The remains of the reverend and learned Mr. John Corbet, late of Chichester printed from his own manuscripts.

MATRIMONIAL PƲRITY.

§ 1. MArriage is the Bond of an individual Conjunction between Man and Woman, instituted of God to an individual Conversation or Course of Life. This Bond cannot be dissolved by man, because it is not man but God that makes it, tho the Married parties voluntarily enter into it, and publick Officers instrumentally authorize their Act according to Gods Law. Hence it is said, Whom God hath joyned, let no man put asunder. But this Rule puts no bar to Gods right of dissolving this Bond by an Act of his Law upon causes therein declared.

§ 1. By the Church of Rome, Matrimony is held a Sacra∣ment upon this ground, That God hath consecrated it to be a Symbol of the indissoluble Conjunction of Christ with the Church, and of Grace to be conferred upon those that enter in∣to it. Indeed it is used in Scripture as a similitude to express or illustrate the Mystical Union betwixt Christ and his Church: But every similitude used in Scripture to express a holy Myste∣ry (as that of the Vine and Branches, to express the Union be∣tween Christ and the faithful), doth not thereby become a con∣secrated Symbol thereof, with a promise of Grace annexed to it, as so consecrated. Nevertheless, tho Matrimony be not an instituted Symbol of Divine Grace, yet Grace suitable to this state of Life is promised to the faithful; and this state (as all o∣ther things) is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, un∣to those holy ends which God hath designed in it.

§ 3. The Causes for which Matrimony was ordained, are ex∣cellently set by the Church of England in these words. First, It

was ordained for the Procreation of Children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid Fornication, that such as have not the gift of continency might Marry and keep themselves undefiled Mem∣bers of Christs Body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutu∣al Society, help and comfort, that the one ought to have of the o∣ther, both in prosperity and adversity.

It belongs to the substance of Matrimony, that the Man and the Woman give and take the power of their bodies mutually unto the conjugal due, called benevolence, 1 Cor. 7.3, 4. And they are so equal in the matter of Wedlock, that both of them are both superior and inferior in asking and rendering the said due. Hence it is a resolved case, That sterillity is not an impediment of Mar∣riage; because, tho the primary end, which is Procreation, be thereby hindred; yet the secondary end, to be a remedy against sin, which is also of Gods ordaining, is obtained: But Frigidi∣ty or total Impotency, is a just impediment, because in that case both the primary and secondary end of Marriage is made void, and the essential due thereof cannot be rendered.

§ 4. As concerning the ancient Polygamy, or plurality of Wives at once, some conceive that it was only by Divine con∣nivence, and that it was a sinful practice, which God winked at. Others conceive that it was by Divine dispensation, and that the law of the Conjunction of one Man, and one Woman, was most consentaneous to nature; but that it was not in nature immutable and indispensable, but such as might be changed, the state of things and persons being changed; yet then not to be changed but by his authority from whom all the Laws of na∣ture do proceed. But whether Polygamy were allowed, or on∣ly winked at, it appears to be wholly disallowed by the Law of Christ, and was never as yet admitted in any Christian Com∣monwealth. If according to the words of Christ, a Man put∣ting away his Wife, and Marrying another, commiteth Adultery; much more doth he commit Adutery, if keeping the former Wife he Marry another.

The Concubines mentioned in the Old-Testament, were not, as in our days, unmarried, but properly Wives, tho in respect of some Matrimonial Priviledges inferior to Wives, strictly so

called. For their carnal Conjunction with any besides him, whose they were, was a defiling of the Marriage-bed. Con∣cerning Reuben, who lay with Bilhah, Jacobs Concubine, this is denounced, Thou shalt not excel, because thou wentest up to thy Fathers bed, then defiledst thou it, Gen. 49.4.

§ 5. As concerning the honour of Matrimony, it is written, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable among all men, and the bed undefiled; but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judg. This is the law of Christ. On the contrary, the hypocrisie, and the countefeit sanctity of those lyars, who were to bring in the great Apostacy upon the Christian Church, is foretold to con∣sist, among other things, in forbidding to Marry, 1 Tim. 4.3. And the prohibition of it to divers orders of men, and other unjust restrictions laid upon it, are one kind of the forbidding to Marry, intended in that prediction.

The wisest and most civilized Commonwealths, that were not Christians, have testified their great respect to Marriage, by encouraging it with many Priviledges, as more conducing to the publick good, than the single Life. By the Roman Laws, in times of Gentilism, Marriage was priviledged, and the single Life disadvantaged.

§ 6. The debasing of Matrimony, came in with the degene∣racy of the Church. Quickly after the Apostles age, Christians departed from the simplicity that is in Christ, by devising rules of Life which Christ required not; and built upon the precious foundation, which had been laid, Wood, Hay, and Stubble. And the Devotion both of men and women was carried forth to a self-devised religiousness, yet the essentials of Christianity were preserved sound.

Accordingly many of the Fathers of the Church extolled Ce∣libate and Virginity with excessive praises; and thought of Mar∣riage, as of a state less perfect; and some of them, as Jerome, were almost contumelious against it. Yet in those times some ap∣peared to give some check to those contumelies cast upon Mar∣riage.

When Christianity obtained the Empire, those Laws which were made in special favour of Marriage, and disadvantage of single Life, were abrogated; and the Monastick state was great∣ly

propagated and priviledged. Yea, in later times Married per∣sons were encouraged to forsake their yokefellows, and go into Monasteries.

§ 7. Upon this occasion, I am led to consider, what worth or excellence in celebate and virginity, more than in the Married Life, can be shewed from the Holy Scripture, or from right rea∣son.

