Contents make thefe breaches in unftaid minds, and men given to change." His words may be apprehended, as if they difallowed only to divorce for common difcontents, in unftaid minds, having no caufe, but a defire of change, and then we agree. But if he take all difcontents on this fide adultery, to be common, that is to fay, not dif ficult to endure, and to affect only unftaid minds, it might adminifter just cause to think him the unfittest man that could be, to offer at a comment upon Job*; as feeming by this to have no more true fenfe of a good man in his afflictions, than thofe Edomitish friends had, of whom Job complains, and against whom God teftifies his anger. Shall a man of your own coat, who hath efpoufed his flock, and represents Christ more in being the true hufband of his congregation, than an ordinary man doth in being the husband of his wife, (and yet this reprefentment is thought a chief caufe why marriage must be infeparable) fhall this fpiritual man ordinarily for the increase of his maintenance or any flight caufe, forfake that wedded cure of fouls, that should be dearest to him, and marry another and another? And fhall not a perfon wrongfully afflicted, and perfecuted even to extremity. forfake an unfit, injurious, and peftilent mate, tied only by a civil and fleshly covenant? If you be a man fo much hating change, hate that other change; if yourself be not guilty, counfel your brethren to hate it; and leave to be the fupercilious judge of other men's miferies and changes, that your own be not judged. "The reafons of your licenfed pamphlet," you fay, "are good;" they muft be better than your own then; I fhall wonder elfe how fuch a trivial fellow was accepted and commended, to be the confuter of fo dangerous an opinion as ye give out mine.

Now therefore to your attorney, fince no worthier an adversary makes his appearance, nor this neither his appearance, but lurking under the fafety of his namelefs obfcurity; fuch as ye turn him forth at the poftern, I muft accept him; and in a better temper than Ajax do mean to fcourge this ram for ye, till I meet with his Ulyffes.

• Mr. Caryl.

He begins with law, and we have it of him as good cheap as any huckster at law, newly fet up, can poffibly afford, and as impertinent ; but for that he hath received his handfel. He prefumes alfo to cite the civil law, which I perceive, by his citing, never came within his dormitory: yet what he cites, makes but against himself.

His fecond thing therefore is to refute the adverse pofition, and very methodically, three pages before he fets it down; and fets his own in the place, "that disagreement of mind or difpofition, though fhowing itself in much sharpness, is not by the law of God or man a just caufe of divorce."

To this pofition I anfwer; That it lays no battery against mine, no nor fo much as faces it, but tacks about, long ere it come near, like a harmless and refpectful confutement. For I confefs that difagreement of mind or difpofition, though in much tharpnefs, is not always a juft caufe of divorce; for much may be endured. But what if the fharpnefs be much more than his much? To that point it is our mishap we have not here his grave decifion. He that will contradict the pofition which I alleged, muft hold that no difagreement of mind or difpofition can divorce, though thown in moft fharpness; otherwife he leaves a place for equity to appoint limits, and fo his following arguments will either not prove his own pofition, or not difprove mine.

His firft argument, all but what hobbles to no purpose, is this; "Where the Scripture commands. a thing to be done, it appoints when, how, and for what, as in the cafe of death, or excommunication. But the Scripture directs not what measure of disagreement or contrariety may divorce therefore the Scripture allows not any divorce for difagreement."—Answ. First, I deny your major; the Scripture appoints many things, and yet leaves the circumftance to man's difcretion, particularly in your own examples: excommunication is not taught when, and for what to be, but left to the church. How could the licenfer let pass this childish ignorance, and call it good?" Next, in matters of death, the laws of England, whereof you have intruded to be an opiniaftrous fubadvocate, and are bound to defend them, conceive it

not

not enjoined in Scripture, when or for what caufe they fhall put to death, as in adultery, theft, and the like. Your minor alfo is falfe, for the Scripture plainly fets down for what measure of difagreement a man may divorce, Deut. xxiv, 1. Learn better what that phrase means, "if the find no favour in his eyes.'

Your fecond argument, without more tedious fumbling, is briefly thus: " If diverfity in religion, which breeds a greater diflike than any natural difagreement, may not caufe a divorce, then may not the leffer difagreement: But diverfity of religion may not; Ergo."

Anfw. First, I deny in the major, that diverfity of re figion breeds a greater diflike to marriage-duties than natural difagreement. For between Ifraelite, or chriftian and infidel, more often hath been feen too much love: but between them who perpetually clash in natural contrarieties, it is repugnant that there fhould be ever any married love or concord. Next, I deny your minor, that it is commanded not to divorce in diverfity of religion, if the infidel will ftay: for that place in St. Paul commands nothing, as that book at large affirmed, though you overskipped it.

