after cheek to blows, and the parting both with cloak and coat, if any please to be the rifler, will be forced to Fecommend himself to the fame expofition, though this chattering lawmonger be bold to call it wicked. Now note another precious piece of him; Chrift, faith he, "doth not fay that an unchafte look is adultery, but the lufting after her; as if the looking unchaftely could be without lufting. This gear is licensed for good reason Imprimatur."

Next he would prove, that the fpeech of Chrift is not uttered in excess againft the pharifees, firft, "because he speaks it to his difciples," Matth. v, which is false, for he fpake it to the multitude, as by the firft verfe is evident, among which in all likelihood were many pharifees, but out of doubt all of them pharifean difciples, and bred up in their doctrine; from which extremes of errour and falfity Chrift throughout his whole fermon labours to reclaim the people. Secondly, faith he, "becaufe Chrift forbids not only putting away, but marrying her who is put away." Acutely, as if the pharifees might not have offended as much in marrying the di vorced, as in divorcing the married. The precept may bind all, rightly understood; and yet the vehement manner of giving it may be occafioned only by the pha¬ rifees.

Finally, he winds up his text with much doubt and trepidation; for it may be his trenchers were not scraped, and that which never yet afforded corn of favour to his noddle, the faltcellar was not rubbed: and therefore in this hafte eafily granting, that his anfwers fall foul upon each other, and praying, you would not think he writes as a prophet, but as a man, he runs to the black jack, fills his flaggon, spreads the table, and ferves up dinner.

i

After waiting and voiding, he thinks to void my feeond argument, and the contradictions that will follow both in the law and gospel, if the Mofaic law were abrogated by our Saviour, and a compulfive prohibition fixed inftead: and fings his old fong," that the gofpel counts unlawful that which the law allowed," inftancing in cir cumcifion, facrifices, washings. But what are thefe cere

mial things to the changing of a moral point in houfehold duty, equally belonging to Jew and Gentile? Divorce was then right, now wrong; then permitted in the rigo, rous time of law now forbidden by law, even to the most extremely afflicted, in the favourable time of grace and freedom. But this is not for an unbuttoned fellow to difcufs in the garret at his treftle, and dimenfion of candle by the fnuff; which brought forth his fcullionly paraphrafe on St. Paul, whom he brings in difcourfing fuch idle ftuff to the maids and widows, as his own fervile inurbanity forbears not to put into the apoftle's mouth "of the foul's converfing:" and this he prefumes to do, being a bayard, who never had the foul to know what converfing means, but as his provender and the familiarity of the kitchen fchooled his conceptions.

He paffes to the third argument, like a boar in a vineyard, doing nought elfe, but still as he goes champing and chewing over, what I could mean by this chimera of a "fit converfing foul," notions and words never made for thofe chops; but like a generous wine, only by overworking the settled mud of his fancy, to make him drunk, and difgorge his vilenefs the more openly. All perfons of gentle breeding (I fay "gentle," though this barrow grunt at the word) I know will apprehend, and be fatisfied in what I fpake, how unpleafing and difcontenting the fociety of body muft needs be between those whofe minds cannot be fociable. But what should a man fay more to a fnout in this pickle? What language can be low and degenerate enough?

The fourth argument which I had was, that marriage being a covenant, the very being whereof confifts in the performance of unfeigned love and peace; if that were not tolerably performed, the covenant became broke and revocable. Which how can any, in whose mind the principles of right reafon and justice are not cancelled, deny? For how can a thing fubfift, when the true effence thereof is diffolved? Yet this he denies, and yet in fuch a manner as alters my affertion; for he puts in, "though the main end be not attained in full measure:" but my pofition is, if it be not tolerably attained, as throughout the whole difcourfe is apparent.

$ 3

Now

Now for his reafons; "Heman found not that peace and folace which is the main end of communion with God, fhould he therefore break off that communion?"

I anfwer, that if Heman found it not, the fault was certainly his own: but in marriage it happens far otherwise: fometimes the fault is plainly not his who feeks divorce: fometimes it cannot be difcerned whofe fault it is; and therefore cannot in reafon or equity be the matter of an abfolute prohibition.

His other inftance declares, what a right handicraftsman he is of petty cafes, and how unfit to be aught else at higheft, but a hackney of the law. "I change houses with a man; it is fuppofed I do it for my own ends; I attain them not in this houfe; I fhall not therefore go from my bargain." How without fear might the young Charinus in Andria now cry out, "What likeness can be here to a marriage?" In this bargain was no capitulation, but the yielding of poffeffion to one another, wherein each of them had his feveral end apart. In marriage there is a folemn vow of love and fidelity each to other: this bargain is fully accomplished in the change; in marriage the covenant ftill is in performing. If one of them perform nothing tolerably, but inftead of love, abound in difaffection, difobedience, fraud, and hatred; what thing in the nature of a covenant fhall bind the other to fuch a perdurable mifchief? Keep to your problems of ten groats, thefe matters are not for pragmatics and folkmooters to babble in.