In the Scripture we find no greater excellence ascribed to sin∣gle continence, than to Matrimonial chastity. It is said, 1 Cor. 7.1. It is good for a man not to touch a Woman. The goodness here spoken of, is a moral convenience; and in that respect to abstain from Marriage is here said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or vertuous. For it is vertuous to choose that which is most commodious to Christian life, and to avoid all avoidable hinderances of the freer exercise of godli∣ness. Now divers cares and troubles which accompany Marri∣age, may well be avoided by one who hath the special gift of continence. And those difficulties and sufferings which come upon us in times of the Churches calamities, may be better born, and the temptations thereof more easily escaped in a single, than in a Married Life.

In the same Chapter, vers. 25, 26. Virginity is commended, not from its intrinsick excellency (as far as that appears), but from its conveniency, in regard of the distresses of the Church. The Apostle saith, It is good for the present distress. Here also he useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which shews, that the thing is vertuously good; but upon what account? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It had in that state of things a Moral convenience, and therefore to make choice of it was vertuous. Yet he shews, vers. 28. that to Marry in such a time, is no sin, tho not to Marry be more expedient. Like∣wise, vers. 32, 33, 34. and so to the end of the Chapter, single Life is prefered before Marriage, by reason of its convenience, and on no other account.

§ 8. Marriage was instituted for man in the state of inno∣cence. And it must needs be acknowleeged by all, that in that state it would have been altogether as pure and perfect as Celibate and Virginity. If Matrimony, by reason of the fall be accompanied with some unavoidable irregularities, or inordinate motions

in the sensitive Nature, single life is a like, yea perhaps more ob∣noxious in that respect.

Matrimonial chastity is as truly chastity, as Virginal chastity. And the same degree of Matrimonial chastity is equally pure, with the same degree of Virginal chastity; or to speak in other terms, there may be as great chastity both of body and mind in Matrimony, as in Virginity.

If there be a glory and excellency in that Victory over sense, which they have, who having the gift of continence, abstain from the sensitive pleasure of the Marriage-bed; it may be equalled by the sobriety and regularity of the use of the Marriage bed, being accompanied with a Christian Wisdom, Fortitude, and Pa∣tience in bearing and managing the difficulties of the Married condition, for the glory of God, and the good of the Church and Commonwealth, besides the private good of Families. And there appears much less self-denial in a single, than in a married life, to be exercised by those that have the gift of continence.

§ 9. Principles tending to render Marriage vile and loathsome, have been propagated by some out of an excessive admiration of Virginity, and total abstinence from carnal conjunction; and by others, whose interest it was to inhance the reputation of single life, for the strengthning of the Papal Kingdom. Of which sort are these, viz. The natural desire of copulation is prohibited lust: That corporeal delight may not be intended in the conjugal act: That a mans desire of pleasure with his own Wife cannot be with∣out sin: That a man doth sin, except he come to the act with grief. Accordingly some Popish Writers have said, That most frequently mortal sin, and always venial sin, is committed in the conjugal act. And the truth is, if these things were true, they were enough to deter from Marriage all those that have a due care of their own souls.

Some of great name among the Ancients held, That there should have been no commixtion of Sexes in the state of inno∣cence, because tho it were used for procreation alone, yet (as they thought) it could not have been without shameful lust.

§ 10. Now for the redargation of such opinions, let it be con∣sidered, that when men otherwise very worthy, shall give scope to their own conceits, and shall advance self-chosen ways, they will

overlook the clearest evidence both of Scripture and Reason. For what other cause could be rendered for the creation of the differ∣ent Sexes, but the foresaid commixtion? And of a man and his wife in the state of innocence it was said, They shall be one flesh. And for the vehement desire of the said conjunction, it is in it self an Animal Faculty for the conservation of the Species, as the like desire of ingestion and egestion is for the conservation of the in∣dividual.

Since the Fall, the sensitive appetite ought to be distinguished from its inordinacy, from which by grace it may be separated, and so it may be alike pure and sinless with other parts of human nature in this imperfect state. And this being granted in other kinds of sensitive appetite, why should it be denied in the kind here treated of? Some say of it, That it is a brutifying act; and that the mind is so carried away therein, that it can think nothing worthy of a wise man. But I make no question, but godly per∣sons know the contrary by experience. And I can see no reason, but that they who have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts (as all true Christians have) may by due care carry them∣selves in this matter with a due sobriety and regularity, and that the more perfect Christians ordinarily do so. And tho herein they be not perfectly, yet they are prevalently pure. And that it is perfectly pure, can scarce be said of any good act in the present state of mankind. The delight of eating and drinking after hun∣ger and thirst, or of rest after labour, doth swallow up Reason in the Vicious, or more or less disturb it, according to the de∣gree of their intemperance. And so the delight here considered, doth swallow up Reason in them that use it inordinately, and that more or less, according to the degree of their inordinacy. But as the delight of eating and drinking doth not brutifie the temperate; so the delight here considered, doth not brutifie them that use it purely and soberly, not in opposition, but subordinati∣on to spiritual delights.

§ 11. Indeed it is undeniable, and witnessed by the common sense of human nature, that since the Fall a shameful turpitude doth inseperably adhere to this act. And this is a natural intima∣tion to mankind of their vicious propagation in their fallen state (I mean in respect of original sin) and a manifest sign of the com∣mon viciousness and brutishness in this case, as also of the impo∣tence

of passion or sensual commotion, to which all are obnoxi∣ous herein, and ordinarily more than in other sensualities, if it be not carefully brought under the due governnance of reason. Wherefore that Cynical impudence which some are reported to have acted herein, is to be abhorred of all men. And even Hu∣man, much more Christian modesty, requires the greatest reserv∣edness herein. Nevertheless, this inseparably adhering turpitude is not always and directly, or of it self a sinfulness. That there is a natural, where there is not a sinful turpitude, many instances do shew. That many things just, and honest, and necessary, have a kind of shamefulness in them, is acknowledged by men in general. If in the present instance there be always some sinfulness, it is no other than what is found in all the good acts of men in this their imperfect state. And those acts are not counted nor called sins by reason of such adhering sinfulness, for that they are prevalently, tho not perfectly good and virtuous.

