An explication of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments, with reference to the catechism of the Church of England to which are premised by way of introduction several general discourses concerning God's both natural and positive laws / by Gabriel Towerson ...

THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT.

THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

PART I.

The Contents.

The Crime here forbidden, the Violation of the Marriage-bed; for which cause, as well as for the discovery of the Affirmative part of the Commandment, inquiry is made into the Importance, Institution, and Laws of Marriage. That defin'd to be A Compact between a Man and a Woman, of Cohabitation during Life, for the comfort of So∣ciety, and the propagation of Children: And inquiry thereupon made, Whether it be of Divine Institution. This resolv'd, by con∣sidering that Institution, either with reference to all that are of years to enter into that State, or to such onely as intend a Cohabitation with the Female Sex. In the former of which respects is made appear, That though in the Infant-state of the World it was of universal con∣cernment, yet it is not now; as because there is not now the same reason for it, so because our Saviour hath declar'd our absolution from it: In the latter is shewn, That it originally was, and now is of universal Obligation; as is evidenc'd at large in every Branch of its Definition. Inquiry is next made into the Laws of Marriage, and particularly into such as respect the due contracting of it: Where is shewn, first, in respect of the Persons contracting, That the Marriage ought to be between one Male and one Female, and the Polygamy of the Patriarchs answered; That it ought to be between those who are not too near of kin; where the Degrees prohibiting Marriage, and the Grounds of that Prohibition are declar'd; That the Persons con∣tracting be of years sufficient to understand the Nature of it, of abi∣lity of Body where there is a desire and expectation of Children, and free and unconstrained in their Choice: In fine, That they be so far at least of one Perswasion in Religion, that they may joyn both in Private and Publick Prayers; the general necessity whereof is at large exemplified and demonstrated. A Consideration of those Laws that respect the Contract it self; where is shewn, That it ought to be made before one or more Witnesses, and agreeably to the Constitutions of Church and State; That it is at least highly expedient, that it be solemnized by a Priest, and with such significant Actions as the joyning of Hands, and the like.

THE Persons of Men being secur'd by the for∣mer Precept, from the attaque of greater and lesser Violences, Reason would that this Law of Love should proceed to secure them from any Injury in those who are joyned to them by Marriage; because, as in reputation of Law they are one with them, so they are naturally tender'd by them as themselves. In conformity whereto, as we find the Deca∣logne proceeding, because subjoyning the Prohibition of Adultery to that of Murther, (bearing witness thereby to its Author's Prudence, in the disposition, as well as in the framing of his Laws); so having observ'd so much to you, I will descend to the consideration of that Precept which in∣tends the securing of us in those our other selves.

In order whereunto, because that Crime which it forbids is nothing else than a Violation of the Matrimonial Vow, I will,

• 1. First of all, entreat of the Importance, Institution, and Laws of Marriage; which will discover to us the Affir∣mative part of the Precept.
• 2. Shew the Nature and Criminalness of Adultery: And,
• 3. Lastly, inquire, Whether any other Sins are included in the Prohibition of Adultery, and what those Sins are.

1. Of the Importance of Marriage much need not be said, at least as to that sense wherein we are to take it in this whole Discourse; the general Notion of Marriage, as well as our own private one, be∣ing, That it is a Compact between a Man and a Woman, of Cohabita∣tion during Life, for the comfort of Society, and the Propagation of Children. The onely thing which will require any large Explication is, Whether such a Compact be of Divine Institution, and by what Laws it ought to be govern'd.

2. For the resolution of the former whereof, these two things must be again inquir'd into, because alike comprehended in it.

• 1. Whether or no it be of Divine Institution for all Persons to enter into it, which are arriv'd to years of maturity: Or,
• 2. If not, Whether it be of Divine Institution for them who intend any such Cohabitation with those of the other Sex.

In the handling of both which (as in like manner of all that follows) I will use all the cleanness of Expression imaginable, as judging it ill becoming those who perswade Purity to other Men, to offend against it in their own Discourses concerning it.

I begin with the first of the Questions propos'd, to wit, Whether or no it be of Divine Institution, for all Persons to enter into Marriage, which are arriv'd to years of maturity. Which Question I the rather put, as because the Jews* 1.1 were generally perswaded that Marriage was of universal obligation, so also because that Perswasion of theirs was not without some colour, even from the Scripture it self; he who made them Male and Female, bidding them be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. And indeed, if we inquire concerning the Infant-state of the World, and before it came to be

Peopled as it is, so no doubt can remain but Marriage was under com∣mand to those who were in a capacity to enter into it, because other∣wise they should have frustrated the Design of God, who propos'd by that means not onely to continue a Succession of Men, but to diffuse the Race of them throughout the World, that they might enjoy those Blessings wherewith his most liberal Hand had furnish'd it. But, as there is not the same reason, now that the World is Peopled, and there are enough that have espous'd that State to continue the Succession of it; so, that it is not at present of universal obligation, whatsoever it before was, is evident from that of St. Matthew, chap. 19.12. where we have it from our Saviour himself, in that very Chapter where he inculcates the Institution of Marriage, That as there are some Persons who are incapacitated for it by Nature, and others who have been made so by Men; so there are some who for the Kingdom of God's sake have abridg'd themselves of the use of it, and those that can receive it, permitted by our Saviour to do it. When therefore the Question is concerning the Institution of Marriage, it is requisite we understand it with relation not to all Persons whatsoever, but to those who intend such a Cohabitation with the other Sex, as Marriage doth naturally involve.

Now that Marriage, so understood, is of Divine Institution, and all other Cohabitations unlawful, will appear, if we consider either that Cohabitation we have affirm'd it to covenant for, or the Covenant it self. For, it being evident from the Book of Genesis, that God at the beginning made Male and Female for each others mutual help, and the propagation of Children by them; and it being further evident, both from the Words of the Institution, and our Saviour's Explicati∣on of it in the place before-quoted, that God intended not either a promiscuous or desultory Enjoyment of each other, but of* 1.2 certain Persons, and such to which they should be oblig'd to cleave; it be∣ing evident, thirdly, from our Saviour, that that Adhesion is to be understood not of one to more Persons, but of one to one, because he afterwards subjoyns,‖ 1.3 And they twain shall be one flesh: lastly, it being evident that our Saviour doth not onely not rescind that first Institution, but confirm it† 1.4 and bind it upon the necks of his Disci∣ples: it will follow, That the individual Cohabitation of a Man with a Woman, for the purposes before spoken of, is so of Divine Insti∣tution, that all others are utterly unlawful. Again, Forasmuch as both the Scripture* 1.5 every where supposeth in Marriage the entring in∣to covenant concerning it; and that Adhesion which Marriage in∣volves requires it; there being no assurance to either Party of so long a Cohabitation, if they did not bind themselves to it by promise: it is but just to suppose, however not express'd in the Institution, that the same God who instituted such a Cohabitation, did also appoint their entring into Covenant for it, to give each other an assurance of it. Which Particular is the rather to be added, lest (as the Fashion is now adays) Men should think it enough to assume a Mate, with in∣tention, it may be, if all things answer their expectation, to adhere to her during Life; but without any Obligation upon themselves to do it. For, though such an Adhesion should happen to continue, yet in∣asmuch as it is without any Tie upon the Parties, it can be none of that which is appointed, and is rather a long Fornication, than a Marriage.

3. Of the Importance, and Institution of Marriage, I have spoken hitherto, and both shewn what it is, and that it hath God for the Au∣thor of it, it remains that we enquire by what Laws it is to be govern'd, which, after the explication of the former, will be so much the more easie to resolve. In order whereunto I will enquire,

• 1. What is requir'd to the due contracting of it.
• 2. What is requisite to the maintaining of it when it is so: And
• 3. Lastly, Whether or no, and by what means, it may be dis∣solv'd.

I. Now there are two things, within the resolution whereof, all that is necessary to be known, concerning the first of these, may be comprehended.

• 1. What Persons may contract Matrimony.
• 2. What is requisite to a legitimate contracting of it, where there is no irregularity in the Persons.

And here in the first place I shall not scruple to affirm, that to make the Marriage lawful in respect of the Persons, it ought to be not be∣tween one and more, whether Males or Females, but between one Male and one Female. For beside that that Law which enjoins the cleaving to the Married party, implies it to be the cleaving of one to one, because affirming not in the general, that the Married parties shall be one flesh, but they twain shall be one flesh; beside that the assuming of another Husband or Wife to the former must divide that Unity, and make him or her that Contracts, a new Relation to sepa∣rate in part from the former, whereby they can no longer be one flesh but more; our Saviour, in the close of his Discourse concerning the Institution of Marriage, adds such an assertion as shews evidently the unlawfulness of Marrying more than one: That I mean, which saith, that whosoever shall put away his Wife, except it be for Fornication, and shall marry another, committeth Adultery, and who so marrieth her that is put away committeth Adultery, Mat. 19.9. For how could it be Adultery in him, who put away his Wife to marry another, if it were lawful to assume another to her, even before she was so; but what shadow of Adultery in him who should only marry her that was so put away? That being not to be look'd upon as a violation of Marriage, and consequently not Adultery, which might be done even when the Marriage was entire. To all which, if we add that of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.4. that the Wife hath not power over her own body, but the Husband, nor again, the Husband over his, but the Wife, so the marrying of more than one will appear yet more unlawful. For it being not ordinarily to be thought, that either the Wife or the Husband will consent to the admission of a Copartner, it must upon that account be look'd upon as unlawful to assume a new Relation, because, beside those persons consent who have the power over them. And indeed so clear is the Divine Institution for the marrying of only one, especially after our Saviours explication of it, that I perswade my self there had not arisen the least scruple concerning it, were it not that we find Polygamy fre∣quently practised by the Fathers of the Old Testament, and, which is more, multitude of Wives reckon'd to David as a blessing. But beside that, in the infancy of the world such a practice might be more allow∣able, because necessary to the peopling of it; beside, that God might di∣spense

with his own Institution afterwards, if not for the hardness of mens hearts, as he did in the matter of Divorce, yet in regard to that infancy of Grace, which was under the paedagogy of the Law; the question is not, whether polygamy were sometimes lawful, which I for mine own part do not in the least doubt of, but whether or no it were lawful by the first Institution of Marriage, and whether it be at all lawful now. The contrary of both which, as I have already de∣monstrated, both from the words of the Institution, and those of our Blessed Saviour, so having done that, the former exception must be look'd upon as trivial in respect of that Gospel state under which we are; the Law of that both remitting us to what Marriage was from the beginning, and adding its own suffrage to it. I will conclude this particular with that of Malachy, because standing as it were in the confines of the Law and Gospel. 'Tis in the 2. Chapter of his Pro∣phesies, Vers. 14. and so on, Where having alledg'd against the Jews, Gods regarding not their Offering, nor receiving it with good will at their hands, he not only assigns for the reason of it, their dealing treacherously with the Wife of their Youth, but combates that with this following Argument. For did not he, even God, make one, yea though he had the residue of the Spirit? that is to say (as Drusius glosses on the words) did he not make one Male and one Female, and when he had done so, make them one flesh? yea though, if he had pleased, as wanting not breath to animate them, he might have made and given more Wives to our Father Adam. And wherefore one? as the Pro∣phet there goes on, but that he might seek a godly seed, that is to say (as the forequoted Drusius glosseth it) that from that one flesh, into which those two were combin'd, a lawful progeny might descend.

