the Canon forc't to draw in that yoke an unmercifull dayes work of forrow till death unharneffe'em, that then the Law keeps mariage most unviolated and unbrok'n: but when the Law takes order that mariage be acountant and responsible to perform that fociety, whether it be religious, civill, or corporall, which may be conscionably requir'd and claim'd therin, or elfe to be diffolv'd if it cannot be undergone: This is to make mariage most indiffoluble, by making it a just and equall dealer, a performer of those due helps which instituted the covnant, being otherwise a most unjust contract, and no more to be maintain'd under tuition of law, then the vilest fraud, or cheat, or theft that may be committed. But because this is such a fecret kind of fraud or theft, as cannot be discern'd by law, but only by the plaintife himself, therfore to divorce was never counted a politicall or civill offence neither to Jew nor Gentile, nor by any judiciall intendment of Chrift, further then could be difcern'd to tranfgreffe the allowance of Mofes, which was of neceffity fo large, that it doth all one as if it fent back the matter undeterminable at law, and intractable by rough-dealing, to have inftructions and admonitions bestow'd about it by them whose spirituall office is to adjure and to denounce, and fo left to the confcience. The Law can only appoint the just and equall conditions of divorce, and is to look how it is an injury to the divorc't, which in truth it can be none, as a meer feparation; for if the confent, wherin has the Law to right her? or confent not; then is it either just, and fo defervd; or if unjuft, fuch in all likelihood was the divorcer, and to part from an unjust man is a happineffe, and no injury to be lamented. But fuppose it be an injury, the Law is not able to amend it, unles fhe think it other then a miserable redress to return back from whence he was expelled, or but intreated to be gone, or elfe to live apart still maried

2

Laft, if it be to

without mariage, a maried widow. chaften the divourcer, what Law punishes a deed which is not morall, but natural, a deed which cannot certainly be found to be an injury, or how can it be punisht by prohibiting the divorce, but that the innocent muft equally partake both in the shame and in the fmart. So that which way foever we look the Law can to no rationall purpose forbid divorce, it can only take care that the conditions of divorce be not injurious. Thus then we see the triall of law how impertinent it is to this question of divorce, how helpleffe next, and then how hurtfull.

CHAP. XXII.

The laft Reafon, why divorce is not to be reftraind by Law, it being against the Law of nature and of Nations. The larger proof wherof referrd to Mr. Seldens Book De jure naturali et gentium. An objection of Paræus anfwerd. How it ought to be ordered by the Church. That this will not breed any worse inconvenience nor fo bad as is now suffered.

Herfore the laft Reason why it should not be, is the example we have, not only from the nobleft and wifeft Common-wealths, guided by the cleareft light of human knowledge, but alfo from the divine teftimonies of God himself, lawgiving in perfon to a fanctify'd people. That all this is true, who fo defires to know at large with least pains, and expects not heer overlong reherfals of that which is by others already so judiciously gather'd, let him hasten to be acquainted with that noble volume written by our learned Selden, Of the Law of nature and of Nations, a work more usefull and more worthy to be perus'd, who

foever ftudies to be a great man in wifdom, equity, and justice, then all thofe decretals, and fumles fums, which the Pontificall Clerks have doted on, ever fince that unfortunat mother famously sinn'd thrice, and di'd impenitent of her bringing into the world those two misbegotten infants, and for ever infants Lombard and Gratian, him the compiler of Canon iniquity, tother the Tubalcain of scholastick Sophistry, whose overspreading barbarism hath not only infus'd their own bastardy upon the fruitfulleft part of human learning; not only diffipated and dejected the clear light of nature in us, and of Nations, but hath tainted alfo the fountains of divine Doctrine, and render'd the pure and folid Law of God unbeneficial to us by their calumnious dunceries. Yet this Law which their unskilfulneffe hath made liable to all ignominy, the purity and wisdom of this Law shall be the buckler of our difpute. Liberty of divorce we claim not, we think not but from this Law; the dignity, the faith, the authority thereof is now grown among Chriftians, O aftonishment! a labour of no mean difficulty and envy to defend. That it should not be counted a faltring difpence, a flattring permiffion of fin, the bill of adultery, a fnare, is the expence of all this apology. And all that we folicite is, that it may be fuffer'd to stand in the place where God fet it amidst the firmament of his holy Laws to shine, as it was wont, upon the weakneffes and errors of men perifhing els in the fincerity of their honeft purposes: for certain there is no memory of whordoms and adulteries left among us now, when this warranted freedom of Gods own giving is made dangerous and difcarded for a fcrowle of licence. It must be your fuffrages and Votes, O Englishmen, that this exploded decree of God and Mofes may fcape, and come off fair without the cenfure of a fhamefull abrogating: which, if yonder Sun ride