§ 12. Continence in single life is not a common, but a special gi••t, which all have not received, Mat. 19 10, 11. When the Disciples said, If the case of a man be so with his Wife, it is good not to marry; Our Saviour answered, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. And v. 12. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. The Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 7.7. I would that every man were even as my self; but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, another after that. And of the unmarried and Widows he speaks, If they cannot con∣tain, let them marry. This shews that all have not that singular gift from God to preserve themselves in pureness of body and spi∣rit, without the remedy of Marriage. And nothing can be pro∣duced from Scripture or Reason to argue that the bare want of the said singular gift is a sinful incontinence. The general impetus of nature to the conjunction of Male and Female, is neces∣sary to the perpetuating of mankind. And if it were not so ge∣nerally implanted in nature, there is reason to think, that con∣sidering the many great intanglements and molestations that ac∣company Marriage, many would not encumber themselves therewith, and so would refuse to serve the Providence of God, in the successive Generations of men upon Earth, in that regular way of Procreation, which he hath appointed for mankind from the beginning.

And who knows, but in the state of Innocence, as there might be vehement Hunger and Thirst, so there might be an impetus of Nature to this conjuction? I suppose that in the state of innocence, the motions of the sensitive appetite would not be raised, and laid immediately, at the call of the rational ap∣petite; but from the sensitive nature it self as the immediate source and spring from which they issue, and to which they return. Yet I firmly hold, that in that state, the said motions were so perfectly under the government of the rational appetite, doing its Office, as thereby to be always diverted from whatsoever would be dishonest. But I think, that that good government must have been maintained by prudence and diligence; not in∣deed with trouble and difficulty (as now it is), but with a pleasant and facile industry. In case of Hunger and Thirst, In∣nocent nature might admit a simple motion of sense to Eat and Drink in a time unseasonable for such an act; but Reason, and the rational appetite, would so bridle it, that no irregular act of Mind or Body should follow.

§ 13. In the want of the gift of continence, legitimate Ma∣trimony is the remedy appointed of God, 1 Cor. 7.1. It is good for a man not to touch Woman. Nevertheless to avoid Fornication, let every Man have his own Wife, and every Woman her own Husband. The meaning whereof is, Tho in di∣vers respects it be more convenient to be unmarried; yet there is one respect of greater moment, which commands the use there∣of, viz. to avoid Fornication. And vers. 9. It is better to Mar∣ry than to burn. God doth not give to all, to overcome the in∣ordinacy of carnal desire, without Marriage, where it may be duly had; and such as cannot otherwise overcome the said inor∣dinacy, must Marry if they can, to keep themselves pure in Bo∣dy and Mind, or (as 'tis expressed in the Liturgy), undefiled Members of Christs Body.

§ 14. They who are unavoidably kept from Marriage, or be∣ing in Wedlock are d••p••ived of conjugal imbraces by their yoke∣fellows infirmities, or necessary absence, must rely upon God for strength to repress inordinate motions, and to keep themselves in that purity of heart and life, which is acceptable to him. For the necessary help of his Grace is never wanting to those

that use his means, and keep within the bounds which he hath set.

God will not have his order broken, nor his universal per∣petual law transgressed, (such as the Law of Marriage is) to satisfie mens natural desires. But when they are debarred of Gods appointed remedy, or when they have used it, but are by his providence frustrated of the benefit thereof, they must not transgress the limits which he hath set them; but they must have patience, and strive against nature, and expect such relief from Gods Grace, as shall be sufficient for them.

§ 15. To be regulated by those Laws which God hath set in Nature and Scripture, is mans uprightness; but to depart from them to self-devised ways, is his sin and folly, under a shew of Wisdom; and by pleasing himself therein, he deviates more and more from the right way. The general admiring of Mon∣kery and Vows of single Life, hath as much contributed to the corruption of the Christian Religion, and the advancing of the Antichristian Impurity and Superstition, as any institution or custom that ever was taken up in the Christian Church.

Howbeit some may be called to single Life for Religions sake, according to the Words of our Saviour, Matt. 19.12. There he Eunuchs, which have made themselves Eunuchs for the king∣dom of Heavens sake. He that is able to receive it, let him re∣ceive it. Such as clearly know, they have received the gift above mentioned, may be called of God to single Life, to im∣ploy themselves more freely in serving God, either in a pub∣lick or private calling. All that are so gifted, are not hereun∣to called; because many of them may be required to glorifie God, and do good in a Married state, either in respect of their own Families, or the Commonwealth. But in regard there be few comparatively, who have received this gift, it is most ra∣tionally supposed, that they who have received it, should make use of it (yet not under the constraint of a Vow, but freely) for those holy and good e••ds which are best obtained by it, ex∣cept some special reason, as aforesaid, doth oblige them to Mar∣ry. But let them know, that in using their gift, they do no more than what is their duty to do. The distinction between Coun∣sels and Precepts in this and other matters, is but vain. For it is the bounden duty of all, to do their utmost for the Glo∣ry

of God, and their own, and others good.