The second Law of Marriage relating to the persons, is that those between whom it is contracted, be not too near of kin to each other. For the understanding whereof, we will first of all entreat of such as are to one another in the place of Parents and Children: As if a Fa∣ther, for example, should marry his Daughter, or his Sons, or Daugh∣ters Daughter, or a Mother her Son, or her Sons, or Daughters Son. For that such Matches are unlawful, even by the Law of Nature, is evident from hence, that they destroy that reverence, which we have before shewn to be due from their Children to them. Thus for instance, When a Mother marries her own Son, or Grand-son, from whom, by the Laws of Nature, there is the highest reverence due, inasmuch as, by vertue of her marriage she subjects her self to him, she leaves no place for that reverence which was before due unto her as a Mother. And though the like seem not to happen, where a Father marries his Daughter, or Grand-daughter, because he, who was before Superiour, continues so still, inasmuch as he is the head of her whom he so takes unto his Wife, yet doth it in part destroy that reverence, which was due unto him as a Father: Because, though as Husband he be still head of his Child, yet he is not in the same measure as a Father, because Marriage induceth a kind of parity between those who enter themselves into that State. The same is to be said in some measure, where the Son marries his Fathers Wife, or the Niece and Nephew their Uncle and Aunt; because (as was heretofore shewn) they are unto the form∣er in the place of Parents, and consequently must needs loose the reverence of such by being assum'd into such a State as induceth such

a Society that excludes it. Whence it is, that we find St. Paul not only declaiming against that person who had Married his Fathers Wife, and representing it as a Fornication that was not so much as named among the Gentiles, but, in prosecution of that power wherewith he was arm'd, to chastise Offenders, commanding the Church of the Co∣rinthians to cut him off from their Society, and so deliver him into the power of Satan for his Chastisement, 1 Cor. 5.1, 5. As for those other degrees, whether of Consanguinity or Affinity that are forbid∣den in the 18th. of Leviticus, such as are the Marrying of a whole or half Sister, a Brothers Wife, or a former Wives Daughter, which are all, besides those before mention'd, that are expresly forbidden by it; though the two former, at least, have not the same exception to be made against them, inasmuch as they seem to contain nothing contrary to natural equity, yet because they are forbidden by that Law of God, which our Saviour professeth to have come not to de∣stroy but to fulfil, and that too (as appears by his injunction concern∣ing divorces) in the business of Marriage; and because the ground of the prohibition is not peculiar to the Jewish Policy or Religion, but the nearness of Kindred, which holds as much among us as among them. Lastly, because if such Marriages were permitted, there might be danger of Fornication, by reason of the free and perpetual converse that such Persons have with each other, therefore I think no man of Conscience but must account such Marriages as unlawful to him, as if the prohibition thereof had been entred into the Christian Law. But other degrees than those, or at least such as are in the same order with them as the Law of God condemns not, so neither doth our Church or State do, and therefore they, who keep within those bounds, are so far secure from offending, as to that Marriage which they contract. One onely thing would be added concerning marry∣ing the Brothers Wife, because it relates to a famous instance of one of our own Kings, and that is, that as the Law of Moses did not only permit, but command, the taking of the Brothers Wife, where there was no Child left behind; so it seems hard to suppose among Chri∣stians, that it should not be lawful to do the like, where not onely the case is the same, as to that particular, but (as it was in the foremen∣tioned instance) it was inconvenient to the Kingdom to let the Bro∣thers Wifes Dowry, either be spent out of it, or at least go away from the Crown.

The third Law of Marriage relating to the Persons that enter into it, is, that they be of years sufficient to understand the nature of that compact which they make, and to estimate the humour of those Per∣sons with whom they are to associate: lest otherwise, that, which was intended for a help, prove a snare, and an incumbrance, and Marriage become not only a yoak but an insupportable one. Whence it is, that though Custom and the Laws do sometime give way to the joyn∣ing of Children in Marriage, especially of the Nobler sort, yet the same Laws give leave to the Persons afterwards to rescind their form∣mer Contract, if they find not themselves in a disposition to confirm it.

Add hereunto hability of Body, where there is a desire and expe∣ctation of Children, and a freedom of consent in those that are so to be conjoin'd. Which latter is the rather to be inculcated, because

of those fatal inconveniencies which arise from constrained Matches; it being very rare to find a tolerable accord in those Matches, to which young Persons are rather compell'd than invited.

But of all the qualifications relating to the Married persons, the want whereof doth not null the Contract between them; I think there is none more considerable than that they who Marry, be so far, at least, of one perswasion in Religion, that they may join together both in pub∣lick and private Prayers. For though (as a Learned Man hath ob∣serv'd* 1.6) it would be hard to condemn the contrary Matches (how distant soever their Religions are) as simply evil and unlawful, inas∣much as there may be causes imaginable, wherein they may seem not only lawful but expedient; such as is, for Example, The Marrying of a Christian with a Pagan, where there is none other to adjoin himself self to, or of a Protestant Prince with a Popish Princess, where the good of the State doth necessarily require it; yet I think it would be as hard to free such Matches from the imputation of sinfulness, where there is not something of necessity to prompt the Persons to it: Be∣cause, beside the perpetual‖ 1.7 danger the Orthodox party is in, of be∣ing enticed from the true Religion, there is little probability of that en∣tire affection and accord which the tie of Marriage doth require. For to say nothing at all of that alienation of affection, which difference in Religion is apt of it self to produce, there is a necessity upon the dif∣fering parties (if they will be faithful to their several ways of Wor∣ship) to frequent different Companies, to resort to different Assem∣blies, and in fine, to place their Charity upon different Objects. Up∣on which, as Jealousies and Suspicions must needs arise, whether of their fidelity to each others Beds, or of their justice in the dispensing of the common Goods; it is impossible to think, but that those Jea∣lousies will also prompt them to give a check to each other in their several courses, which will be the parent of farther differences between them. For who (as* 1.8 Tertullian speaks) would suffer his Wife upon pretence of visiting the Brethren, to run up and down from house to house, and particularly to those of the poorer sort? Who will willingly bear her being taken from his side, to be present at nightly meetings, if occasion do so require? Who will suffer her to lie from him at the Solemnities of Ea∣ster, or be present at that Banquet of our Lord, which the Heathen do so defame? In fine, Who will suffer her to creep into Prison, there to kiss the Bonds of the Martyrs? Rather than so (as the same Father immediately before discourseth) if he do not restrain her by his Authority, yet he shall find out some means or other whereby to divert her from her pur∣poses. If a Station‖ 1.9, or more solemn Assembly for Pray∣er, be to be held, it is ten to one but the Husband will appoint her that day to accompany him to the Bath. If a Fast be to be observ'd, but that he will hold a Feast up∣on it. Lastly, If she be to go abroad, whether to visit the sick, or for other such like purpose, but that there shall then be somewhat more than ordinary to busie her about at home. On the other side, when Husband and Wife are of the same perswa∣sion in matters of Religion, when they are one as well in Spirit as in

Flesh, then there is not onely no dissent as to Civil matters, but a per∣fect accord as to Spiritual ones, they think, and speak, and act the same things. As Tertullian expresseth it in the place before quoted, They Pray, they roul themselves in Ashes and Fast together, they Teach, Exhort, and bear alike with each other* 1.10. They are both alike in the Church, and at the Feasts of the Almighty, they are alike in straights, in persecutions, and resresh∣ments. Neither goes about to conceal ought from other, neither avoids the others converse, nor is burdensome to the other, when they afford their own. The sick is visited freely, and without the least hinderance from the other, and the indigent person reliev'd. Alms are given with∣out any fear of the others displeasure, the Christian Sa∣crifices resorted to, without giving the other the least scru∣ple of their unfaithfulness, the daily Prayers attended without any impediment. There is no need of crossing ones self by stealth, of a fearful salutation, or a dumb be∣nediction. Psalms and Hymns sound between them two, and they provoke each other who shall sing best unto his God. The result of which blessed harmony is, That Christ who sees and hears all this rejoiceth at it, and forasmuch as he is a lover of Peace and Unity, adds his Peace and Society to theirs, and both excludes the company of the evil one, and makes up a kind of Trinity in Unity with them.

Having thus shewn what Persons may contract Matrimony, and with whom, proceed we to enquire what is requisite to the contract it self. And, here to say nothing at all how far the consent of Parents is requir'd, because I have sufficiently accounted for that, where I en∣treated of Childrens duties to them, I shall first of all represent, as ne∣cessary to the legitimateness thereof, that the compact be made before one or more witnesses. For beside that, otherwise a way might be opened to either Party to withdraw themselves, and to dissolve that Contract which God would have to be inviolable, occasion of Scan∣dal would thereby be given to those with whom they converse, be∣cause ignorant of the grounds of that freedom of Commerce which they observe to be between the Parties. And accordingly, as all civil Nations have provided that Marriages should be solemniz'd in publick, thereby both to cut off from the Married Persons all pretexts of withdrawing from each other, and all scandal from those with whom they converse, so I see not how they can be so legitimate as they ought, where they are less publick than the Law requires. For though the presence of one or two Witnesses may be of force enough to oblige the parties to a Cohabitation, yet they cannot take of the scandal, which may arise from the clandestineness thereof.

But neither is it less requisite, that Marriages should be made agreeably to the constitutions both of that Church and State whereof the mar∣ried Persons are Members. The latter, because the welfare of the State may depend much upon them, as particularly in those that are Heirs or Heiresses to great Estates, and as it sometimes happens, to a Kingdom: by the former whereof, great Estates may come to be embezzled, by the latter, a Kingdom to be prostituted to the arbitre∣ment of those, who are no way in a capacity to manage it. The

same is to be said of the necessity of their being made, agreeably to the constitutions of the Church. For the Law which God hath given concerning Marriage being general, or at least not so particular as to determine all questions that may arise concerning it, there is a necessi∣ty of referring them to the determination of those who are by God and the Church entrusted with the welfare of it, and consequently, in particular Persons, of acquiescing in it.

I observe, Thirdly, that though the solemnization of Marriage by a Priest, be not absolutely necessary to make it good and valid, upon which account we find all those to have been confirm'd* 1.11, which in the late miserable confusions had been made another way, yet is it of so great expediency, that I see not how any Christian State can intro∣duce any other, and much less how private Persons can. For beside that the consunction of Marriage is the act of God‖ 1.12 and not of the Contractors, and therefore most meet to be dispens'd by those who are the Ministers of God to us in things pertaining to God, the thing it self is of so great importance, as to our whole life, that it cannot but be thought to require the blessing of the Priest to make it happy to the Contracters, and his exhortations to make it holy and unblame∣able. For, if so sacred a tie as Marriage be so lightly regarded, even when it hath the Solemnities of Religion to procure it respect and ve∣neration, how may we think it would be contemn'd, if it were only look'd upon as a civil one, as there is no doubt it would be, if it had not the Ministeries of Religion to accompany it. And accordingly as in this, and I think all other Christian Nations, the Solemnization thereof is committed to the Ministers of Religion, so that it was so in the first and purest times of Christianity, is too evident from Anci∣ent Records to admit of any the least doubt. For thus Ignatius, that most holy Man, and a Disciple of the Apostles, in his Epistle to Polycarp* 1.13, another Apostolical Person, tells him. It becometh those Men and Women that Mar∣ry, to enter into that conjunction with the consent of the Bishop, that the Marriage may be according to God, and not according to lust. And Tertullian another Ancient Writer, and one of great Authority in the Church, in more places than one de∣clares the same usage and belief. For not contented to say in his Book de Pudicitiâ* 1.14, That among them, even Clandestine Marriages, that is to say, those that were not professed before the Church were in danger to be cen∣sur'd next to Adultery and Fornication: in another Tract of his, he speaks yet more plainly, both as to the usage and the reason of it. How‖ 1.15 may we be able to declare the happiness of that Marriage, which the Church joins, and the Oblation or Sacrament consirms, and the Blessing seals; in sine, which the Angels (those he means which are present at, and behold our Devotions) pro∣claim, and our Father which is in Heaven ratifies. For neither upon earth do Children rightly and lawfully Marry, without the consent of their Parents.

I observe, Fourthly, that as it is expedient, and in a more than or∣dinary manner, for Marriage to be celebrated by a Priest, so it is also expedient, and, where Authority hath commanded it, necessary to be

solemniz'd with such significant Actions, or Ceremonies, as the joyning of Hands, and the giving and receiving of a Ring. Because, though Marriage, and all other Contracts, may be made by Words onely; yet they neither do, nor can make so firm an Impression upon the Minds either of the Parties or the Witnesses, as those visible Declarations do. Whence it is, that in all Civil Contracts almost such Actions as those have place, and Men think not themselves well assur'd, unless, beside a Declaration by Word or Writing from those with whom they have to do, they have also a Turf of that Land which they contract for, put into their Hands by the Seller, or at least those Deeds whereby it is convey'd. But what speak I of other Contracts, when even in this particular one they who profess'd themselves the Churches Adversa∣ries, shew'd themselves to be at an Accord with it? For however that Convention which banish'd Marriage by a Priest, did also discard the Ring; yet they retain'd Joyning of Hands, which is no less a signifi∣cant Ceremony than the other.

PART II.

Of such Laws of Marriage as concern the preserving it inviolable, after it is contracted: and first of all, of such as respect both the Parties. Where is shewn, first, That there is a Tie of Love upon both; and the Grounds of that Love declared: which are, first and chiefly, that Ʋnity which Marriage conciliates; and secondly, its being intended as a Figure of that Affection which is between Christ and his Church. Of the Importance of that Love, and what the due Effects thereof are; which are shewn to be, 1. The doing all things that may any way contribute to each others contentment; as, on the other side, the avoiding all things that may displease. 2. The seeking one anothers Profit; the Means whereof are also declar'd. 3. The endeavouring each others Spiritual Welfare. 4. A mutual forgiving and forbear∣ing, where Differences do arise. That there is a Tie of Fidelity, as well as of Love; the purport whereof is also declar'd. That the Married Parties are to give each other Honour; and particularly, what that Honour is which is due from the Husband to the Wife. In fine, That in respect to God, whose Institution Marriage is, they ought to possess their Vessels in Sanctification and Honour, as well between themselves, as toward others. An Address to the declara∣tion of such Laws as concern the Married Parties severally; where is shewn, upon the part of the Husband, that the Authority he hath over the Wife, is not coercive, but directive; that accordingly it ought to proceed rather by the way of Love than Empire; as lastly, to restrain it self to such things as are within the Bounds of Religion, and to such as are suitable to that Fellowship whereinto she is ad∣mitted; where the Management of Houshold Affairs is shewn to be the Womans Province. On the part of the Wife is shewn, That she ought not in any measure to usurp Authority over the Man, but en∣deavour rather to gain him by Meekness and Compliance; That she ought to do him Honour both in Language and Gesture, and obey him

in all things that are not contrary to Religion, or to that Condition of Life into which she is admitted by him. A more particular De∣claration of the Duty of the Wife in the matter of Obedience; where is shewn, That though she hath no Tie upon her as to such things as are contrary to Religion, yet she ought to be directed by her Husband in judging of Religious Matters, and, where they are not manifestly contrary to the Scriptute, to submit to, and follow his Advices; That though she be not under obedience, as to such things as are sitter for a Servant than a Wife; yet what is fit, or not fit for a Wife to do, ought not to be judg'd of by the Deportment of the most, and much less by the Caprichio's of her own Brain; but by the Example of Godly Ma∣trons; That though the Management of Houshold Affairs be the Wifes peculiar Province, and therefore no proper matter generally for the Husband to interpose his Commands in; yet she ought to comply with him even there, where there is any just fear of his being discredited or undone by her evil Management. An Exhortation to the Married Parties, to perform their respective Duties.