Secondly, If it do command, it is but with condition that the infidel be content, and well-pleafed to ftay, which cuts off the fuppofal of any great hatred or difquiet between them, feeing the infidel had liberty to depart at pleafure; and fo this comparison avails nothing.

Your third argument is from Deut. xxii, "If a man hate his wife, and raife an ill report, that he found her no virgin;" if this were falfe," he might not put her away," though hated never fo much.

Anf. This was a malicious hatred, bent against her life, or to fend her out of doors without her portion, Such a hater lofes by due punishment that privilege, Deut. xxiv, 1, to divorce for a natural diflike; which, though it could not love conjugally, yet fent away civilly, and with juft conditions. But doubtlefs the wife in that former cafe had liberty to depart from her false accufer, left his hatred fhould prove mortal; elfe that law, peculiarly made to right the woman, had turned to her greatest mifchief.

R 4

Your

Your fourth argument is; "One chriftian ought to bear the infirmities of another, but chiefly of his wife."

Anf. I grant infirmities, but not outrages, not perpetual defraudments of trueft conjugal fociety, not injuries and vexations as importunate as fire. Yet to endure very much, might do well an exhortation, but not a compulfive law. For the Spirit of God himself, by Solomon, declares that fuch a confort "the earth cannot bear. and better dwell in a corner of the houfe-top, or in the wildernefs." Burdens may be borne, but still with confideration to the strength of an honeft man complaining. Charity indeed bids us forgive our enemies, yet doth not force us to continue friendship and familiarity with those friends who have been falfe or unworthy towards us; but is contented in our peace with them, at a fair distance. Charity commands not the husband to receive again into his bofom the adulterous wife, but thinks it enough, if he difmifs her with a beneficent and peaceful difmiffion. No more doth charity command, ner can her rule compel, to retain ia ncareft union of wedlock one whose other groffeft faults, or disabilities to perform what was covenanted, are the juft caufes of as much grievance and diffention in a family, as the private act of adultery. Let not therefore, under the name of fulfilling charity, fuch an unmerciful and more than legal yoke be padlocked upon the neck of any chriftian.

Your fifth argument: "If the husband ought to love his wife, as Chrift his church, then ought the not to be put away for contrariety of mind."

Anfw. This fimilitude turns against him; for if the husband must be as Chrift to the wife, then must the wife be as the church to her husband. If there be a perpetual contrariety of mind in the church toward Chrift, Chrift himself threatens to divorce fuch a spouse, and hath often done it. If they urge, this was no true church, urge again that was no true wife.

I

His fixth argument is from Matth. v, 32, which he ex pounds after the old fashion, and never takes notice of what I brought against that expofition; let him therefore feek his answer there. Yet can he not leave this argument, but he must needs firft fhow us a curvet of his

22

madness,

madness, holding out an objection, and running himself upon the point. "For," faith he, "if Chrift except no cause but adultery, then all other causes, as frigidity, inceftuous marriage, &c. are no caufe of divorce;" and anfwers, "that the speech of Chrift holds univerfally, as he intended it; namely, to condemn fuch divorce as was groundlessly practifed among the Jews, for every cause which they thought fufficient; not checking the law of confanguinities or affinities, or forbidding other cause which makes marriage void, ipfo facto."

Anfw. Look to it now, you be not found taking fees on both fides; for if you once bring limitations to the univerfal words of Chrift, another will do as much with as good authority; and affirm, that neither did he check the law, Deut. xxiv, 1, nor forbid the causes that make marriage void actually; which if any thing in the world doth, unfitnefs doth, and contrariety of mind; yea, more than adultery, for that makes not the marriage void, nor much more unfit, but for the time, if the offended party forgive: but unfitnefs and contrariety fruftrates and nullifies for ever, unless it be a rare chance, all the good and peace of wedded conversation; and leaves nothing between them enjoyable, but a prone and favage neceffity, not worth the name of marriage, unaccompanied with love. Thus much his own objection hath done against himself.

Argument 7th. He infifts, "that man and wife are one flesh, therefore muft not feparate." But must be fent to look again upon the * 35th page of that book, where he might read an answer, which he ftirs not. Yet can he not abstain, but he muft do us another pleasure ere he goes; although I call the common pleas to witness, I have not hired his tongue, whatever men may think by his arguing. For befides adultery, he excepts other caufes which diffolve the union of being one flesh, either directly, or by confequence. If only adultery be excepted by our Saviour, and he voluntarily can add other exceptions that diffolve that union, both directly and by confequence; these words of Chrift, the main obftacle of

*First Edition.

divorce,