§ 16. As self-devised religiousness by degrees increased among Christians, accordingly many rigorous Prohibitions and Limi∣tations about Marrying, both groundless and unreasonable, were devised. Many of the Ancients, both Fathers of the Church, and Hereticks, were averse to, or at least not much pleased with second successive Marriages, either in Clergy or Laity. And some degree of Penance for the same was injoyned by the Canons of some Councils.

The Scripture saith, Marriage is honourable in all, without exception; thereby shewing, that no condition of life puts a bar to it, against those who are capable of it. And if no con∣dition of Life be a bar thereunto, why should former Marri∣ages be so? The Scripture expresly asserts the lawfulness of se∣cond Marriages, Rom. 7.3. If a Woman, while her husband lives, be married to another, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law: so that she is no adulteress, tho she be married to another man. St. Paul saith of Widows, 2 Cor. 7.9 If they cannot contain, let them marry. Vers. 39. A Wife is bound by the law, as long as her husband lives: but if her husband he dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord.

Those young Widows, whose Marriage is condemned, 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. were such as had devoted themselves to the service of the Church, according to the manner of those times. And they are said to have Condemnation, not simply because they mar∣ried, but because they cast off their first faith, that is, they did violate their engagement to Christ, and the Church, to please the flesh. Upon this ground the Apostle forbids the admitting of younger Women into that special Ministry, that they might not be exposed to such temptation. And vers. 14. he exprefly wills, That the younger women should marry; which must necessarily include young Widows also; because it is brought in immedi∣ately after the condemning of young Widows in case of preva∣rication against their aforesaid engagement. His meaning is to shew, that it is most covenient for them to Marry in regard of their age and condition; yet not to bind any absolutely so to do.

Some of the Ancients thought the Apostle granted second Marriages only ex Venia, by way of indulgence or dispensa∣tion; so that he who used it, sinned not, as being not forbidden by the Law; but he did not fulfil that high perfection of Life that the Gospel calls unto. But herein such indulged their own opinion; and I find that they were in other things very fanciful, and over-rigorous in their Principles, and somewhat Stoical. But the Evangelical Law, or the New Testament, hath not so de∣clared.

The prohibiting of second Marriages, tends to the diminution of mankind, and the weakning of Commonwealths, with other inconveniences.

§ 17. Successive Marriages more often reiterated, had a greater ill name among the Ancients. But those places of Scripture which license Widows to marry, do it indefinitely, without limitation, to a Widow of the first Husband only. And we find in Scripture no restraint against third, fourth, or more Marriages. And according to reason, if a Widow of the first Husband may lawfully Marry, Why not also a Widow of the second Husband, seeing there may be the same justifiable cause of Marriage? Indeed there may be an excess in the reite∣rating of successive Marriages; but then the dishonesty or sin∣fulness lies not in the Reiteration of the Marriage in it self con∣sidered, but in the excess, as undecent and uncomely. The al∣lowable frequency of such Reiteration, is not punctually defined in general, and a like to all; but is varied according to the dif∣ferent cases of persons. In the case propounded by the Saddu∣ces to our Saviour of seven Brethren successively married to one Woman, Matt. 22.25. he speaks nothing of the illegitimacy or unsoundness of the said Marriages. The case of the Samaritan Woman, Job. 4. is to be considered. Our Saviour doth tax her for living at that time with one as a husband, who indeed was not her husband; but he doth not expresly reprove her former plurality of successive Husbands; nor do I observe that he puts any note of sinfulness upon it; yet for ought I know, there might be sinfulness in the undecent excess thereof.

The Papists say, That the Catholick Church allows second and third Marriages, and in whatsoever number successively; yet the benediction ought not to be allowed to such Marriages,

because the Consecration ought not to be reiterated. But this de∣nial of the benediction, and the ill reflection it hath upon second Marriages, is founded upon an error, that Marriage is a Sacrament, and consecrated to be a Symol of the Mystical Union between Christ and the Church.

§ 18. Seeing the gift of Continence in single Life, is the Priviledg of particular persons, and not of certain Orders and Callings of men, a Vow or other Obligation to single Life, should not be laid upon all that enter into some special Cal∣lings; but particular persons should be left free therein to marry, or abstain from Marriage, as they find themselves qua∣lified, and called to the one, or the other.

That Marriage is lawful and honest in the Ministers of the Gospel, is evident from Scripture, against all prejudices arising from customs introduced, or Canons made in after-ages. That one evidence, that among the qualifications of a Bishop, it is mentioned that he be the Husband of one Wife, is clear and full a∣gainst all contradiction. As Peter had a Wife, so Paul shews that he had power to take a Wife, even in his Apostleship, 2 Cor. 9 5. Have we not power to lead about a Sister, a Wife, as well as the other Apostles? By a Sister he means a believing Christian; by leading about a Sister, a Wife, he means living in Matrimony.

That disease of our fallen nature, for which Marriage is appointed a remedy, is common to all sorts; and therefore the remedy should be as common. And, as is before noted, the gift of Continence is a priviledg of particular persons, and not of certain Orders and Callings.

Marriage is in it self no more impure to the Clergy, than to the Laity, Tit. 1.15. Ʋnto the pure all things are pure. There is no Estate or Calling polluted by Marriage, or made less holy, or less worthy by the use of it; for it is honourable in all men. And it is to be considered, that Gods Law binds every Christian to live as chastly and purely, as a Priest or Minister of the Gospel. And that which doth not lessen the holiness of a Christian, doth not lessen the holiness of a Minister. Indeed Ministers are more strongly obliged than others to keep them∣selves chast in body and mind; because, whereas others are un∣der a single, they are under a double Obligation therunto, both as they are Christians, and as they are Christs Ministers. But

the chastity to which they are obliged, is the common duty of all Christians. Only where there is a greater engagement to chasti∣ty, there is a greater aggravation of the sin of uncleanness. And it concerns Ministers more than others, that they break not the Common Laws of Christianity in this regard, because thereby they give a greater scandal than others.