II. IT being so rare for Popular Discourses to entreat of the Duties of Married Persons, that it is almost become an Absurdity to mention them, I may perhaps fall under the Censure of Indiscretion, for going about to make them the Subject of mine, though the De∣sign I am now upon do naturally lead me to it. But because I cannot give a satisfactory Account of the Nature of Adultery, and much less of the due Importance of that Commandment which forbids it, with∣out entreating of the Laws of Marriage, which Adultery is a Violati∣on of; and because, how nice soever Men are now grown, and how fearful soever of incurring the Censure of Indiscretion, St. Paul made no difficulty of interlacing almost all his Epistles with Discourses of it; lastly, because there is neither that Fidelity between some Married Persons, which the Divine Institution and their own Covenants, nor that Accord between others, which so intimate a Relation doth re∣quire; I hope it will not be look'd upon by sober Persons as any Im∣prudence, if (as I have in the former Discourse shewn what is neces∣sary to the legitimate Contracting of Marriage, so) I make it the bu∣siness of this to demonstrate, what is requisite to preserve it inviolable, after it is so contracted. In order whereunto, I will represent,

• 1. Such Duties as are common to the Married Parties: And, after that, descend to
• 2. Those which are peculiar to each of them.

Now though what both the one and the other are, be competent∣ly evident from those Covenants into which the Parties enter, at the Solemnization of Matrimony between them; yet because it is not im∣possible some Duties may be more obscurely express'd there, than will be requisite to give each of them a due understanding of them; and because those which are more clearly set down, will be look'd upon as more forcible, if it can be made appear, that they have the Obli∣gation of the Divine Command, as well as of their own Contract, to bind them on them; therefore I think it but necessary to investigate them by the purport of the Divine Commands, as well as by the te∣nor of their own Compacts.

1. To begin with those which are common to the Married Parties, because the most natural Results of that intimate Conjunction into which they enter. Where,

1. First, I shall represent the Parties loving of each other, as both their own Compacts, and the Divine Commands bind them. For, though Love be most usually made the Duty of the Husband to the Wife, as, on the other side, Obedience and Reverence that of the Wife toward the Husband; yet, as it is evident from St. Paul's en∣joyning the aged Women to teach the younger to love their Husbands, that Love is no less due from them, than it is from the Husband to them, Tit. 2.4. so the ground which he elsewhere assigns for the Hus∣bands loving of the Wife, inferrs equally the returning of it by her. For, the Love of the Husband to the Wife being founded by him in that Unity, or Identity rather, which Marriage conciliates between the Parties, Ephes. 5.28. and so on; if the Wife be one with him, as well as he with her, there must be the same tie of Love upon her, as there is upon the Husband to her. Here onely is the difference, that whereas the Husband, by the Prerogative of his Sex, hath no other tie than that of Love, which is the reason why the Duty of Love is in a manner appropriated to him; the Wife, because subjected to the Husband, is to temper hers with Reverence and Obedience: for which cause we hear so little of any Love to be paid by her, and so much of Reverence and Obedience.

It being thus evident, that Love, how peculiar soever it may seem unto the Man, is yet alike the Duty of them both; proceed we to in∣quire, what is the due Importance of it. Where, first, no doubt can be made, but that it implies an inward Affection; as because Love, in propriety of Speech, denotes the Affection of the Heart; so, because all Effects, without it, are but Hypocrisie and Dissimulation. As lit∣tle doubt is to be made, secondly, but that that inward Affection of Love is to exert it self in suitable Effects; partly because Love is na∣turally operative, and partly because St. Paul, where he exhorts Hus∣bands to love their Wives, proposeth Christ's Love to the Church for the Pattern of it; which, as it was not without an inward Affection, so shew'd it self in effect; because, as the same St. Paul observes, prompting him to give himself for it. The onely thing of difficulty in this matter, is, What is the Ground of that mutual Love, and what Effects it ought to manifest it self by.

As to the former of these, much need not be said, especially if we have an eye to the principal Ground of it; the Words of St. Paul in the place before-quoted, no less than those of the Institution of Mar∣riage, shewing the ground of the Parties Love to be no other than that Ʋnity into which the Divine Institution hath conjoyn'd them. Onely, as so much was necessary to be observ'd here, because the pro∣per place for it; so, the rather to take them off from laying the main stress of their Love upon the Aimiableness, or other Qualities of those with whom they are so conjoyn'd. For, as though these, and other such like, are a just ground of Love between them; yet they are nei∣ther the onely, nor the principal ones: so, he who makes them such, is in danger of overthrowing that Love which God would have to be firm and stable: Because, however the Word of God may endure for ever, yet Beauty, and other such like Qualities, perish, and come to

nought, and consequently draw after them the destruction of that Love which hath no other ground to stand upon. I say not the same of that Affection which is between Christ and his Church, of which St. Paul tells us Marriage was intended for a Figure; because, though that be not the principal Ground of Love, yet it is a necessary and a lasting one. For, inasmuch as Marriage was intended to represent that Affection and Unity which is betwixt Christ and his Church, that Affection and Unity ought in reason to be an inducement to ours, as without which we shall but profane the other.

The Grounds of our mutual Love being thus declar'd, inquire we, in the next place, into the due Effects of it: Which are, first, the do∣ing of all things that may any way contribute to each others content∣ment; as, on the other side, the avoiding of all things which may dis∣please. Both the one and the other of which, as they are so easie to be understood, that it will be unnecessary to explain them; so they are, for the most part, such, that it will be much better to leave them to the Consciences of the Parties to inform themselves in, than to give any distinct explication of. It may suffice here to say, 1. That as Mar∣riage was intended for such a Society as the Parties that enter into are by Nature most fitted for; so it cannot but be look'd upon as a Violation of Marriage, and of that Love which it involves, to refuse that Society to each other. Again, Forasmuch as all Love, and par∣ticularly the Conjugal one, excludes the doing of any thing that may displease the Party loved; it will follow, that they who are entred into that State, are to avoid all unkind or contumelious Words, all contemptuous and injurious Actions, but more especially all such as may minister an occasion of suspicion to each other, of their having a greater Affection for a Stranger.

Next to the Contentation of each other, subjoyn we the seeking one anothers Profit, as being a no less necessary Effect of Love, and of that Union that is between the Parties. For, as Love, where it is, naturally seeks the good of those whom it makes the Object of its Affection; so, by so much the more, by how much the nearer they are to it: but how much rather then, when they are in a manner one with it. Which, as it is the case of the Married Couple, who, by the Institution of the Almighty, are no more twain, but one flesh; so, be∣ing such, it must be look'd upon as unnatural, not to have the same care for each other, not to seek each others Profit and Advantage. Because, however Men may sometimes have little regard to Strangers, yet (as the Apostle argues in the place before-quoted) no man yet ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church. Which place, as it is a convincing Argument of the Love they ought to have for each other, and, which is more, of seeking each othert advantage; so directs us withal to the Means they are to make use of, in order to the procuring of it: that is to say, providing for each others Welfare, whilst it is yet entire, by Food, and Raiment, and all other things that are necessary for their support; as, when it is any way impair'd by Sickness or Trouble of Mind, en∣deavouring to restore it, by the application of inward and outward Remedies, by Advice, and Comfort, and Assistance. Both the one* 1.16 and ‖ 1.17 the other of these, as they are the purport of those Words by which St. Paul illustrates the Effects of the Husbands Love; so being alike

common to each, as both the Union that is between them shews, and the aptitude that is in either to promote them. For, though the Care of Provision lies especially upon the Man, as being best fitted for it by ability both of Mind and Body; yet as the Woman oftentimes is in some measure fitted for it, and consequently under a proportionable Obligation to intend it; so there is a Provision within-doors, which is her peculiar Province, and without which the Provision of the Man will be of little or no avail, either for himself or her.

But because the Married Parties are Spirit as well as Flesh, and no Provision can secure the Welfare of that, but that which Religion fur∣nisheth; therefore it may not be amiss to inquire, whether that Love which ought to be between them, be not to extend it self also to the seeking each others Spiritual Welfare. For, though Marriage, in its own nature, look no farther than a Temporal one, as for the promo∣ting whereof it was first ordain'd; yet, as nothing hinders, but it may be carried much higher, by the Precepts of Religion, and particularly of that which we have the Honour to profess; so, that it is so, we have not onely the general Commands of procuring each others eter∣nal Welfare, (and how much more then theirs who are so nearly con∣joyn'd to us?) but such as do more particularly direct the procuring of theirs who are united to us by the Band of Marriage. For, where∣fore should St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14.15. direct the Wife, if she understood not what she had learn'd in the Publick Assemblies, to ask her Husband at home concerning it; but that (as Bishop Davenant well argues) it is the Duty of the Husband to direct his Wife in Spiritual as well as Temporal Matters? Or the same St. Paul oblige the believing Wife to cohabite with an unbelieving Husband, upon the hopes of gaining him over to her Religion, 1 Cor. 7.13. but that he suppos'd it to be the Duty of the Wife, so far as in her lies, to procure her Husbands Spi∣ritual Welfare? And indeed, as it is scarcely possible for those who have any great love for each other, not to desire and endeavour each others Welfare, in that which most especially concerns them; so they who remember Marriage to have been intended as a Figure of that Mystical Ʋnion that is between Christ and his Church, will not think they have paid a just Respect to that Mystery which it adumbrates, unless they endeavour to their power to make the Conversation of each other approach as near as may be to it.

Lastly, Forasmuch as there is nothing more contrary to Love, or to that Union from which it results, than Strife and Contention between the Married Parties; it will follow, that it is their Duty, as well as In∣terest, to prevent them what they may, or, if they happen at any time to break out, to suppress them: The former whereof will be done by avoiding all occasion of Offence; the latter, by a mutual forgi∣ving and forbearance, where such Offences do arise. Which whilst some Persons have imprudently neglected, they have but help'd to make themselves miserable, and made the Yoke of Marriage as uneasie to themselves, as to those whom they design'd to revenge themselves upon. It being not to be thought, they should reap any advantage to themselves, who either kindle or maintain a War within their own House and Bowels?

2. To the Duty of Love, subjoyn we that of Fidelity, which is another necessary Result of that Union which Marriage conciliates;

he or she no less violating that Unity, who bestow their Affections upon a Stranger, than they who deny it to the proper Object of it. Upon which account, as Adultery must needs be look'd upon as highly criminal, because violating it in that particular for which it was espe∣cially ordain'd; so also, though in a lower degree, the frequenting the Company of others, more than their own Consorts, or using more fami∣liarity with them, than the Laws of Decency and Modesty do allow; in fine, the spending upon others any considerable part of their Estates, to the prejudice, or without the consent of the other Party; he who joyn'd them so closely to one another, as to make them one Flesh, consequently forbidding all Commerce with Strangers, which either exceeds, or rivals, or prejudiceth that Commerce which the Society into which they enter obligeth the Married Persons to.