fure, and mean not to break word with us to morrow, was never yet abrogated by our Saviour. Give sentence, if you please, that the frivolous Canon may reverse the infallible judgement of Mofes and his great director. Or if it be the reformed writers, whose doctrine perfwades this rather, their reafons I dare affirm are all filenc't, unleffe it be only this. Paraus on the Corinthians would prove that hardnes of heart in divorce is no more now to be permitted, but to be amerc't with fine and imprisonment. I am not willing to discover the forgettings of reverend men, yet here I must. here I must. What article or clause of the whole new Cov'nant can Paraus bring to exafperat the judiciall Law, upon any infirmity under the Gofpel? (I say infirmity, for if it were the high hand of fin, the Law as little would have endur'd it as the Gospel) it would not stretch to the dividing of an inheritance; it refus'd to condemn adultery, not that these things fhould not be don at Law, but to fhew that the Gofpel hath not the leaft influence upon judiciall Courts, much leffe to make them sharper, and more heavy; left of all to arraine before a temporall Judge that which the Law without fummons acquitted. But faith he, the law was the time of youth, under violent affections, the Gospel in us is mature age, and ought to fubdue affections. True, and fo ought the Law too, if they be found inordinat, and not meerly naturall and blameles. Next I distinguish that the time of the Law is compar'd to youth, and pupillage in refpect of the ceremoniall part, which led the Jews as children through corporal and garish rudiments, until the fulnes of time should reveal to them the higher lessons of faith and redemption. This is not meant of the moral part, therin it foberly concern'd them not to be babies, but to be men in good earnest: the fad and awfull majesty of that Law was not to be jested with, to

bring a bearded nonage with lascivious difpenfations before that throne, had bin a leud affront, as it is now a groffe mistake. But what difcipline is this, Paraus, to nourish violent affections in youth, by cockring and wanton indulgences, and to chastise them in mature age with a boyish rod of correction. How much more coherent is it to Scripture, that the Law as a strict Schoolmaster should have punisht every trespaffe without indulgence fo banefull to youth, and that the Gospel fhould now correct that by admonition and reproof only, in free and mature age, which was punifht with ftripes in the childhood and bondage of the Law. What therfore it allowd then fo fairly, much leffe is to be whipt now, efpecially in penall Courts: and if it ought now to trouble the confcience, why did that angry accufer and condemner Law repreev it? So then, neither from Mofes nor from Chrift hath the Magiftrate any authority to proceed against it. But what? Shall then the dif pofall of that power return again to the mafter of family? Wherefore not? Since God there put it, and the presumptuous Canon thence bereft it. This only must be provided, that the ancient manner be obferv'd in presence of the Minifter and other grave selected Elders; who after they shall have admonisht and preft upon him the words of our Saviour, and he hall have protested in the faith of the eternal Gospel, and the hope he has of happy refurrection, that otherwise then thus he cannot do, and thinks himself, and this his cafe not contain'd in that prohibition of divorce which Chrift pronounc't, the matter not being of malice, but of nature, and so not capable of reconciling, to constrain him furder were to unchriften him, to unman him, to throw the mountain of Sinai upon him, with the weight of the whole Law to boot, flat against the liberty and effence of the Gospell, and yet nothing available either