Concerning the place of Paul, "that God hath called 'us to peace," I Cor. vii, and therefore, certainly, if any where in this world, we have a right to claim it reasonably in marriage; it is plain enough in the fenfe which I gave, and confeffed by Paraus, and other orthodox divines, to be a good fenfe, and this answerer doth not weaken it. The other place, that "he who hateth, may put away." which, if I fhow him, he promises to yield the whole controversy, is, besides Deut. xxiv, 1, Deut. 'xxi, 14, and before this, Exod. xxi, 8. Of Malachi I have spoken more in another place; and fay again, that the beft interpreters, all the ancient, and moft of the modern

22

modern translate it, as I cite it, and very few otherwise, whereof perhaps Junius is the chief.

Another thing troubles him, that marriage is called "the mystery of joy." Let it ftill trouble him; for what hath he to do either with joy or with mystery? He thinks it frantic divinity to fay, it is not the outward continuance of marriage that keeps the covenant of marriage whole; but whofoever doth moft according to peace and love, whether in marriage or divorce, he breaks marriage leaft. If I fhall spell it to him, he breaks marriage least, is to fay, he dishonours not marriage; for leaft is taken in the Bible, and other good authors, for, not at all. And a particular marriage a man may break, if for a lawful caufe, and yet not break, that is, not violate, or dishonour the ordinance of marriage. Hence thofe two questions that follow are left ridiculous; and the maids at Aldgate, whom he flouts, are likely to have more wit than the ferving-man at Addle-gate.

Whereas he taxes me of adding to the fcripture in that I faid love only is the fulfilling of every commandment, I cited no particular fcripture, but fpake a general fenfe, which might be collected from many places. For feeing love includes faith, what is there that can fulfil every commandment but only love? and I meant, as any intelligent reader might apprehend, every positive and civil commandment, whereof Chrift hath taught us that man is the lord. It is not the formal duty of worship, or the fitting ftill, that keeps the holy reft of fabbath; but whofoever doth moft according to charity, whether be works or works not, he breaks the holy reft of fabbath leaft. So marriage being a civil ordinance, made for man, not man for it; he who doth that which moft accords with charity, firft to himself, next to whom he next owes it, whether in marriage or divorce, he breaks the ordinance of marriage leaft. And what in religious prudence can be charity to himfelf, and what to his wife, either in continuing, or in diffolving the marriage-knot, hath been already oft enough difcourfed. So that what St. Paul faith of circumcifion, the fame I stick not to fay of a civil ordinance, made to the good and comfort of

$ 4

man,

man, not to his ruin; marriage is nothing, and divorce is nothing, "but faith which worketh by love." this I trust none can mistake.

And

Against the fifth argument, that a christian, in a higher order of priesthood than that levitical, is a perfon dedicate to joy and peace; and therefore needs not in fubjection to a civil ordinance, made to no other end but for his good, (when without his fault he finds it impoffible to be decently or tolerably observed) to plunge himself into immeasurable diftractions and temptations, above his ftrength; againft this he proves nothing, but gads into filly conjectures of what abufes would follow, and with as good reafon might declaim against the best things that are.

Against the fixth argument, that to force the continuance of marriage between minds found utterly unfit and difproportional, is against nature, and feems forbid under that allegorical precept of Mofes, "not to fow a field with divers feeds, left both be defiled; not to plough with an ox and an afs together, which I deduced by the pattern of St. Paul's reasoning what was meant by not muzzling the ox; he rambles over a long narration, to tell us that "by the oxen are meant the preachers:" which is not doubted. Then he demands, "if this my reafoning be like St. Paul's." And I anfwer him, yes. He replies, that fure St. Paul would be ashamed to reafon thus. And I tell him, no. He grants that place which I alleged, 2 Cor. vi, of unequal yoking, may allude to that of Mofes, but fays, "I cannot prove it makes to my purpose," and shows not firft how he can difprove it. Weigh, gentlemen, and confider, whether my affirmations, backed with reason, may hold balance against the bare denials of this ponderous confuter, elected by his ghoftly patrons to be my copesmate.

Proceeding on to speak of myfterious things in nature, I had occafion to fit the language thereafter; matters not, for the reading of this odious fool, who thus ever, when he meets with aught above the cogitation of his breeding, leaves the noifome ftench of his rude flot behind him, maligning that any thing should be spoke or understood