3. Thirdly, As Love and Fidelity to each other are the indispensi∣ble Duties of the Married Parties; so also, though in a different mea∣sure, the giving each other Honour, according as they expresly stipu∣late. For the evidencing whereof, we shall need onely to instance in the Deportment of the Husband to the Wife, because (as I shall afterward shew) there cannot be the least doubt of Honours being to be paid to the Husband by her. Now, that the Husband is to give Honour to his Wife, is evident from that of St. Peter, 1 Pet. 3.17. where he exhorts the Husband not onely to dwell with his Wife ac∣cording to knowledge, but to give honour to her as to the weaker ves∣sel. Which Words, as they are a convincing proof of that Honour which we have affirm'd to be due to her from her Husband; so shew the Honour that is to be given her, because the Honour of the weak∣er Vessel, to be such as is proper to that State in which God hath plac'd her under her Husband. The purport whereof is, not that the Husband should subject himself to her, who is but in some respects his Equal, and much less his Superiour; but that, inasmuch as she is as∣sum'd into a Copartnership with him, he should treat her not as a Ser∣vant, but a Companion; and not onely so neither, but as the Compa∣nion of such a Person, and according to his own Quality or Dignity; that he should permit her (as in reason he ought) to bear her self as a Mother over his Family, and not either subject her to, or abridge her the exercise of her Authority over it; in fine, that he should per∣mit her, whilst she lives, to partake of his Worldly Goods, and after her and his Decease, to permit her Children to succeed into them. For, though I know, even among us, there are other kind of Bargains made, and such as do in truth make the Woman rather a Concubine than a Wife, as shall hereafter be more at large declar'd; though I know al∣so, that in Germany there is a sort of Marriage wherein the Husband gives the Wife the Left Hand in stead of the Right; that is to say, expresly stipulates with her, not to take her as a Wife of equal Con∣dition: by means of which, as* 1.18 Mylerus observes, neither hath she all the Rights of a Wife, neither do her Children succeed either to the Fathers Name, or Arms, or full Inheritance: Yet as I cannot but look upon such Matches among us, as a contradiction in adjecto, be∣cause the Husband in Marriage endows her with all his Worldly Goods; so, upon all such, whether here or elsewhere, as contrary to the Di∣vine Institution of Marriage, and particularly to that Honour which St. Peter requires Men to exhibit to them. For, how are they either

one with their Husbands, or in the esteem of Wives, which are set at so great a distance from them?

I will conclude this part of my Discourse with a Duty, that is in∣deed alike common with the former, to each of the Married parties, but which hath not themselves, but God for the object of it: And that is, that, forasmuch as God is the Author of Marriage, they would, in respect to him, whose institution it is, possess their Vessels in Sancti∣fication and Honour, as well among themselves as toward others. Which they shall do, if to give themselves to Fasting and Prayer, they shall for a time defraud one another with consent, as at all times use that moderation in their enjoyments, as may shew them studious of more refined ones, and that reservedness and modesty in their outward deport∣ment, which may neither tempt others to any impurity, nor censure the Divine Institution because of them.

2. I have hitherto insisted upon such Duties as are common to the Married parties, and which for that reason it is to be hoped will not be distasteful to either of them. It remains that I entreat of those that are peculiar to each of them, and where, if any where, I must expect a censure from my Readers. But as that rarely happens to a Teacher, from the Sober and the Vertuous, where his own indiscrete manage∣ry thereof gives not occasion to it: so he must very much forget his own duty, and the dignity of his Employment, who shall value any thing of that nature, when coming from the Ignorant and Profane. Setting aside therefore any farther discourse concerning that, I will betake my self to my Task, and first of all to

1. Those Duties which are peculiar to the Husband. I have hereto∣fore shewn, and shall by and by have occasion to confirm it; that God hath endu'd the Husband with Authority over the Wife, and com∣manded her to pay Obedience to it. But because it is not impossible Men may arrogate to themselves a greater Authority than ever God intended them, or exercise it more fully, and with greater rigour than they ought; therefore it may not be amiss in describing the peculiar duties of the Husband, to shew him what kind of Authority he hath, how it is to be exercis'd, and about what.

For answer to which, I say first, that the Authority of the Husband over the Wife, is not coercive but directive, that is to say, an Autho∣rity which priviledges him to command, but not to constrain her to Obedience. For being given by God to Man, as a Companion* 1.19 and a helper, and, which is more, in such a degree as to become one with him; it is unreasonable to think he should have such a power over her, as to constrain her to a compliance by force and violence. A for∣cible Treatment degrading her from the condition of a Mate, and ranking her among Subjects or Servants. Neither will it suffice to say, that so also will the laying of Commands, because according to the usual saying, par in parem non habet potestatem, which is alike true as to Commands and Coercions. For beside that, by the Divine In∣stitution, the Man is priviledg'd to rule over her, as you may see, Gen. 3.16. beside that, in this case there is not a perfect parity, as the rule before spoken of shews; the power of Command is not only not destructive of the conjugal Society, but absolutely necessary to the maintaining of it. For, inasmuch as the Married parties may both entertain different apprehensions concerning such things as are to be

done, and also take up different resolutions concerning them; if there were not a power of ruling somewhere, it would be in the power of either party to obstruct the common good of both. But as there is not the same necessity of a coercive Power, partly because the Hus∣band hath the Law of God to back his Commands, and partly because not without a sufficient Power, from the Laws of the place he lives in, to be able to effect his own purposes: so it is perfectly inconsistent with that Society and fellowship, into which the Wife is assumed by him. It may suffice the Husband, that he hath the power of Command∣ing, and in case of refusal, that of Reproof and Admonition, as which, those of far less Authority are not excluded from: but other coer∣cion than that no Law of God gives him, and is not therefore to be ar∣rogated by him.

The Authority of the Husband over the Wife being thus explain'd, and shewn to consist in Commands, Admonitions, and Reproofs; pro∣ceed we to enquire how this Authority is to be exercis'd, the second thing propos'd to be discoursed of. For the resolution whereof, though I might again take my measures from that Partnership into which we have said the Wife to be admitted; yet I shall choose rather to shape my Discourse by that Love, which the Husband is every where com∣manded to shew her who is so admitted by him. For Love, where it is either finding, or making Persons equal, especially where there is not too great an imparity between the Parties, it will follow that the Commands or Admonitions of the Husband are not generally to be delivered in imperious terms, and such as savour more of Authority than Kindness: St. Paul having taught us by his own behaviour to∣ward Philemon, that though a Man may have power to Command, yet, where that will serve the turn, for Love's sake he should rather entreat, and not so much constrain, as invite them to a compliance. I say not the same, where she whom God hath commanded to obey, shews her self utterly averse from a compliance. For in such a case, to be too officious were to make himself contemptible; and not only so, but that Authority which God hath vested in him: Only (as we learn from St. Paul elsewhere* 1.20) even here also a mean is to be used: and though nothing hinders him to express himself in terms suitable to his own Authority; yet no Law, either of God or Man, allows him to be bitter against her.

The third and last particular comes now to be discours'd of, even about what the Authority of a Husband is to be conversant, which, if we may judge of by the obedience the Wife is required to pay, appears to be every thing, as you may see, Eph. 5.24. But as the same Apostle elsewhere, where he entreats of that very Argument, adds by way of limitation, as it is fit in the Lord, Col. 3.18. thereby mani∣festly restraining the Authority of the Husband to all such things as are within the bounds of our Religion: so Reason requires the limiting it to such things also as are suitable to that fellowship into which she is admitted. From whence as it will follow, that the Husband ought not to impose upon her such things as are more proper for a Servant, or Vassal, than a Wife: so also that he is generally to leave the admi∣nistration of Houshold affairs, to her alone care and management: Because, as I have often said, she is admitted into a Copartnership with him, which cannot well be salv'd, if that should be taken from

her; and because both St. Paul, 1 Tim. 5.14. and the Laws of Nati∣ons appropriate the guiding of the house to her. According to that known Proverb which the Roman Matrons were wont to use, when they were brought home to their Husbands Houses; Ʋbi tu Caius, ibi ego Caia, Where you are a Master I expect to be a Mistress, and enjoy the priviledges of such.

2. Having thus shewn the Duty of the Husband to the Wife, as to that Authority wherewith he is invested over her, it remains that we enquire what is due from her to him, as well in respect of his Autho∣rity, as her own necessary subjection to it. Now though that be easie enough to infer from the foregoing Discourse, and may therefore seem to require the less pains in the investigating of it, yet I think it not amiss, if it were only to observe a due proportion between them, to be as particular in the declaration of it, as I was before in that of the Authority and Duty of the Husband. In order whereunto I say,

1. That inasmuch as God hath invested the Man with Authority over the Wife, it must be look'd upon as highly irreligious in her to be so far from submitting to it, as, on the contrary, to usurp Authority over him: Such a Behaviour bidding defiance to the order of God and Nature, because not only thwarting, but perverting it. And ac∣cordingly as St. Paul not only proscribes it as a thing unlawful, but moreover represents it as a thing not to be suffer'd, 1 Tim. 2.12. So he hath also given us there to understand, what is to be thought of Womens laying Commands upon their Husbands, of entertaining them with Reproofs, or offering violence to them. For if (as he there di∣scourseth) it is not so much as lawful for them to take upon them to instruct their Husbands, how much less may we suppose it to be to command or check them, or, in fine, to offer violence to them; the two former being more apparent marks of Authority than Instruction, the latter of so high a nature, that it is not lawful from the Man to the Wife, though invested by God with Authority over her. It may suf∣fice the Wife, where the Husband behaves himself otherwise than he ought, to expostulate with him in the most becoming terms, to exhort, entreat, and perswade him to an amendment; in fine, to endeavour it by the piety and winningness of her behaviour, and particularly by a meek and quiet spirit. For as other courses than such are not likely to prevail with Men that understand themselves, so St. Peter not only represents it as the means they are to make use of, to win those who obey not the word to yield obedience to it, but gives hopes withal, by affirming it to be in the sight of God of great price, that it is the most probable means to procure it.

2. Again, forasmuch as God hath not only invested the man with Authority over the Wife, but represented him as the head of her, even as Christ is the head of the Church, Eph. 5.23. it will follow as St. Paul infers, vers. 33. that she ought to reverence her Husband, and express it both in her behaviour and language; even as Sarah declar'd hers to Abraham, by calling him Lord, 1 Pet. 3.6. But from hence we may collect what is to be thought of those reproachful titles, which Women of haughty spirits do oftentimes bestow upon them. For if by the precept of the Scripture they are not to speak to their Hus∣bands without respect, how much less may we think it lawful for

them, to use such contumelious terms, as are scarcely fit to be given to a Slave?

3. Lastly, Forasmuch as God hath not only invested the man with Authority, but oblig'd the Woman to yield obedience to it, it will follow not only that she is under a necessity of obedience, but of such an obedience also as is proportionable to that Authority wherewith we have said him to be invested. The result whereof is, that she is to obey him in all things that are not contrary to Religion, or to that condition of life, into which she is admitted by him. These three things only must be added to the former exceptions, as exceptions of those exceptions, or rather necessary explications of them.

• 1. That though the Wife hath no tie upon her to comply with him in such things as are contrary to Religion, yet she is to be directed by him in judging of Religious matters, and where they are not manifestly contrary to the Scripture, to submit to, and follow his advices. For as there is not a more proper notion of that headship* 1.21 which is attributed to the Man, than that which imports a power of direction, so that that directi∣on is to be understood with reference to Religious matters also, St. Paul plainly shews, 1 Cor. 14.35. he there obliging the Wife, if she doubted of the sense of any thing delivered in the publick Assemblies, to ask her Husband at home, and if so, to take directions from him in doubtful cases. Which course (as a Learned Man* 1.22 observes) hath this farther to re∣commend it, that though if she be deceiv'd alone, she hath no excuse, because not attending to her instructor, yet if she should happen to be deceiv'd with him, she hath much pitty, and some degrees of warranty under protection of that humility and de∣ference which she shews towards him, who is by God appointed over her.
• 2. Secondly, Though it be true that the Wife is not under any tie of Obedience, where the things commanded by the Husband are more fit for a Servant than a Wife; yet as there may be a time (particularly that of Sickness) wherein the Husband and Wife both may be oblig'd by turns to be a kind of Servants to each other, so what is fit, or not fit, for a Wife to do, is at all times to be judg'd, not by the deportment of the most, which in each Sex are always the worst, and much less by the caprichi'os of their own brain, but by the examples of godly Matrons, as which are most likely to direct them best in judging of it.
• 3. Lastly, Though it be true, that the management of Houshold Affairs is the proper Province of the Wife, and therefore no proper matter generally for the Husband to interpose his com∣mands in; yet as no man is oblig'd to be impos'd upon as to his own particular, or discredited, or undone by her to whom he is appointed as a head; so if there be any danger of either of these by her imprudent or wilful management of Affairs, there is no doubt in such a Case he hath Authority to controul her, and consequently she also a necessity of submitting to it.

