſhould his own error bind him, rather then the others fraud acquit him? Let the buyer beware, ſaith the old Law-beaten termer. Belike then ther is no more honeſty, nor ingenuity in the bargain of a wedloc, then in the buying of a colt: Wee muſt it ſeems drive it on as craftily with thoſe whoſe affinity wee ſeek, as if they were a pack of ſale men and complotters. But the deceiver deceivs himſelf in the unproſperous mariage, and therin is ſufficiently puniſht. I anſwer, that the moſt of thoſe who deceiv, are ſuch as either underſtand not, or value not the true purpoſes of mariage; they have the prey they ſeek, not the puniſhment: yet ſay it prove to them ſom croſs, it is not equal that error and fraud ſhould bee linkt in the ſame degree of forfeture, but rather that error ſhould be acquitted, and fraud bereav'd his morſel: if the miſtake were not on both ſides, for then on both ſides the acquitment will be reaſonable, if the bondage be intolerable; which this Law graciouſly determins, not unmindful of the wife, as was granted willingly to the common Expoſiters, though beyond the letter of this law, yet not beyond the ſpirit of charity.

Tenthly, Mariage is a ſolemn thing, ſom ſay a holy, the reſemblance of Chriſt and his Church; and ſo indeed it is where the perſons are truly religious; and wee know all Sacred things not perform'd ſincerely as they ought, are no way acceptable to God in thir outward formality. And that wherin it differs from perſonal duties, if they be p. 36not truly don, the fault is in our ſelves; but mariage to be a true and pious mariage is not in the ſingle power of any perſon; the eſſence whereof, as of all other Covnants is in relation to another, the making and maintaining cauſes thereof are all mutual, and muſt be a communion of ſpiritual and temporal comforts. If then either of them cannot, or obſtinatly will not be anſwerable in theſe duties, ſo as that the other can have no peaceful living, or enduring the want of what he juſtly ſeeks, and ſees no hope, then ſtrait from that dwelling love, which is the ſoul of wedloc, takes his flight, leaving only ſom cold performances of civil and common reſpects, but the true bond of mariage, if there were ever any there, is already burſt like a rott'n thred. Then follows diſſimulation, ſuſpicion, fals colours, fals pretences, and wors then theſe, diſturbance, annoyance, vexation, ſorrow, temtation eevn in the faultles perſon, weary of himſelf, and of all action public or domeſtic; then comes diſorder, neglect, hatred, and perpetual ſtrife, all theſe the enemies of holines and chriſtianity, and every one of theſe perſiſted in, a remediles violation to matrimony. Therfore God who hates all faining and formality, wher there ſhould bee all faith and ſincerenes, and abhorrs to ſee inevitable diſcord, wher there ſhould be greateſt concord, when through anothers default, faith and concord cannot bee, counts it neither juſt to puniſh the innocent with the tranſgreſſor, nor holy, nor honourable for the ſanctity of mariage, that ſhould bee the unlon of peace and love, to be made the commitment, and cloſe fight of enmity and hate. And therfore doth in this Law, what beſt agrees with his goodnes, looſning a ſacred thing to peace and charity, rather then binding it to hatred and contention; looſning only the outward and formal tie of that which is already inwardly, and really brokn, or els was really never joyn'd.

Eleventhly, One of the cheif matrimonial ends is ſaid to ſeek a holy ſeed; but where an unfit mariage adminiſters continual cauſe of hatred and diſtemper, there, as was heard before, cannot chooſe but much unholines abide. Nothing more unhallows a man, more unprepares him to the ſervice of God in any duty, then a habit of wrath and perturbation, ariſing from the importunity of troublous cauſes never abſent. And wher the houſhold ſtands in this plight, what love can ther bee to the unfortunat iſſue, what care of thir breeding, which is of main conducement to thir beeing holy. God therfore knowing p. 37how unhappy it would bee for children to bee-born in ſuch a family, gives this Law either as a prevention, that beeing an unhappy pair, they ſhould not adde to bee unhappy parents, or els as a remedy that if ther be childern, while they are feweſt, they may follow either parent, as ſhall bee agreed, or judg'd, from the houſe of hatred and diſcord, to a place of more holy and peaceable education.