Moreover, Marriage is no more a hinderance to Ministers, than to all Christians in their acts of devotion. For all are re∣quired to exercise themselves unto godliness, to pray always, watching thereunto with all perseverance. And such exercises as require abstinence from conjugal embraces (as extraordinary prayer, with fasting) do alike concern Clergy and Laity. Not∣withstanding this evidence of Scripture and Reason for the Ho∣nesty of Marriage in the Clergy, the Policy of Hypocrites, and the Superstition of honest minds, hath so far prevailed against it, as to make it no better than Incest, and worse than Fornication.

§ 19 There is no more reason to restrain the Clergy from second Marriages, than from the first. For there is commonly as great reason impelling to a second Marriage, as to the first. And there is no more impurity or uncomeliness in the second Marria∣ges of Clergy-men, than in the first. The Matrimonial acts of second Marriages, have no more blemish nor unseemliness in them, than those of the first.

There is no reason to restrain the Clergy more than the Laity, from second Marriages. For if it may be sanctified to the one, it may as well be sanctified to the other also; if it may be necessary for the one, it may be also as necessary for the other. And the Matrimonial acts of second Marriages are no more uncomely in a Clerick, than in a Laick. No reason can be given why there ought not to be as great a chastity in every Christian, as in a Bishop. Every Christian is in a true sense a Priest to God, and a devoted person.

The Priests under the Law were expresly forbidden to take a Wife that was a Whore, or prophane, or a woman put away from her Husband, Lev. 21.7. And good reason there might be for prohi∣biting a Priests marriage with a divorced woman, because the Law of Divorce was but of divine sufferance to the Jews, for the hard∣ness of their hearts, as our Saviour saith. The High-Priest was expresly forbidden to marry a Widow, ver. 14. Some of the said

Prohibitions were most probably in reference to a ceremonial san∣ctity peculiar to the Mosaick dispensation. But neither the High Priest, nor other Priests were forbidden to marry a second Wife upon the death of the first.

I see no reason to conceive, that by the Text 1 Tim. 3.2. any thing is forbidden in a Bishop which is lawful in other Christians. By the husband of one Wife the Apostle means, one that is not married to two Wives at once, according to the custome of the Jews and other Eastern Nations; and one that hath not married a second Woman after he hath put away the first without lawful cause; or that hath not taken one that was unlawfully put away by another, according to the custom of the Western Nations.

§ 20. The forbidding of the innocent party to marry after a just divorce, was another groundless and unreasonable prohibiti∣on. Now the crime of adultery is the ground of a just divorce. Matt. 19.9. Whosoever putteth away his Wife, except it be for for∣nication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. Here the putting away of a Wife, and the marrying of another, is declared to be the committing of Adultery, except it be for Fornication. This by the most unquestionable Rule of interpretation shews, that if a man put away his Wife for Fornication, and marry ano∣ther, he doth not commit adultery. For this is the case expresly excepted from the general proposition, and therefore exempt from the guilt therein expressed; and unless such an exemption were thereby signified, the exception were in vain. And it is to be further noted, that the excepting of the case of Fornication, must refer more especially to the later clause of marrying another, be∣cause by the bare putting away of a Wife in any case, without proceeding further, there is no committing of Adultery. There∣fore it is the marrying of another in the said case of exception, that is designed to be exempted from the said guilt. Hereupon those general propositions about the same matter, Mark 10. Luke 16. must according to a just interpretation be limited by the ex∣ception here expressed, which must be necessarily there under∣stood.

Howbeit upon an unjust divorce, for the innocent or injured party to marry another, we do not find it lawful. For Christ declares, Mart. 5 21. Whosoever putteth away his Wife, s••ving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and

whosoever marrieth her that is divorced, committeth adultery. Here he seems to resolve, That he is an Adulterer that marrieth the in∣nocent party that is put away; and that the first contracted re∣lation is not dissolved by the unjust divorce; and that the woman unjustly put away, ought to stay unmarried in hope of being re∣conciled to her husband, until such time as his Adultery in any kind, and in particular in the marrying of another Wife, doth set her at liberty.

§ 21. For the further clearing of the point here discussed, it is to be noted in what sense the Mar••iage-bond is dissolved, and in what sense it is not dissolved by Adultery. Certain it is, that the said bond is not dissolved ipso facto by the said crime, so that the conjugal relation immediately ce••seth, and conjugal familla∣rity thenceforth becomes unlawful. N••vertheless the bond is so far dissolved, that the offending-party hath forfeited the relation, and all the consequent Rights thereof, and the injured party is no longer bound to continue the relation, and the consequent du∣ties thereof if he will take the forfeiture; and so the bond is actually dissolved, and the relation ceaseth by his will: yet he is bound to proceed in it regularly, and according to publick or∣der.

Whereas it is said by many, That the allowed divorce doth not signifie the breaking of the conjugal bond in the substance, but a relaxation thereof as to conjugal duties; it to be noted, that the question put to our Saviour by the Pharisees, was about putting away as to the Matrimonial bond. For there was no o∣ther putting away among the Jews, nor among the Romans, nor other Nations among whom Divorce was in use. Besides, to speak of a putting away, and of a being at liberty from bed and board, and all Matrimonial duties, and yet not from the bond of Matri∣mony, is but idle talk. The state is dissolved where all the obliga∣tions consequent to such a state are abrogated. Moreover the Pa∣pists themselves allow the dissolving of a Marriage with such an Infidel as will not cohabit without using contumely against Christ, and seeking to turn the yokefellow from Christ. And is not A∣dultery, especially if continued, as just a cause of the dissolution, seeing this cause is expressed in Gods Law, whereas the other is not? And whereas they say there is not the same firmness in the marriage of Infidels, as of Christians; this they speak without

proof, and against the Law of God, which hath made Matrimo∣ny as inviolable among Infidels, as among Christians. This is a Divine Ordinance belonging not to the Church only, but to all mankind.