Having thus shewn at large the Duties of Married Persons, as well those which are peculiar to each, as those which are common to them both, nothing remains for me to do but to exhort them to a perfor∣mance,

and particularly of such duties as are peculiar to each of them. For, beside that by so doing they shall each of them comply with the Divine Commands, and (because that is a natural consequent of the other) procure the peace of their own Consciences; beside that they shall thereby consult the peace and welfare of themselves and families, which for want of a just compliance are oftentimes torn in pieces, and beggary and confusion introduc'd; the Married parties have this farther inducement to it, that they shall thereby provide for their own reputation, which is a thing that prevails often, where nei∣ther Interest nor Religion can. For what credit can it be to the Hus∣band to domineer over his Wife, who as well by the weakness of her Sex, as by the Divine command, is obliged to subject her self to him? or what credit to the Wife to detrect her Husbands just commands, or usurp Authority over him? when she cannot do either, without pro∣claiming her self to be proud and insolent, and her Husband to be a fool for permitting it. Which last title, if such persons cannot with patience hear others affix unto their Husbands, because of that strait tie which is between them; let them see how they will absolve them∣selves in their own breasts, who by their imperious carriage give oc∣casion to the reproach of both. On the other side, when Man and Wife perform their respective duties, and his will looks more like a desire than a command, and her actions like the result of his will than of her own; when the Man avoids as much as may be the interesting himself in her affairs, and the Wife not only intermeddles not with such as are proper to his cognizance, but endeavours to approve her self to him in the management of her own: Lastly, when the Man treats the Wife as his associate, or rather as himself, and the Wife de∣means her self to him, as her directour and superiour; then there is not only a happy compliance with the Divine Institution, and with one another, but a just foundation of universal applause: and all wise and good persons think themselves oblig'd to honour the Man for knowing how to temper his Authority so as to make it acceptable and pleasant, as the Wife for being able by the obligingness of her beha∣viour to transform him into an adorer of her, and make him change his soveraignty into kindness and condescension.

PART III.

Whether or no, and by what means Marriage may be dissolved, which are resolv'd to be no other than either the Death of one of the Parties, or Fornication. Of that Liberty which our Law allows to Marry again, where the Parties have been Seven Years absent from, and ig∣norant of each others being, which is shewn to proceed upon the pre∣sumption of the absent Parties death. That Fornication is a just ground of dissolving the Marriage, and that nothing in Gods Law hinders either the Innocent or Nocent Party to Marry again; but that the cognizance of the cause belongs to those who are in Autho∣rity. An Essay toward the shewing that there is no other just ground of a Divorce than Fornication, or some uncleanness that is equal thereunto. This evidenc'd, First, in that among the Jews, where there was manifestly a greater Liberty, a Divorce proceeded not but upon supposition of something of Ʋncleanness. The like evidenc'd more fully from the words of our Lord in this affair. When other crimes appear, they ought either to be born, or a separation made only for so long time, till Time or Gods Grace shall bring the Parties to a better mind. The matter of Divorce, rather of Permission than Command, and alike common to the Woman and the Man. A Tran∣sition to the Negative part of the Commandment, where is en∣treated first of all of that Adultery which lies on the side of the Mar∣ried Parties, and the Man that is false to his Wife, shewn to be as truly guilty of Adultery, as the Woman that is false to her Husband. The like evinced on the part of those by whom the Married Parties are debauched, with a large account of the criminalness both of the one and the other Adultery.

III. WHAT is requisite to the due contracting of Marriage, or the preserving it inviolable, when it is so, enough hath been said to shew in my former Discourses upon this Argument: it re∣mains only that we enquire whether or no, and by what means it may be dissolv'd, which will cost no great pains to resolve. Not the for∣mer, because at the same time I point out the means by which it may be dissolv'd, I shall also prove it to be capable of being so; as nei∣ther the latter, because however men have been willing to find out others, yet Christianity generally allows only two grounds of the dissolution of it, the former whereof is the Death of one of the Par∣ties, the latter Fornication or Adultery.

1. Now that the Death of one of the Parties dissolves the Contract, and puts the living one in the same condition they were in before, is evident first of all from the expressed declaration of the Scripture. For not contented to say, Rom. 7.2. that the Woman which hath an Hus∣band, is bound by the Law to her Husband, so long as he liveth: but if the Husband be dead, she is loosed from the Law of her Husband, which may be interpreted as to that relaxation which the Law of Moses gave: we find the like affirmation elsewhere, and with such an addi∣tion also, as shews it equally to hold under the dispensation of the

Gospel. For St. Paul affirming, as he doth, 1 Cor. 7.33. that though the Wife be bound by the Law as long as her Husband liveth, yet if her Husband be dead she is at liberty to be Married to whom she will, only in the Lord, he thereby plainly intimateth, because entreating of the Marriage of Christians, that death dissolves the Contract, no less under the Gospel than the Law. The same is no less evident from the end of Marrige, and the terms of the Contract, at least as they are express'd among us. For both the end of its Institution being for the comfort of this present life, and the terms upon which it is contracted being expresly during the continuance of it; it followeth unavoida∣bly, that where the Society is interrupted by death, the contract must also fall, because intended only for the comfort of the present life, and covenanting for no more than the time of the continuance of it. The only thing on this head that can admit of any just scruple, is that liberty which our Law* 1.23 allows to Marry again, where the Husband or Wife shall be continually remaining beyond the Seas, by the space of Seven Years together, or where the Husband or Wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of Seven Years together in any part of his Majesties Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time. But even this also, if duly examin'd, will not be found in the least to contradict the forementioned Precepts. For as it is necessary, in many cases, and particularly in the present one, to proceed by presumptions oftentimes, unless we would have very material controversies to remain undecided, which is not for the peace or interest of the world: so there is a just presumption of his or her death, where during so long a time, the party, that is certainly alive, knows nothing at all of the others being so.

2. It being thus evident that Death dissolves the Contract of Mar∣riage, and leaves the living Party to the liberty of a second Marriage, it remains that we enquire concerning Fornication, which we have affirm'd to be another just ground of a Dissolution: where again we are to enquire, whether Fornication be such a ground, and whether it be the only one; both the one and the other of which will receive a solution from the words of our Blessed Saviour. For affirming (as he doth) that whosoever shall put away his Wife, except it be for For∣nication, and shall marry another, committeth Adultery, and whoso Marieth her which is put away, committeth Adultery, he both implieth that Fornication is a just ground of a dissolution, and declareth it to be the only one. The only difficulty that hath been made as to the first head, is, whether or no after such a Divorce there be a liberty to Marry again at all, or if so, whether for the Nocent as well as the Innocent. But beside that (to speak first unto the former) there ap∣pears not any reason, why, if Fornication be a just ground of dissol∣ving the Marriage, it should not also leave a liberty of a second Marri∣age, after the dissolution of the former; beside that Divorces, both among the Jews and Heathen, were ever understood to have this ef∣fect, and therefore in reason to be so taken by our Saviour, unless he had otherwise declar'd himself to have intended: we may as well question by the words of our Lord, whether Fornication be a just ground of the dissolution of the former Marriage, as whether it makes way for a second. For arguing the unlawfulness of Divorces, except where they are for Fornication, from the Adultery which a second Marriage in∣volves

the Parties in, he plainly implieth liberty of Marriage to be a proper consequent of Divorce, and consequently, that where the Divorce is lawful (as it is for Fornication by the words of our Lord) the after Marriage also is. And though there be not as much reason for the liberty of the offending Party, because it is by their fault that the former Contract was rescinded: yet as it is evident that among the Jews both Parties were at liberty to Marry after a Divorce had pass'd; so I see not how by the Law of our Lord the knot of Wedlock can be ty'd to the one Party, though the offending one, and loose unto the other; the offending Party after a Divorce being no more to look upon the other as a Husband or a Wife, than the innocent Hus∣band or Wife is upon the offending one as either. This only would be added, That though it be not unlawful by the Law of our Lord for the Divorced Parties to Marry, and much less for the innocent one; yet is the liberty of Marrying again of such dangerous conse∣quence, in respect of the Collusion that may be between the Parties, where oftentimes they are alike weary of each other, that our Church hath thought fit to take sufficient Bond of them before Divorce, that neither of them should Marry again whilst the other lives. But whatever be the effect of a Divorce for Fornication, which is not so well agreed upon among Divines; most certain it is, which is a thing that would be added to the former Considerations, that not the Par∣ties themselves, but they, who are entrusted with the Authority of God in Affairs of this nature, are to pronounce the Divorce be∣tween them; partly because it is God that join'd them together, and partly because neither together nor apart are they competent persons to make that separation between themselves; It being not impossible, where the separation is desir'd by one only Party, for that Party to pretend Adultery in the other when there is no such thing, as, where it is desired by both Parties, to agree together to offend, that so they may have the liberty to espouse new and more desired loves.

But because the Question is not so much concerning a Divorce for Fornication together with its effect or pronouncer, as whether there be any other just ground of the dissolution of Marriage, therefore proceed we in the second place, to make that also the subject of our enquiry, or rather to shew that there is not any just ground of doubt∣ing in it. In order whereunto, the first thing I shall represent is, that though among the Jews there were a greater liberty as to this mat∣ter by the permission of God himself, yet even there, as appears from* 1.24 Deuteronomy, a Divorce was not allowable, save where there was some Ʋncleanness in the Party Divorc'd. For how is it possible to think that Christ, who pretends to so much more strictness in this matter than Moses did, should allow of a Divorce for less than For∣nication, when even Divorces among the Jews were not allowable, save where some kind of turpitude preceeded? I observe secondly, that as there is reason to believe, both from the purport of Moses Law and our Saviours setting his own above it, that less than Fornication cannot be look'd upon as a ground of Divorce; so our Saviour, in the place before quoted, hath proscrib'd all other causes, save that of Fornication only. So that to make it out that there are other allowable causes of Divorce, it must be said, either that the Greek word is not rightly rendred Fornication, or that other sins are in∣cluded in, or deducible from it. But beside that the proper notion of

the Greek word is no other than Fornication, as that imports the highest act of Uncleanness, and consequently, where it is in a Married Person, that which we call Adultery;* 1.25 beside that the Christian Church have ever so understood it here, even by the confession of those who have endeavour'd to oppugn it: where it is taken otherwise, as I deny not but it sometimes is, it either imports that which is above it, as unnatural Lusts, or is taken not strictly, but metaphorically; the for∣mer whereof, as it will not at all avail those who would find out some lower Causes of Divorces, so it is not to be imagin'd, that the latter should be of any force here, because our Saviour is discoursing of a Man's putting away his Wife; for the Ground whereof it is cer∣tainly more proper to assign a literal Fornication, as being an ex∣press Violation of the Marriage-Vow, than that which is but me∣taphorical, and consequently of less affinity with it. All therefore that remains to be said toward the evacuating the force of our Saviour's Testimony, is, That other Sins are to be suppos'd to be included in it, or deducible from it; it being not unusual for one thing onely to be nam'd, where others are intended to be understood. And indeed, if they who thus argue, mean no other than Sins of the same kind, and such too as are of as foul or fouler a nature than For∣nication; so I think they should say nothing but what the Text it self would well bear, and the Suffrage of Reason warrant. For, as a better Reason cannot be rendred of our Saviour's making use of the Word Fornication in stead of Adultery, which is otherwise more pro∣per, than that he intended under that name to comprehend unnatural Lusts, as well as the Act of Adultery; so Reason requires the looking upon such Sins rather as a ground of Divorce, which are not onely of the same kind, but of a much more criminal nature than the other. But as the same is not to be said of lesser Sins, though of the same Species, because it was manifestly our Saviour's Design to set his Law above that of Moses, which allow'd not of Divorces, where lesser Uncleannesses preceded not; so, much less is it to be said of Sins of another Species, though no way inferiour in guilt to Fornication: because God, by whom the Married Parties are joyn'd, and who hath commanded not to separate them without his leave, hath both in the Old Law and New restrain'd the making of Divorces to great∣er or lesser Uncleannesses. It may suffice, where other Crimes appear, for the Married Parties to bear with each other, where they are of such a nature as to be born; or endeavour by good advice the removal of them,* 1.26 which will be most for each others advantage: as in like manner, where they are not to be born, as when they seek each others destruction, to separate from each other, till Time and God's Grace have brought them to a better mind. But other Course than that can∣not be suppos'd to be lawful, because God hath restrain'd Divorces to the case of lesser Uncleannesses among the Jews, as among Christians to the greater ones. What should I tell you, that the Jewish Divorces, by the Sentence of our Saviour, were rather per∣mitted than commanded; and permitted too, not so much out of the kindness of the Grantor, as for the hardness of the Jews Hearts, and for fear lest greater Mischiefs should ensue to the hated Party? That God professeth, by his Prophet Malachi, that he hateth putting away? and that our Saviour made no other Answer to his Disciples, when

they inferr'd from this his Doctrine, that if the case of the Man were so with his Wife, it was not good to marry, than all Men were not able to receive it? These, and many other Arguments which might be al∣ledg'd, shewing an ill Choice, whether of the Man or of the Woman, to be, as Nazianzen expresseth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Evil which being got, is not to be let go, save where a far worse, even the Violation of the Marriage-bed intervenes.