Twelfthly, All Law is available to ſom good end, but the final prohibition of divorce a vails to no good end, cauſing only the endles aggravation of evil, and therfore this permiſſion of divorce was givn to the Jews by the wiſdom and fatherly providence of God; who knew that Law cannot command love, without which, matrimony hath no true beeing, no good, no ſolace, nothing of Gods inſtituting, nothing but ſo ſordid and ſo low, as to bee diſdain'd of any generous perſon. Law cannot inable natural inability either of body, or mind, which gives the greevance; it cannot make equal thoſe inequalities, it cannot make fit thoſe unfitneſſes: and where there is malice more then defect of nature, it cannot hinder ten thouſand injuries, and bitter actions of deſpight too ſuttle and too unapparent for Law to deal with. And while it ſeeks to remedy more outward wrongs, it expoſes the injur'd perſon to other more inward and more cutting. All theſe evils unavoidably will redound upon the children, if any be, and the whole family. It degenerates and diſorders the beſt ſpirits, leavs them to unſettl'd imaginations, and degraded hopes, careles of themſelvs, their houſhold and their freinds, unactive to all public ſervice, dead to the Common-wealth; wherin they are by one miſhapp, and no willing treſpas of theirs, outlaw'd from all the benefits and comforts of married life and poſterity. It conferrs as little to the honour and inviolable keeping of Matrimony, but ſooner ſtirrs up temptations, and occaſions to ſecret adulteries, and unchaſt roaving. But it maintaines public honeſty. Public folly rather, who ſhall judge of public honeſty? the Law of God, and of ancienteſt Chriſtians, and all Civil Nations, or the illegitimat Law of Monks and Canoniſts, the moſt malevolent, moſt unexperienc't, and incompetent judges of Matrimony?

Theſe reaſons, and many more that might bee alleg'd, afford us plainly to perceav, both what good cauſe this Law had to doe for good men in miſchances, and what neceſſity it had to ſuffer accidentally the hard heartednes of bad men, which it could not certainly p. 38diſcover, or diſcovering could not ſubdue, no nor indeavour to reſtrain without multiplying ſorrow to them, for whom all was indeavour'd. The guiltles therfore were not depriv'd thir needful redreſſes, and the hard hearts of others unchaſtiſable in thoſe judicial Courts, were ſo remitted there, as bound over to the higher Seſſion of Conſcience.