§ 22. As touching the allowableness of another Marriage to the innocent party in case of a declared wilful desertion by the other, we find this written, 1 Cor. 7.15. If the unbe∣lieving depart, let him depart. A brother and sister is not under bondage in such cases. It is hence gathered by some, that in a Marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, in case the un∣believing party depart out of hatred to true Religion, and if the believing party hath used all possible and reasonable means to re∣duce the other to a due Conjunction, and hath staid a conveni∣ent time for that purpose, and cannot prevail therein, he is loosed from this bond. This inference from the Text, seems to me highly probable, that I cannot disallow it. Many Re∣formed Churches have determined this, and applied it further to other cases of obstinate desertion, besides this before menti∣oned; that the matter being judged by the Magistrate, the In∣nocent party may Marry another. As for the prohibition, Vers. 11. If she depart, let her remain unmarried; therein an∣other Marriage is forbidden only to such as voluntarily de∣part. It is to be noted, that there may be a just volunta∣ry departing, which is not of the same reason with a just di∣vorce.

§ 23. Abishag, who was sought for David, to cherish him in his extream age, 1 King. 1.2. was his Concubine, that is, not his Harlot, but his lawful Wife, in a secondary degree, or inferior rank. I mean lawful, only by Gods permission or con∣nivence, in regard of his plurality of Wives at once, accor∣ding to the custom of the ancient times; yet lawful by Divine Ap∣probation, in case he had had no other Wife then in being. From this example, it is at least probable that it is not a sin in it self in extream old age to take a Wife as a cherishing Nurse, or a bosom companion. For the declared intent of Davids taking Abishag, was that she might lie in his bosom, and cherish him in his age, when he could get no heat. And it is said, That she cherished him, but he knew her not.

§ 24. The Bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. is that which is not defiled with Adultery, Fornication, or any kind of unchast∣ness or unsoberness. To the maintaining of which undefiled∣ness, and the avoiding of all uncleanness, Christians are great∣ly obliged by the purity of their Religion. Here I design to speak of uncleanness not without, but within the bounds of Ma∣trimony, and to give caution against all corrupt behaviour be∣tween a Man and his own Wife; because men are commonly least aware of this evil; and because this is the Damnation of multitudes, who defile not themselves with strange embraces; and while they think they live chastly, do securely allow them∣selves in very great breaches of the laws of chastity. To keep the Bed undefiled, it is necessary to observe, not only the due object of Conjunction, or the legitimate person; but all due eircumstances of time, place, measure, manner, &c. For in∣ordinate sensuality or lust, is not excused by being acted be∣tween persons lawfully married. The honesty and honour of Matrimony cannot make that to be lawful and honest, which is in it self dishonest and sinful. All manner of lust or evil concu∣piscence, and the imperated acts thereof, are forbidden by the Law.

§ 25. There be divers ways of abusing the Marriage-bed, be∣tween a Man and his own Wife, whereof some are more foul and gross than others. There be nefarious irregulaties that some fall into by unbridled lust. There are preternatural ways, by which humane nature cannot be propagated, and which are justly to be abhorred by all, who have not lost the sense of hu∣manity. Moreover a man may come to his Wife, as to a Har∣lot, with a spirit of Whoredom, and seek a brutish pleasure, which extinguisheth the fear of God. Such excess as doth no∣tably impair the health of the Body, or vitiate the mind, and make it more carnal, is unquestionably to be avoided, and will be avoided by those that are careful to keep a sound state of body or mind.

§ 26. It is by all confessed, that in two cases the conjugal embraces are without fault: first, when they are for the sake of Procreation; secondly, when the due is rendred to the yoke∣fellow requiring it. The reason of the former is, because then

the action is referred to the primary end for which Matrimony was ordained. The reason of the later is, because it is an Act of Justice; that being rendred to another, which is his right. For herein the married parties have a mutual power over each other, 2 Cor. 7. Yet be it always minded, that even in the said cases, it must be regulated by the Rules of Christian Pu∣rity.

Some have said, That the use of the Marriage-bed, without respect to Procreation of Children, is base or unclean. And some chief Schoolmen have determined, that the use thereof, to allay the inordinancy of carnal desire, or to avoid Fornica∣tion, when Procreation is not designed, is a sin, tho but a Ve∣nial sin. This requires our animadversion.

§ 27. Among the ends of Marriage, this is one, and a principal one, and which renders it necessary, viz. To be a remedy a∣gainst Fornication, or against burning, that is the inordinacy of carnal desire, 1 Cor. 7.2. Nevertheless to avoid Fornication, let every man have his own Wife, and every Woman have her own Husband. Vers. 9. If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Now if this end of Marri∣age be so momentous, as to make it necessary in this case; Certain∣ly the use of the Marriage-bed for this end cannot be sin. That which God hath ordained for the cure of this disease com∣monly adhering to fallen nature, cannot be sin, being used to that end, tho the disease it self, which is the occasion of it, be not without sin. Moreover, that cannot be sin which the Apostle directs men to make use of to avoid Satans temptations to sin. But the Apostle directs to the use of the Marriage bed, as a preventive remedy against Satans temptations to incontinency, 2 Cor. 7.5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with con∣sent for a time, that you may give your selves to fasting and pray∣er; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your in∣continency.