But because (as was before intimated) the Judgment of Divorces is not permitted to the Parties concern'd, but to the Governours of the Church, and I have all along made it my business to speak onely to Private Persons, as which alone are under my inspection; therefore I shall add no more upon this Head, than that as Divorce for Forni∣cation (which is the onely allowable one among Christians) is not of command, but permission, and consequently left to the Prudence of the Married Parties, either to endeavour it, or not, as they shall judge most expedient; so the permission, whatever it is, is alike com∣mon to either Party, though it appears not to have been so among the Jews; not onely the mutual Power which God hath given them over each other, so perswading (for how should a Divorce be more lawful to the one than the other, when by means of that Power which they have over one anothers Bodies, the cause for which a Divorce is al∣low'd, must equally touch both Parties?) but also a Passage of St. Paul, and the Practice of the Primitive Church, which is the best Comment both upon that and other Texts. Of which latter, as we have an illustrious Testimony, in the first Apology of Justin Martyr, who both tells of and commends a certain Christian Noblewoman, who sent a Bill of Divorce to her Adulterous Husband, after she had but in vain endeavour'd to wean him from his Extravagances; so, that it was not without ground, even from the Principles of our Religion, that of St. Paul shews, 1 Cor. 7.10. For, what place were there for that Ad∣vice of his to believing Women, not to leave their Infidel Husbands, if they were pleas'd to dwell with them, if it were not lawful by the Christian Law, as well as by that of the World, for a Wife to part with her Husband at all, yea though Fornication gave occasion to it? In the mean time, as it is not to be deny'd, that those Matches shall be most happy, where a Separation shall be neither occasion'd nor de∣sir'd; so they shall act most agreeably to the Institution of Marriage, and the Laws of Christ, who shall know no other Divorce than that which shall make a Separation between a Man and himself, as well as between him and the Partner of his Bed.

II. Having thus entreated of the Importance, Institution, and Laws of Marriage, and therein both given you an Account of the Affirma∣tive part of the Precept, and clear'd my Way to the Explication of the Negative; proceed we now, according to our proposed Method, to investigate the Nature, and shew the Criminalness of that Sin which the Negative doth forbid.

Now though what Adultery is in the general, be not at all difficult to explain, because it is agreed upon to be no other than the Violation of the Marriage-bed; yet inasmuch as that Violation is not without some variety, in respect of the several Actors in it, in order to a more particular knowledge of it, it will be requisite to mark out the seve∣ral ways whereby that Violation may be perpetrated. To begin with

that Adultery which lies on the side of the Married Parties, as which is without doubt the most criminal, because all Adultery receives its denomination from them. Now, though Custom, which is the Master of Language, have in a manner appropriated the Title of Adultery to the falseness of the Wife, and to him that should sollicite her there∣unto; though the Roman Laws* 1.27 have spoke the same Language, and absolv'd the Husband from the imputa∣tion of it, where he did not defile anothers Bed; yet, as* 1.28 Lactantius hath well observ'd, Christianity and Rea∣son both require the charging it upon the offending Hus∣band, no less than upon the offending Wife. For, it ap∣pearing both from St. Paul, and that Unity which Mar∣riage conciliates, that the Woman hath no less power over the Husbands Body, than he over hers; and from the Terms of the Covenant into which they enter upon Marriage, that the Husband doth no less plight his Troth unto the Wife, than she to him: that Husband which shall offend, shall be equally chargeable with the violation of the Marriage-Bed, and con∣sequently with the Crime of Adultery. And though it be not to be deny'd, for Reasons afterwards to be declar'd, that the Consequences of the Wifes Adultery are much more fatal than that of the Husbands: yet, as it is evident from the Premises, that the Adultery is the same in both, by reason of their mutual Interest in, and Obligation to each other; so there is very little reason† 1.29 for the Husband to exact that Fidelity of the Wife, which he himself is not careful to observe: Partly, because† 1.30 there is the same Tie upon them to each other, and ought therefore to proceed by the same Measures; and partly, because the Husband hath generally more Reason to restrain his exorbitant Passions by. From that Adultery which lies on the side of the Married Parties, pass we to that which lies on the side of those by whom they are corrupted: For, that that also is Adultery, the general use of the Word, and our Saviour's Interpretation of this Commandment, shews. For, subjoyning by way of Appendix to it, that whosoever looketh upon a Woman, or Wife, to lust after her, hath committed Adultery with her already in his heart; he thereby plain∣ly shews, that Adultery is no less on the part of him that doth so cor∣rupt her, than on the Wife who is corrupted by him. Here onely is the difference, that though both violate the Marriage-Bed, yet she doth it more criminally, because oblig'd by Promise to preserve it spotless, which the other is not under the Obligation of.

The Nature of Adultery being thus unfolded, and shewn wherein it doth consist; proceed we, in the next place, to shew the Criminalness thereof, which I shall do with respect to each of the Adulteries before spoken of.

And first of all, if the Question be concerning that Adultery which lies on the side of the Married Parties, so we shall find Evils enough to sowr all that Happiness which the Adulterer or Adulteress promise themselves from it. For, is it nothing, nay, is it not a Crime of a very high nature, to violate the Institution of the Divine Majesty, and make a Separation there, where he hath enjoyn'd a strict and in∣dissoluble

dissoluble Unity? Is it nothing to violate that Faith which they have given each to other, and without the observation whereof, not onely the Peace of Families, but even Humane Society, could not subsist? Is it nothing to rob each other of that Society which both the Di∣vine Institution, and their own Compact, have given them an undoubt∣ed Interest in, and which is so inseparably theirs, that they cannot, even with consent, transfer the Right thereof unto another? Is it no∣thing, where all the tenderness imaginable is due, yea, such a one as a Man naturally hath for his own Flesh; is it nothing there, I say, to give the highest occasion of grief and distaste, and fill each other with those discontents which do not onely destroy the Peace of the injur'd Party, but prompt them to Malice and Revenge? Is it nothing, in stead of that Honour which they are oblig'd to exhibit to each other, to repay one another with Reproach, and make their Partner, as well as themselves, the scorn of their Rival, and all contumelious Persons? Is it nothing, on the Mans part, to derive his Estate from his Wife and legitimate issue, toward the maintaining of a strange Woman, and the Product of her Lust? as, on the Womans part, to bring a Bastard-brood to inherit the Estate of the Legitimate; and not onely so, but bring those Legitimate ones into the same suspicion of Bastardy, and rob them of their Honour, as well as of their Sub∣stance? Lastly, is it nothing to turn that which was design'd by God as a Figure of the Mystical Union that is between Christ and his Church, into the unhallow'd Rites of Venus; and not onely profane the Divine Institution of Marriage, but that much better Union which it was design'd to represent? But if any, or all of these be something, as undoubtedly they are, yea, Crimes of a high Nature, I will leave you to guess, how foul that Falshood is which is the unhappy Parent of them all. The Adultery of the Married Parties being thus di∣spatch'd, pass we to that of those by whom they are corrupted: which, as it is equally criminal, where they themselves are under the same Band of Marriage; so doth not fall much short of it, where they are free from it. For, beside that they give occasion to all those Evils which we have affirm'd to be the Consequents of the Falshood of the Married Parties, they are not themselves without a share of almost all those Impieties which they tempt the Married Parties to. If we in∣quire concerning the Divine Institution of Marriage, it is no less vio∣lated by them than by the other, because separating between those whom God hath made one: if concerning the injur'd Party, they are in a great measure the Authors of his Sufferings, because invading his Bed, and bringing his Person into reproach; in fine, because robbing his Children of their Subsistence, and, which is more, oftentimes of their Father's Love and Care, as well as of the Honour of their Birth. Lastly, If we inquire concerning that Sacred Mystery which Marriage was design'd to represent, their Impurity offers an affront to it; and at the same time they sollicite the Married Party to profane it, they profane it themselves, by abusing them to Lust and Intemperance: All which, whosoever shall consider, will find Adultery to have somewhat more than the breach of one Commandment to make it odious, as be∣ing in truth an Affront to God and to Humane Nature, to the greatest Mystery of our Religion, and the chiefest Band of Humane Society. Aud accordingly, as among the Heathen* 1.31 Adultery hath been some∣time

time punished with Death, and that too with such Circumstances as were more terrible than Death it self; as moreover Liberty hath been given to the injur'd Party‖ 1.32 to kill the Adulteress in the Act of her Uncleanness, and not to stay for the Formalities of Justice to wreck his Revenge upon her; lastly, as by the Jewish Law Capital Punishment was adjudg'd to it, and both the Adulterer and the Adulteress command∣ed to be put to death, Deut. 22.22. so Christianity, though in another way, hath shew'd it self as severe against it, and those who are the Committers of it; St. Paul having in more places† 1.33 than one reckon'd it among those Sins which they who do, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Which however to the generality of Men it may appear a light Censure, because they rarely consider any thing which is not ex∣pos'd to their Eye or Touch; yet, as it cannot but be otherwise thought of by those who have a Prospect of the World to come, and that Eternity of Weal or Woe which it infers: so the Adulterer and the Adulteress will be forced to confess it, when they shall not onely find themselves shut out of that Kingdom, but, which follows necessarily upon the former, have their unhallow'd Fires punish'd with a more scorching and continual one.

PART IV.

Of the Sins that are included in that which is here expresty forbid∣den; which are shewn to be, All preternatural Lusts, as being alike or rather more contrary to the Institution of Marriage; All Incestu∣ous Mixtures, the unlawfulness whereof is further declar'd; The de∣filing of a Person betrothed, Simple Fornication and Concubinacy, the unlawfulness of the former whereof is evidenced from its contra∣riety to the Institution of Marriage, and to the Positive Laws of God, both in the Old and New Testament: And, in fine, All Excesses even in Lawful Mixtures. The like unlawfulness, even by the force of this Commandment, evinced in lesser Ʋncleannesses. and in the In∣centives either to those or greater ones: Of the former of which sort are, The unclean Desires of the Heart, All such Looks, Gestures, or Touches as result from them; as also, All unclean Communications: Where moreover is shewn, against Tully and the Stoicks, that there are such Expressions as are really dishonest, and their Objection against it propos'd and answered. Of the latter sort are Sloth and Ease, Luxury or Excess in Meat and Drink, Converse with Persons of loose or immodest Behaviour; and, in fine, the reading of loose Books, listning to impure Songs, or resorting to offensive Plays: Whereunto is subjoyn'd, as an Antidote against the ••emptations to Ʋncleanness, the rather fleeing from the consideration of them, than going about to combate with them •••• and the setting before our Minds the excellency of the Pleasures of the Mind, above those of the Flesh or Body.

IT being impossible, on the one hand, to discharge that Duty we owe to God, without marking out all those Sins which this, as well as the other Commandments, doth forbid; and it being little less than impossible, on the other, to enter into a just Discourse concern∣ing them, without leaving some kind of Pollution upon the Minds of those to whom it is directed; I have thought it the most prudent, as well as most pious way of procedure, to hold a middle course, and neither be altogether silent concerning them, nor very particular in the handling of them. Which perswasion I am the more confirm'd in, as because Men may with less danger to the Publick fetch the Re∣solution of extraordinary Cases from the Mouth of those of whom they are commanded to seek the Law, so because what is generally necessary to be known concerning the Vices here forbidden, may be easily inferr'd from what we have before said concerning the Nature, Institution, and Laws of Marriage. For, if the Divine Laws do not onely set Bounds to the Enjoyments of Marriage, but proscribe all Enjoyments out of it; all those must be look'd upon as unlawful, which shall be found to be without it, or to pass those Bounds in it which the Divine Majesty hath set. Besides, having not onely entrea∣ted at large of the Nature, Institution, and Laws of Marriage; but, as occasion offer'd it self, pointed out also several of the Violations of them: I have left little else for my self to do, than to make a more

exact and orderly enumeration, and to add such farther Arguments against the Sins it forbids, as were not before taken notice of by me.

III. Having snewn at large, in my last, the Nature and Criminalness of Adultery; to which I know nothing to add, unless what was then also insinuated, that Adultery hath place, not onely where the Marri∣age which is violated continues undissolv'd, but also where it is dis∣solv'd for a less cause than Fornication: it remains that we inquire, Whether any other Sins are included in the Prohibition of Adultery, and what those Sins are.

Of the former part of this Quaerie much need not be said, after what hath been produc'd to shew the Comprehensiveness of the Deca∣logue in the general. For, it being evident from a former Discourse, that the Decalogue, or Law of the Ten Commandments, was intended as a Summary of the several particular Laws set down in the Book of God (as Philo* 1.34 also hath observ'd) we are in reason to understand the Prohibition of Adultery to include in it all such Sins as are of the same kind with it, or leading to it. The onely thing which it will concern us to inquire, is, What those Sins are; which therefore I come now to investigate.