Notwithſtanding all this, ther is a loud exception againſt this Law of God, nor can the holy Author ſave his Law from this exception, that it opens a dore to all licence and confuſion. But this is the rudeſt, I was almoſt ſaying the moſt graceles objection, and with the leaſt reverence to God and Moſes, that could bee devis'd: This is to cite God before mans Tribunal, to arrogate a wiſdom and holines above him. Did not God then foreſee what event of licence or confuſion could follow? did not hee know how to ponder theſe abuſes with more prevailing reſpects, in the moſt eevn ballance of his juſtice and purenes, till theſe correctors cameup to ſhew him better? The Law is, if it ſtirre up ſin any way, to ſtirre it up by forbidding, as one contrary excites another, Rom. 7. but if it once come to provoke ſin, by granting licence to ſin, according to Laws that have no other honeſt end, but only to permit the fulfilling of obſtinat luſt, how is God not made the contradicter of himſelf? No man denies that beſt things may bee abus'd: but it is a rule reſulting from many pregnant experiences, that what doth moſt harm in the abuſing, us'd rightly doth moſt good. And ſuch a good to take a way from honeſt men, for beeing abus'd by ſuch as abuſe all things, is the greateſt abuſe of all. That the whole Law is no furder uſefull, then as a man uſes it lawfully, St. Paul teaches 1 Tim. 1. And that Chriſtian liberty may bee us'd for an occaſion to the fleſh, the ſame Apoſtle confeſſes, Galat. 5. yet thinks not of removing it for that, but bidds us rather Stand faſt in the liberty wherwith Chriſt hath freed us, and not bee held again in the yoke of bondage. The very permiſſion which Chriſt gave to divorce for adultery, may bee fouly abus'd, by any whoſe hardnes of heart can either fain adultery, or dares committ, that hee may divorce. And for this cauſe the Pope, and hitherto the Church of England, forbid all divorce from the bond of mariage, though for openeſt adultery. If then it bee righteous to hinder for the fear of abuſe, that which Gods Law notwithſtanding that caution, hath warranted to bee don, doth not our righteouſnes come ſhort of Antichriſt, or doe we not rather p. 39heerin conform our ſelvs to his unrighteouſnes in this undue and unwiſe fear. For God regards more to releev by this Law the juſt complaints of good men, then to curb the licence of wicked men, to the cruſhing withall, and the overwhelming of his afflicted ſervants. He loves more that his Law ſhould look with pitty upon the difficulties of his own, then with rigor upon the boundleſſe riots of them who ſerv another Maiſter, and hinder'd heer by ſtrictnes, will break another way to wors enormities. If this Law therfore have many good reaſons for which God gave it, and no intention of giving ſcope to leudnes, but as abuſe by accident comes in with every good Law, and every good thing, it cannot be wiſdom in us, while we can content us with Gods wiſdom, nor can be purity, if his purity will ſuffice us, to except againſt this Law, as if it foſter'd licence. But if they affirm this Law had no other end, but to permitt obdurat luſt, becauſe it would bee obdurat, making the Law of God intentionally to proclame and enact ſin lawful, as if the will of God were becom ſinfull, or ſin ſtronger then his direct and Law-giving will, the men would bee admoniſht to look well to it, that while they are ſo eager to ſhut the dore againſt licence, they doe not open a wors dore to blaſphemy. And yet they ſhall bee heer furder ſhewn thir iniquity; what more foul and common ſin among us then drnnkennes, and who can bee ignorant, that if the importation of Wine, and the uſe of all ſtrong drink were forbid, it would both clean ridde the poſſibility of committing that odious vice, and men might afterwards live happily and healthfully, without the uſe of thoſe intoxicating licors. Yet who is ther the ſevereſt of them all, that ever propounded to loos his Sack, his Ale, toward the certain aboliſhing of ſo great a ſin, who is ther of them, the holieſt, that leſs loves his rich Canary at meals, though it bee fetcht from places that hazard the Religion of them who fetch it, and though it make his neighbour drunk out of the ſame Tunne? While they forbid not therfore the uſe of that liquid Marchandiſe, which forbidd'n would utterly remove a moſt loathſom ſin, and not impair either the health, or the refreſhment of mankind, ſuppli'd many other wayes, why doe they forbid a Law of God, the forbidding wherof brings into an exceſſive bondage, oft times the beſt of men, and betters not the wors? Hee to remove a Nationall vice, will not pardon his cupps, nor think it concerns him to forbear the quaffing of that outlandiſh Grape, in his unneceſſary fullnes, though other men p. 40abuſe it never ſo much, nor is hee ſo abſtemious as to intercede with the Magiſtrate that all matter of drunkennes be baniſht the Commonwealth, and yet for the fear of a leſs inconvenience unpardnably requires of his brethren, in thir extreme neceſſity to debarre themſelves the uſe of Gods permiſſive Law, though it might bee thir ſaving, and no mans indangering the more. Thus this peremptory ſtrictnes we may diſcern of what ſort it is, how unequal, and how unjuſt.

But it will breed confuſion. What confuſion it would breed, God himſelf took the care to prevent in the fourth verſe of this Chapter, that the divorc't beeing maried to another, might not return to her former Husband. And Juſtinians law counſels the ſame in his Title of Nuptials. And what confuſion els can ther bee in ſeparation, to ſeparat, upon extrem urgency, the Religious from the irreligious, the fit from the unfit, the willing from the wilfull, the abus'd from the abuſer, ſuch a ſeparation is quite contrary to confuſion. But to binde and mixe together holy with Atheiſt, hevnly with helliſh, fitnes with unfitnes, light with darknes, antipathy with antipathy, the injur'd with the injurer, and force them into the moſt inward neernes of a deteſted union, this doubtles is the moſt horrid, the moſt unnatural mixture, the greateſt confuſion that can be confus'd?

Thus by this plain and Chriſtian Talmud vindicating the Law of God from irreverent and unwary expoſitions, I truſt, wher it ſhall meet with intelligible perufers, ſom ſtay at leaſt of mens thoughts will bee obtain'd, to conſider theſe many prudent and righteous ends of this divorcing permiſſion. That it may have, for the great Authors ſake, heerafter ſom competent allowance to bee counted a little purer then the prerogative of a legal and public ribaldry, granted to that holy ſeed. So that from hence wee ſhall hope to finde the way ſtill more open to the reconciling of thoſe places which treat this matter in the Goſpel. And thether now without interruption the cours of method brings us.

p. 37TETRACHORDON,

MATT. 5. 31, 32.

31 It hath beene ſaid whoſoever ſhall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.

32 But I ſay unto you that whoſoever ſhall put away his wife, &c.