If a mans case be such, that without the use of Marriage, Fornication, or other bodily uncleanness, or inward impurity of desires and motions, cannot be ordinarily avoided by him; and if in that case, it be his duty to marry, then the avoiding of Fornication, or other impurity, corporeal or mental, is one

lawful and honest end of the use of the Marriage-bed, even when there is no power of procreation; and the procreation of chil∣dren is not always necessary to be respected therein.

§ 28. When there be several lawful and necessary ends of the use of Marriage, viz procreation, and the avoiding of fornica∣tion or burning, it is not necessary that the later of the said ends should be always conjunct with, and referred to the former; but it may be sometimes separate and independent thereon. For the said ends are not things subordinate, but coordinate; each of them is intended for it self, and the one is not in meer subservien∣cy to the other. It is granted, that the former end is more noble, as being necessary to Nature in it self considered; and the later less noble, as being made necessary by Nature fallen. Yet it doth not appear from Scripture or right Reason, that the use of the Mar∣riage-bed is sinful and impure in the less noble, yet necessary end thereof, upon the failing of the other, which is the more noble. The truth is, as the state of man is since the Fall, there is no end of Marriage of greater moment, than the preserving of Chasti∣ty; and the due benevolence, 1 Cor. 7. is one of the essential dues of Marriage.

Let it be here noted, that they who hold the use of the Mar∣riage bed without respect to procreation, to be sin, do hold it no sin in that case to render the due benevolence when required, be∣cause it is a point of justice. But if this thing be a sin on the de∣manders part, the rendering of it cannot be a due. It is granted, there may be a sinful demanding of a just debt; and in that case the rendering of that which is sinfully demanded, is a point of ju∣stice; but it is not so, if the very thing demanded be the sin of the demander. For sin cannot be a matter of right; and there can be no obligation of Justice to cooperate to anothers sin. And therefore if the rendering of this benevolence be a righteousness, the demand thereof is righteous, and the thing demanded is no sin.

§ 29. They who reject the aforesaid end, and condemn the aforesaid use of Marriage, which is clearly justified, 1 Cor. 7.2, 3, 4, 5 do alledg that which is said ver. 6. This I speak by per∣mission, not of commandment. Wherein they say the Apostle by way of pardon grants the use of lust within the bounds of Ma∣trimony.

Hereupon the true intent of those words is to be examined. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used both for permission, and for pardon; and here it is evidently used for permission, being op∣posed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 commandment; and it signifies not the remit∣ting of a fault, but the allowing of an honest liberty, as contra∣distinct to the injoining of duty. The Apostle's meaning is, that he doth not injoyn Marriage, or the use of the Marriage due, as a general duty (for he wishes that all men were as himself) but allows it as a lawful benefit. And not only so, but he doth pre∣scribe it as a remedy against sin, for those that have need of it, in which case it becomes a duty.

To say that the use of lust is here granted within the bounds of Matrimony, is, I think, an imputation too foul to cast upon the word of God; and for it to grant by way of pardon the commit∣ting of a lesser sin, that some greater sin may be avoided, seems to derogate from its perfect purity. Never was any moral evil per∣mitted by Gods Moral Law, upon the reason of avoiding a great∣er evil. The permission of Divorce among the Jews, was but po∣litical, and did of it self amount to no more than a legal impunity in that Commonwealth. For the Divorcing of a Wife might be a mortal sin notwithstanding. Mal. 2 16. The Lord God of Is∣rael saith, that he hateth putting away. Moreover if the Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must needs signifie Pardon, let them who will have it so, shew cause why it must not be applied as well to the rendering, as to the demanding of the conjugal due For whatsoever the sense of the word be, neither the express Text, nor rational interpre∣tation doth carry it to one part, excluding the other. But them∣selves deny that the rendering of the due doth need pardon.

§ 13. It is common with those who are loose in the Command∣ments of God, to be very severe in the Traditions of men; ac∣cording to this kind of principle Popish Writers hold, that the intendment of corporeal delight in the use of Marriage, is a sin; and that it is not without fault if it be done partly for procrea∣tion, and partly for pleasure, tho the pleasure be not chiefly in∣tended. What strange rigor is here imposed upon mankind a∣gainst human nature it self, to make it sin for a man to be affect∣ed with desire of pleasure in the fruition of his own Wife? If sensitive pleasure be naturally connex with the innate appetite, the intended fruition thereof can be no more sin, than Nature

it self. Yea, let these rigid Imposers think, whether the non-frui∣tion, or non-intendment of that which is inseparable from sensi∣tive Nature, be naturally possible, and consequently whether ac∣cording to this principle, the procreation which they allow, must not necessarily be accounted sin. These and the like opinions greatly detract from the purity and honour of Marriage, and ma∣nifestly lessen the impurity and dishonour of Whoredome, by ma∣king Marriage it self so vile and faulty; and consequently they intangle the consciencious sort of men in causeless scruples, and im∣bolden the licentious in dissolute ways. The truth of the case is, That if Pleasure be ultimately intended in this or any other act of the Animal Nature, it is a mortal sin; but if it be intended in subser∣viency to holy and spiritual ends, it is no sin at all. Pleasure, and Lust, which is the inordinacy of Pleasure, are very different things. Lust, tho it keep within the bounds of Marriage, is in it self ever dishonest and repugnant to Reason, and cannot be venial, as the Papists hold it to be.

The truth is, the aforesaid Doctrines of Popish Writers do but serve, according to their known design, to debase Marriage, and render it a less desirable, yea a more unsafe state to the strictly consciencious, that they might inhance the estimate of single life. The Church of England hath otherwise determined in this case, That Marriage was ordained for a rem••dy against sin, and to avoid Fornication: That such persons as have not the gift of Conti∣nence, might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christs body. Which shews, that to marry for the said end, is not an yielding to Lust, but a means of that Chastity which be∣comes the members of Christ to have.