1. And here, in the first place, I shall not doubt to reckon, as in∣cluded, the prohibition of all preternatural Lusts; such, I mean, as are transacted between a Man and a Beast, or between those of the same Sex. For, beside that God hath provided against these by spe∣cial Laws, and not onely so, but condemn'd the respective Offenders to suffer death, as you may see Lev. 20.30, &c. beside that before the Law, he made Sodom and Gomorrha a desolation, for thus fol∣lowing after strange flesh; and that too (as St. Jude hath observ'd) to deter us by their example, ver. 7. of that Epistle: the unlawful∣ness, or rather prodigiousness thereof, is sufficiently evident from the Institution of Marriage, and the prohibition of that violation of it, which is now before us. For, God having not onely at first appoint∣ed Man and Woman to be Associates to each other, but forbidden also the adhering to any other Person than those which we have joyn'd our selves to in Marriage; he must consequently be thought much more to forbid, because more contrary to his own Institution, the defi∣ling of our selves either with other Creatures, or those of our own Sex. But because (God be thanked) how depraved soever we are in other Particulars, such Crimes as these are rarely heard of among us, it shall suffice me to represent that of St. Paul to the Romans, where he cen∣sures such Extravagances as these, as vile and unnatural, and such as God suffered the Heathen to fall into, as a just Punishment of their Idolatry. For, for this cause (saith he) even because they changed the Truth of God into a Lie, God also gave them up unto vile affecti∣ons: for even their Women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the Men, leaving the natural use of the Woman, burned in their lust one towards another, Men with Men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their errour which was meet, Rom. 1.26, 27.

2. But neither shall I say much of Incestuous Mixtures, that is to say, where Persons assume to themselves, though in the Band of Wed∣lock, such as are too near of kin to them, and particularly those that are to them in the place of Parents, or stand upon the same level with

them. For, beside that (as was before observ'd) God hath provided against such Uncleannesses by special Laws, and they therefore, by the Rule before laid down, to be reckon'd to this Prohibition; beside that (as was before also observ'd) they pervert the Order of Nature, and destroy that Reverence which is due from Inferiours to Superiours, by the Law of Nature, and this of Moses: that such Mixtures are no less unlawful to Christians, St. Paul evidently declares, in the Case of the Incestuous Corinthian; he, by vertue of Christs Power, and his own Apostolical one, commanding to deliver him up unto Satan, which undoubtedly he would not have done, if it had not been a Transgression of the Christian Law. And though it be true, that all that hath the Name of Incest, is not of the same Nature; as particu∣larly, when the Man marries his own Sister, or Brothers Wife: yet as there want not Instances among the Heathen* 1.35 of the dislike of such Matches, and particularly of that of Brothers and Sisters; so they are sufficiently preju∣dic'd by the Inconveniences they draw after them, and such as the Light of Nature prompts us to avoid. For, beside that if Marriage were permitted betwixt such as are so near of kin, that free and continual Intercourse that is between them, would, in all probability, take off that Shame which is the Guard of Chastity, and prompt them to unlawful Desires and Enjoyments; it would also, as Philo‖ 1.36 expresseth it, (from whom I have borrowed both the one and the other Reason) shut up within the Walls of a Private Fa∣mily, that Charity and Communion, which might other∣wise diffuse it self to Continents and Islands, and, in fine, to the whole World: Marriage with Strangers (as the same Philo goes on) producing new Relations and Kin∣dred, and such as fall not short of that which nearness of Blood produceth.

3. From Unnatural and Incestuous Mixtures, pass we to that which is neither, but comes up more close to the Crime that is expresly forbidden; I mean, the defiling of a Person, which though not married, yet is betrothed to another. For, beside that she and her Paramour, no less than the Adulterer and Adulteress, are commanded by God to be put to death, Deut. 22.23, 24. which shews, that their Crimes are of near affinity with each other; the Reason there given of God's severity to the Defiler, is, because he had humbled his Neighbours Wife; plainly intimating, that as when Persons are betrothed to each other, though they have not pass'd the Solemnities of Marriage, yet they are in the account of God as Man and Wife; so being such, both she and her Paramour are by the same God look'd upon as Adulterers, and consequently direct Transgressors of this Commandment. This onely would be added, (because what Betrothing is, is not commonly understood, as being little used among us) that by Betrothing we understand not a Promise of future Marriage, according as it is vulgarly taken; but the actual passing over that Interest they have in themselves, to those to whom they are so betroth'd, and receiving back a Power over them: As if a Man should say to the Woman, I take thee for my lawful Wife; and the Woman to the Man, I take thee for my lawful Husband. For though a promise of Marrriage may oblige to the per∣formance,

if it be not rescinded by the joint consent of both Parties, yet it doth not actually pass over to the Party, to whom it is made, that Power which we have over our own Bodies, and consequently neither makes the Parties promising to be in the Relation of Man and Wife, nor is that Betrothing which we speak of.

4. How the sins before mentioned are reducible to this Command∣ment, hath been at large declared, together with such other Reasons from the light of Reason and Nature, as shew them to be really cri∣minal: Enquire we therefore in the next place what is to be thought of simple Fornication, that is to say, where the Offenders are both single Persons. Where first of all I shall take it for granted, that it is to be look∣ed upon as here forbidden, if it can be otherwise made appear to be an unlawful Lust, because as was before said, this, and other the Com∣mandments of each Table, were intended as Summaries of the Law of God, and of its several both Precepts and Prohibitions. Now that simple Fornication is an unlawful Lust, and as such to be avoid∣ed and abhorred, will appear first, from what we have before said concerning the Institution of Marriage. For it appearing from thence, that God hath appointed that, as the means whereby both to prevent the evils of Solitude, and to propagate the World, all other Commerce must be look'd upon as forbidden, and particularly that which simple Fornication doth involve; this (as Grotius ob∣serves) not only being distinct from Marriage, but driving Men from it, because promising them the same satisfaction at an easier rate. I observe secondly, that as simple Fornication is inconsistent with the Institution of Marriage, and as such therefore to be look'd upon as unlawful, so it is directly contrary to the Laws of the same God, by which the Decalogue was given; there being not only an ex∣press prohibition that there should be no Whore of the Daughters of Israel, Deut. 23.17. but command given by God for the stoning of that Damsel, which should be found to have been corrupted before Marriage; because, as there follows, she had wrought folly in Israel to play the whore in her Fathers House, Deut. 22.21. And though I know it hath been thought that there was not the like prohibition of the use of stranger Women, which, if true, would have absolv'd the Men from the imputation of Fornication, where an Israelitish Woman was not their complice in it, yet as the Proverbs of Solomon set a Brand upon such Persons, and upon all communication with them, so that such a Fornication was no less interdicted than that with Israelitish Women, St. Paul plainly shews, 1 Cor. 10.8. he there ascribing that slaughter which we read of in the 25th. of Numbers, to the Israelites committing Fornication with the Daughters of Moab, and exhorting those he wrote to to take warning by their Example. But so that the more sober Jews were also perswaded, is evident from Philo * 1.37 and‖ 1.38 Maimonides, both the one and the other representing all cohabita∣tion as unlawful, which was not within the state of Wedlock. Now though from the unlawfulness of simple Fornication among the Jews,

it be not difficult to collect that it is much more unlawful among Christians, because our Saviour came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it, and particularly as you may see, Mat. 5.27, 28. as to that Commandment we are now upon; yet because there want not more direct proofs of the unlawfulness thereof among us, than any we have before produc'd, I think it not amiss to add them unto the former, and so much the rather because all we can alledge will be little enough in this licentious age to stop the progress of it. Now that there want not such proofs of the unlawfulness of Fornication among Christians, is evident from several places of the New Testament, such as are that of 1 Cor. 6.18. and Heb. 13.4. in the former whereof St. Paul tells us, that neither Fornicatours, nor Adulterers, shall inherit the King∣dom of God: in the latter, the same St. Paul, or whoever was the Authour of that Epistle, that Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judge: For as the word which we render Fornicatours and Whore∣monger, signifies properly the former, and is not therefore to be constru'd in any other sense, where there is not something in the Text to determine it otherwise; so, that it is to be taken in that sense which our Translatours affix to it, is evident in each of the places alledg'd; St. Paul both in the one and the other distinguish∣ing it from Adultery, as in the latter opposing it to the state of Mar∣riage, and consequently neither denoting any deviation from the worship of the True God, which is sometimes, though Metaphori∣cally, the sense of the word Fornication, nor yet any irregularity in contracting Marriage, such as is an Incestuous Match, which is at other times the signification of it. But neither is there less force in that of the same St. Paul, 1 Cor. 6.18. where he doth not only command fleeing Fornication, which is in reason to be constru'd in the proper sense of the word, because he speaks immediately before of a Mans joining himself to an Harlot; but moreover represents it as a defiling of the Temple of God, which whosoever doth, God will be sure to destroy. All which whosoever shall consider, will easily believe that simple Fornication is unlawful, as well as Adul∣tery, or any other act of Uncleanness: For what other Fornication can be supposed to be intended, where an Harlot is made the ob∣ject of it, and Men are moreover, in the beginning of the next Chapter, commanded to Marry to avoid it? And though it be true, that the Law of Nature affords not such evident proofs of the un∣lawfulness thereof, as of Adultery; yet as they, who had no other light to guide them, saw enough in it to make them detest it, as the sinners themselves to oblige them to hide their wickedness; * 1.39 Chrysippus giving us to understand, that such kind of cattle at first exercis'd their Trade out of Cities, and were wont to cover their Faces with a Veil, that in process of time they threw away their Veils, but were not suffer'd to enter into Cities till after the World came to be more deprav'd: so, that the Light of Nature is not without some proof of its unlawfulness, is evident from those inconveniencies, which naturally arise from the permission of it; the Children of such mixtures through the uncertainty of their Father, being apt to be

rejected by all her Paramours, or at least not to be provided for by any, with that affection and care which is due from a Parent to a Child. Neither will it avail to say that that inconvenience may be avoided, by appropriating such a sinner to a Mans self. For though I deny not that such an one may be faithful to her Paramour, and thereby give no real cause of the uncertainty of his off-spring: yet as there is little reason for any Man to hope it of her, who hath so little consideration of her own reputation, as to take up so infamous a Trade; so it cannot at all be hoped for, unless there be a Covenant between the Parties, which makes it little different from a Marriage, but however rather a Concubinacy than a Fornication. Which, that I may add that by the way, though it have not much from Nature to oppugn it, yet is contrary to the Institution of the Almighty; that, as was before said, not only requiring the union of the Man unto the Woman, but such an union also as might procure her respect as well as fellowship, and a right of participation in all he had. The for∣mer whereof as Concubines could not lay claim to, who are made by the Civil Law* 1.40 to differ from a Wife in Dignity, according as the Judicious Hooker‖ 1.41 hath also observ'd; so, that they were devoid of the latter, the small Portions their Children were put off with shew; the Scripture telling us of Abraham, Gen. 25.5, 6. that whereas he gave all that he had to Isaac the Son of his lawful Wife, he gave only gifts to the Sons of his Concubines, and sent them away from him.

5. Lastly, (for Adultery is a fruitful crime, and comprehends not only all Deviations from the Institution of Marriage, such as Forni∣cation and Concubinacy, but also all Excesses in it) he who is immo∣derate† 1.42 in his love toward a lawful Consort is no less an Offender against this Commandment than he who placeth it upon an unlawful one; both the one and the other arising from an intemperate* 1.43 appetite, which converts even our Meat and Drink into a sin, and taking us off from more spiritual pleasures.

Of the grosser sort of Uncleannesses what hath been said may suf∣fice, and therefore so far of the Commandment that forbids them. But because (as hath been more than once intimated) the lesser sort of sins are forbidden in this Commandment, as well as the greater, and together with them, all Incentives to them either in our selves or others; therefore, to make my Discourse compleat, I must make them also the subject of my enquiry, and both discover and censure them. And here in the first place I shall make no difficulty to represent, that the Ʋnclean desires of the Heart are no less forbidden by the Com∣mandment, than any of the expressions of it; partly because the con∣sent of the Heart is that which corrupts even our outward actions, but more especially, because our Saviour himself hath told us, that he who looks upon a Woman to lust after her, hath committed Adultery with her already in his heart, Mat. 5.28. But neither, secondly, shall I make any difficulty, upon the score of the foresaid affirmation,

to represent as forbidden all such looks, gestures, and touches, as re∣sult from such irregular desires. For if, as our Saviour there inti∣mates, but St. Peter* 1.44 doth expresly affirm, the Eyes may be full of Adultery, there is no doubt the same charge may fall upon the Lips or Hand, if they be guided by the same inordinate passion. There is less doubt, thirdly, especially after the Declaration of Christianity, of the prohibition of the Ʋncleanness of the Tongue; St. Paul exhort∣ing in one place to lay aside all filthy communication, Col. 3.8. as in another, to wit Eph. 5.4. All filthiness, and foolish talking, and jesting which are not convenient: in fine, that they should not suffer any corrupt communication to proceed out of their mouth, Eph. 4.29. And though I know the Stoicks, who were otherwise a Grave and Sober Sect, made little, or rather no account of such kind of expres∣sions, they arguing (as Tully‖ 1.45 tells us) that if there were any expres∣sions really dishonest, they must become such, either by the subject mat∣ter of them, or the words themselves; the former whereof could not be, because the same thing might be honestly enough expressed in other words, as neither the latter, because the very same expressions might in another sense commendably be used, both which the same Tully doth at large exemplifie: though therefore I say, the Stoicks made no account at all of such expressions, yea moreover represented the dislike of them as foolish and unreasonable; yet as they could not for all their sub∣tilty draw the generality of Men into their opinion, nor I am per∣swaded satisfie their own Consciences; so, that that Argument of theirs was vain and fallacious, may appear from hence, that beside the principal Idea† 1.46 or notion of words, there is oftentimes an accessary one, which doth not only much vary the signification of them, but give them a different estimate in the World. Thus for example, though to say you lie, signifies no more in the principal Idea of it, than to say you know the contrary to what you speak: yet inasmuch as in the estimate of the World which gives Laws to Speech, it doth more∣over connote the Speakers contempt of him he gives the lie to, it is justly look'd upon as a more reproachful expression, and according∣ly so resented in the World. In like manner, though unclean expres∣sions contain no more in their principal Idea, than what is or may be express'd in more civil ones; yet inasmuch as together with that they do also connote that pleasure which they give to our corrupt Nature, the Idea whereof will be apt to excite irregular motions and desires in the Hearers, they are justly look'd upon as vile and abominable, and as such to be abhorr'd by all modest and civil Persons. Which said, I shall answer more directly to that Dilemma of the Stoicks, by which they seem to themselves to have driven all Modesty out of the World. For be it, which is the proof of their first allegation, that the thing couched under unclean words may be honestly enough express'd in others; yet it will not thence follow (which is the thing they desire to infer from it) that an expression can receive no pollution from the subject matter of it, and consequently, as to that particular, is not capable of being unclean. For though that which is the matter of unclean words, may be honestly enough expressed in other, if you consider it as to the substance or principal Idea of it; yet can it not so, if you take in also the modus or accessary Idea, which is that

which makes an expression to be unclean. Again, though it be also true, which is produced for the proof of the second Allegation, that that expression which is look'd upon as dishonest in one sense, may yet be commendably used in another; yet will not that at all avail to shew that no expression can be dishonest, which is the thing for which the dilemma is produc'd; because we do not pretend to evince the dishonesty of an expression from the sound it gives, but from the sense which is couched in it, which therefore where it is different, may give it a different estimate, and at the same time it makes it dis∣honest in one sense, make it to be look'd upon as commendable in another.

But not to insist any longer upon the forementioned Argument of the Stoicks, because however it may have amused some Persons, yet it hath hardly convinc'd so much as themselves, (so great a disgust is there in Nature against all impure and immodest expressions) I will choose rather to go on to shew the incentives and occasions of Un∣cleanness, as which we are no less oblig'd to avoid. Of this nature is Sloth and Ease, because disposing the Body to it, and giving the De∣vil an opportunity to frame our Minds to the approbation of it: Of the same nature is Luxury or Excess in Meat and Drink, because ex∣citing, nourishing, and corroborating our Natural Propensions to it. Of the same nature again is converse with Persons of loose or immodest behaviour, as by whose Example or Communication it will be almost impossible not to be deprav'd: Of the like, the reading of loose Books, or listning to impure Songs, or resorting to offensive Plays: The two latter, by how much the more grateful they are to our Sense, and Passion, and Understanding, becoming so much the more pernicious, when instead of ministring to the ends of Virtue, and an innocent Pleasure to which they are admirably fitted of themselves, they are forced to serve the purposes of Ribaldry and Profaneness. And though that may perhaps be thought to be no furtherer of Un∣cleanness, but on the contrary the repressor of it; yet Reason as well as Experience shews, that to combate an impure Temptation when it is strong and present, though with never so rational Arguments, doth rather irritate than extinguish it; because we cannot frame our Minds to dispute against it, but we must bring its allure∣ments into our view, which under such circumstances will prevail above all our Reason and Resolution. The most safe, as well as most easie method of Conquest is, to fight as the Parthians do fleeing, and either to run from them into Company or to other Thoughts; which if we do, we shall not only defeat theirs and the Devils purposes, but be thereby better qualified to look them afterwards in the face, and not only avoid but subdue them. Such are the Incentives to that Impurity which is here forbidden, and which therefore it will con∣cern us as much as in us lies to avoid; as it will also to take care, lest we draw upon us the guilt of other Persons, by ministring these or other such like Incentives to them. In which number, as there is no doubt an immodest attire is to be reckoned, as by which Women of ill Fame seek to train unweary Persons into their Snares; so what is mo∣dest or immodest is to be judg'd of by the custom of the place, and by the example of Religious Persons in it.

I will conclude this Discourse, and my explication of the Command∣ment, with an admonition to set before you the excellency of the plea∣sures of the Mind above those of the Sense or Body. For as it is for want of this consideration, that Men pursue the latter with so much earnestness, as if there were not only no pleasures comparable to them, but none beside them; so they would be quickly taken off both from that conceit and pursuit, if they adverted only to the duration of the other. For whilst the pleasures of Sense by being repeated become dull and insipid, that I say not also irksome and afflictive, the plea∣sures of the Mind, and particularly that of Knowledge, encrease with their enjoyment, and do not only not satiate our appetite but intend it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Vid. Selden. de Jure nat. & Gent. l. 5. c. 3.
• * 1.2

  Mat. 19.4, 5.
• ‖ 1.3

  Mat. 19.5.
• † 1.4

  Mat. 19.4.8, &c.
• * 1.5

  Pro. 2.17. Mal. 2.14.
• * 1.6

  See the Case of Marrying with a Recu∣sant, by Dr. Sanderson.
• ‖ 1.7

  Tert. ad Ʋx∣orem, lib. 2. Quis enim du∣bitet obliterari quotidie fidem commercio infi∣deli? Bonos cor∣rumpunt mores, confabulationes malae: quanto magis & con∣victus, & indi∣viduus usus? ib. cap. 3.
• * 1.8

  Tertull. ad Ʋxorem lib. 2. p. 189. Quis autem sinat conjugem suam, visitandorum fratrum gratiâ, vi∣catim aliena & quidem pauperi∣or a quae{que} tuguria circuire? Quis nocturnis convocationibus, si ita oportuerit, a latere suo adimi li∣benter feret? Quis deni{que} solen∣nibus Paschae abnoctantem securus sustinebit? Quis ad convivium il∣lud Domin cum quod infamant, sine sua suspicione dimittet? Quis in carcerem ad osculanda vinculae martyris reptare patietur?
• ‖ 1.9

  Yertull. ib. Ʋt si statio facien∣da est, maritus de die condicat ad balneas: si jejunia observanda sunt, maritus eadem die convrvium ex∣erceat: si procedendum erit, nun∣quam magis familiae occupatio ob∣veniat.
• * 1.10

  Simul orant, simul volutantur, & simul jejunia transigunt, alter∣utro docentes, alterutro hortantes, alterutro sustinentes. In Ecclesia Dei pariter utrique, partier in con∣vivio Dei, pariter in angustiis, in persecutionibus, in refrigeriis. Neu∣ter alterum celat, neuter alterum vitat, neuter alteri gravis est. Li∣berè aeger visitatur, indigent su∣stentatur. Eleemosynae sine tormen∣to, sacrificia sine scrupulo, quoti diana diligentia sine impedimento. Non furtiva signatio, non trepida gratulatio, non muta benedictio. Sonant inter duos Psalmi & Hym∣ni, & mutuò provocant quis me∣liùs Deo suo canter. Talia Chri∣stus videns & audiens gaudet. His pacem suam mittit. Ʋbi duo, ibi & ipse: ubi & ipse, ibi Malus non est. Tertull. ad Ʋxor. lib. 2. in fine.
• * 1.11

  See the Stat. of 12 Car. 2. c. 33.
• ‖ 1.12

  Mat. 19.6.
• * 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 13. edit. Voss.
• * 1.14

  G. 4. Ideo penes nos occultae quoque conjunctiones, id est, non prius apud Ecclesiam professae jux∣ta moe hiam & for nicationem ju∣dicari periclitantur.
• ‖ 1.15

  Ad Ʋxor. lib. 2. c. ult. Ʋnde sufficiamus ad enarrandam felici∣tatem ejus matrimonii, quod Ec∣clesia conciliat, & confirmat obla∣tio, & obsignat benediclio, ange∣li renunciant, pater rato habet.
• * 1.16

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, enutrit, educat, sic Lexicogra∣phi.
• ‖ 1.17

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He∣sych 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Idem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.18

  Vid Mylerum in Gamologia seu de matri∣monio Persona∣rum Imperii illustrium, &c citat. in le Journal de Scavans, parte 1.
• * 1.19

  Malach. 2.14
• * 1.20

  Col. 3.19.
• * 1.21

  Daven. in Vol. 3.18, 19.
• * 1.22

  Dr. Tayl. Ser∣mon on Eph. 5.32, 33. Part 2.
• * 1.23

  1 Jac. 11.
• * 1.24

  Deut. 24.1.
• * 1.25

  See Ham∣mond's Six Queries, and particularly that concern∣ing Divorces.
• * 1.26

  Ʋxoris vitium tollas opus est, aut feras Qui tol lit vitium, uxorem commo∣drusculam Stbi praestat; qui fert, sese me∣liorem facit.
• * 1.27

  Lactant. li. 6. c. 23. Non enim ficut juris publici ratio est, sola mulier adultera est, quae habet alium; maritus autem, etiamsi plures habeat, à crimine adulte∣rii solutus est. Sed divina lex ita duos in matrimonium, quod est in corpus unum, pari jure conjun∣git, ut adulter habeatur, quisquis compagem corporis in diversa di∣straxerit. Vid. Notas Anton. Thysii ad locum.
• * 1.28

  Lactant. li. 6. c. 23. Non enim ficut juris publici ratio est, sola mulier adultera est, quae habet alium; maritus autem, etiamsi plures habeat, à crimine adulte∣rii solutus est. Sed divina lex ita duos in matrimonium, quod est in corpus unum, pari jure conjun∣git, ut adulter habeatur, quisquis compagem corporis in diversa di∣straxerit. Vid. Notas Anton. Thysii ad locum.
• † 1.29

  Lact. lib. 6. c. 23. Servanda igitur fides ab utroque alteri est; imo exemplo continentiae docenda uxor, ut se castè gerat. Iniquum est enim ut id exieas. quod praesta∣re ipse non possis. Idem paulo post.— Cavendum igitur, ne oc∣casionem vicits nostrâ intemper an∣tiâ demus; sed assuescant invicem mores duo••••••n, & jugum paribus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seront. Nos ipsos in al∣•••••••• cog••••em••es, Nam fere in hoe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 summa consist••••, ut non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dieri, quicquid ipse ab al∣•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non possis.
• † 1.30

  Lact. lib. 6. c. 23. Servanda igitur fides ab utroque alteri est; imo exemplo continentiae docenda uxor, ut se castè gerat. Iniquum est enim ut id exieas. quod praesta∣re ipse non possis. Idem paulo post.— Cavendum igitur, ne oc∣casionem vicits nostrâ intemper an∣tiâ demus; sed assuescant invicem mores duo••••••n, & jugum paribus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seront. Nos ipsos in al∣•••••••• cog••••em••es, Nam fere in hoe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 summa consist••••, ut non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dieri, quicquid ipse ab al∣•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non possis.
• * 1.31

  Sharrock. Judicia, seu legum censurae de variis in∣continentiae speciebus, c. 1. art. 2.
• ‖ 1.32

  Agelli. Noct. Attic. li. c. 10. c. 23.
• † 1.33

  1 Cor. 6.9. &c. Gal. 5.21.
• * 1.34

  De Decalogo. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.35

  Ocellus Luc. De naturâ Ʋniversi. parte pol. text. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Vid. not. Vizzanii ad locum.
• ‖ 1.36

  De special. legibus. Ti 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.37

  Philo. tracta∣tu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ubi sanctum il∣lum virum in∣troducit, sic im∣portunitati herae suae repugnantem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.38

  Maimonid. More Nevo∣chim, part. 3. c. 49. Ad impediendum ita{que} ista mala, & è contrà ut hoc bonum promoveatur, distinctio scil. fami∣liarum, prohibitae sunt meretrices & meritorii vel cyuadi, nec ullus concubitus per missus est, nisi cum propriâ uxore, quae publicè in matrimonium ducitur.
• * 1.39

  Chrysipp. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Verba sunt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vid. Origen. adv. Celsum, li. 4. p. 206.
• * 1.40

  L. Item legato, Sect. Parvi D. de legat. 3. Parvi autem refert, uxori an concubinae quis leget, quae ejus causa empta parata sunt, sa∣ne enim nisi dignitate nibil inter∣est. Vid. & L. Donationes D. de donationibus.
• ‖ 1.41

  Eccl. Polity, li. 5. Sect. 73.
• † 1.42

  Adulter est uxoris amator acrior.
• * 1.43

  Philo de spe∣cial. leg. pag. 600 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.44

  2 Pet. 2.14.
• ‖ 1.45

  In Epist. ad Papirium Pae∣tum. li. 9. Ep. 22
• † 1.46

  Vid. La Lo∣gique, ou, L'Art de Penser. 1 Partie. 13 Chap.—