§ 31. Marriage being ordained, 1. For procreation of Chil∣dren: 2. For a remedy against sin: 3. For that mutual society, help and comfort that is necessary in this Animal life of mankind here upon earth, the sober and regular use of the marriage-bed, in order to any necessary help and comfort, doth not defile the conscience, but is sanctified to the pure and consciencious, even then, when respect to procreation, or the avoiding of sin, doth not urge it. Particularly, it is no way against Chastity or Chri∣stian purity, to use it for that necessary health of body which is evidently promoted by it, and especially if probably it cannot be well procured without it,

§. 32. It hath been judged by some of the Ancients, to be not only sinful, but nefarious for a man to lye with his Wife while she is with child. But I find not this utterly forbidden in Scripture, either expresly, or by manifest consequence. As for the judgment of Reason about it, these things may be considered, 1. That by Divine perpetual Ordinance towards mankind, one Male is confi∣ned to one Female; whereas other creatures are not so limited. 2. Conception is not only the end of this duty; for it is to be rendered to those that are barren. 3. That, wherein the brutes are led by natural propension, in man falls under the government of Reason. And in the present case it seems reasonable, that the sensitive desire either be gratified or denied, as Reason guided by the general Rules of Gods word, doth shew what is most expedi∣ent within the limits of goodness and honesty. This may cer∣tainly be determined, That if Congress in this case will destroy the Foetus, whosoever useth it, sinneth greatly and heinously. And if there be danger of destroying it, he that useth it, exposeth himself to the danger of great and heinous sin.

§ 33. It is most certain, that there are times and occasions wherein abstinence from the marriage-bed is strictly enjoined. The Precept forbidding to approach carnally to a woman in the time of that known infirmity which is common to that S••x, was not meerly Mosaical, but moral, that is universal and perpetual, as appears Lev. 18.19, 24. Lev. 20 18, 23. For the breach there∣of is noted as one of the abominable practises of those Nations which were not under the Mosaick institutions; for wh••ch pra∣ctises God took vengeance on them, by casting them out before his people.

§ 24. The more solemn times of Prayer and Fasting, require abstinence from all manner of sensitive pleasures, tho in them∣selves lawful and honest; and particularly from conjugal embraces, 1 Cor. 7.5. Defraud not one another, except t•• be with consent for a time, that you may give your selves to fasting and prayer. It is not said, that you may pray, but that ye may give your selves to Fasting and Prayer; which imports a solemn setting of them∣selves apart to extraordinary Prayer, with F••st••ng.

§ 35. Not only solemn Religious Fasting, but other such high and solemn acts of Religion as require the greatest raising of the mind in spiritual cogitations, and retirement to converse with God; and consequently the best preparedness of body and mind, do also require abstinence from the heightned delights of the sen∣sitive or animal part. For which cause abstinence from conjugal embraces is most requisite for some due space of time before and after the particip••tion of the Holy Sacrament. And I think this abstinence ought also to be observed on the Lords day for the same reason. When the people were to meet with God in that extra∣ordinary way upon Mount Sinai, Moses gave it them in charge as a part of their preparation for it, That they come not at their Wives, Exod. 19.15.

§ 36. Yet the ordinary daily exercises of Religion, and Holy walking before God in them, do not require the like abstinence. A sober and regular use of Marriage, as of all other delights per∣taining to the Animal life, doth not render any man unfit for the daily Service of God. With reference hereunto the Apostle speaks, 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. Every creature of God (and so every Or∣dinance of God) is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be recei∣ved with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God, and prayer.

Howbeit with this concession a caution also must here be given, That the married must so cohabit, that their prayers be not hindered or polluted, 1 Pet. 3.7. And because prayer is a daily duty, they must daily manage their mutual converse, so as not to be indisposed to, or diverted from this or any other daily exercise of Religion. Wherefore they must not indulge themselves in this or any other high gratification of sense at those times wherein they should every day set themselves to the solemn per∣formance of those holy exercises. Some due distance of time should be always observed between the one and the other. But extraordinary Prayer (particularly, Prayer with Fasting) re∣quires abstinence for a greater interval. Christians must keep a spiritual decorum, and carefully shun whatsoever practise doth not become holiness.

§ 37. It concerns them whose aim and care is that their lives may be pure and holy, to endeavour to keep themselves from all irregularity and inordinate actings in this thing; and thereupon to watch against all base brutishness, and unseemliness of behavi∣our, and preposterous ways, and abusive dalliances in it, as know∣ing that they are always under the eye of the Holy God. It be∣hoves them so to use it, as not to weaken their bodies, or corrupt their minds; as not to irritate, but to allay sensuality; and to have this as all other lawful gratifications of sense, in a manifest and direct subserviency to spiritual ends, and so to manage them∣selves therein, as that they may be able with a good conscience to pray that it may be sanctified to them. And there is as great need of prayer for the sanctifying of the marriage-bed, as of any other enjoyment belonging to the Animal life; and it may be greater, because Reason is in danger to be put much besides its pre∣sent use.

Let all that call themselves Christians, retain in their hearts a deep impression of the words of the holy Apostle, 1 Thes. 4 3, 4. This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should ab∣stain from fornication, that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the lust of con∣cupiscence, even as the Gentiles, which know not God: for God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. Christians are by the same Apostle called upon to consider, that their bodies are the members of Christ, and the Temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 6.15, 19. And in this consideration they should lothe and dread all manner of obscenity, and vile abuse of their own bodies.