Woman to Wife which was not of his Father's Tribe. For (fays he) we are the Children of the Prophets, &c. Tob. iv. 12. Accordingly, he gives it as an inftance of his own punctual obfervance of the Law, that himself also had married a Wife of his own Kindred, Tob. i. 9. The Exhortation is indeed wanting in St. Hierom's Copy tranflated from the Chaldee, but our English has it from the Greek, which feems really to have been elder than St. Ferom's Chaldee. However, even that Copy of St. Ferom's has plain Allufions to the fame Notions, how holily Marriage ought to be treated by them who are defcended from the Patriarchal Seed, Chap. vi. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. viii. 4,5. of which there is no mention in the Greek, nor our English which is tranflated from it. Thefe are fufficient Testimonies for Fact. But for Right I had rather infift on others more unqueftinable.

Divorces in the

I chufe therefore rather to urge the Autho- s§. XIX. rity of the New Teftament, as more proper to The liberty of recommend the fame Matrimonial Duty to Apostles Age. the Practice of the new Peculium. These Prin- They who prociples therefore were fo firmly believed by the pofed the Cafe Primitive Converts from Judaifm, even after to St. Paul, their Converfion to Chriftianity, that a Cafe thought themSelves obliged was propofed to St. Paul, Whether Converfion to feparate to the Chriftian Religion would not authorife from their Inthe converted Confort to leave the other, in fidel Conforts, case they refused to partake with them in the benefits of their new Religion. That which facilitated the practice of that Age, was the liberty of Divorces then allowed of. The Roman Laws allowed Divorces on both fides, on the Womans fide as well as that of the Man, and left them on both fides free to it, as to Confcience. Only fo far the Law undertook to E 2 judge

judge between them where the cafe was very manifeft, That if it appeared that the Man were faulty in divorcing without any neceffary caufe obliging him to do fo, he was to lofe his Donum Antenuptiale anfwering our Fointures: But, if the Woman divorced her felf without a caufe the Law might judge fufficient, or (at leaft) might judge that the acted bona fide in thinking it to be fo; fhe was then to lofe her Portion, which might hinder her from thinking of new Marriages without a caufe which was truly great. The Jewish Law allowed Divor ces only to Men, and διὰ πᾶ αἰτίαν, as the Evangelift fpeaks, or our Saviour rather in the Evangelift; That is, for any cause that the Man himself fhould judge fufficiently momentous. It laid no reftraint on him as the Roman Law did, nor undertook to judge between him and his Confort, in cafe he thought her felf hardly dealt with. Yet Salome, Herod the Great's Sifter, took the benefit allowed by the Roman Law of divorcing her felf from her Husband. I cannot tell whether that would be allowed to ordinary Women, at leaft in the time of Sa lome. Yet it might have been fo afterwards in our Saviour's time, when Judea was a Roman Province, and under a Roman Præfect. This might put it in the power of both Sexes to practice this liberty on both fides, without fear of any restraint by Human Laws. Confcience therefore was the only thing that could then reftrain them. But our Saviour's new Law was a Rule to thofe who profeffed our Saviour's Religion, which had utterly forbidden all Divor ces for any caufe, except that of Fornication. And that even to Men alfo, to whom alone it had been allowed under the former Difpenfation. How then could Women pretend to it?

Un

a

t

fr

TE

fe

CO

th

W

fr

if

t

p

tr

de

th

ni

F

W

υ t

t

F

re

t

g

ກ

Undoubtedly they could not do fo, as to any account of hard Ufage, which was the ground of the Roman Liberty of Divorces. The only pretence therefore for it was, that they did not think themselves at liberty to live together on account of an antecedent and a greater Obligation, from which they did not think that it was our Saviour's defign to free them. This was from a belief of the Principles now mentioned: That Marriage out of the Peculium, was in it felf null and invalid, and not obliging on account of Confcience. Not only fo, but that they were also in Confcience obliged, if they would be true to their Covenant, to feparaté from fuch Wives, and to difown their Children, if they would not incur the Piaculum, as in the cafe of Ezra. Who fees not that they plainly fuppofed, that these Principles were as true, and their Confequences to be owned under the new, as they had been formerly under the old Peculium? So much, at least, is ma nifeft, that they who propofed this cafe to St. Paul, knew nothing to the contrary.

himself an

which made

What then? Does St. Paul acquaint them S. XX. with any mistake they were guilty of in belie-The Apoftle ving thefe Principles, or in reafoning from fwers, on a sup them? Does he tell them, that they miftook pofition of the the nature of the Religion they profeffed, in truth of those Reafoning, as I have fhewn they did, from thefe Principles received Opinions among the Jews? Does he Marriages out tell them, that they did hereby reduce the Le- of the Pecugal Bondage, or betray the Chriftian Liberty of lium unlawful. which himself had been fo ftrenuous an Affer That Age tor, in believing that they were under fuch Ob- could not have ligations, to quit their married Conforts? Does Baptifm. he admonish them, that they mistook the Spiritual Nature of the new Peculium, which more regarded the Seed of Abraham's Faith E 3

than

denied Infant

than of his Flesh, whilft they thus reafoned from the nature of a Fleshly Seed? Does he warn them, that they hereby overthrew the Latitude of the Favours of the Gospel, whilft they still infifted on the Holiness of a particular Seed, in contradiftinction to all others befides themselves? These things he ought, and certainly would have urged, if the Doctrine of thofe Times, if his own Doctrine, had been fuch as it is now commonly believed to have been. But fo far he is from urging any of these things, that, on the contrary, he feems himself as much to believe thefe Principles as the Adverfaries themselves, with whom he has to deal concerning them. He does not offer any thing to prove them falfe, but accounts for the Difficulty propofed from Conceffions granted by the moft vigorous Affertors of them. He fhews, that in the cafe, concerning which his Opinion was defired, the Affertors of those Principles did not affert any thing that might make Perfons engaged in fuch Marriages, believe themfelves obliged in confcience to feparate. The cafe propofed was of Perfons married both of them out of the Peculium. So Tertullian understood it, and not without good reafon from the Text. The Apoftle himself feems to im ply it in those words: As the Lord hath cal led every one, fo let him walk, 1 Cor. vii. 17. Thefe Words are fo immediately connected with what went before, that there can be hard

any reafon to doubt, but that they are to be referred to them, and that therefore the cafe preceding, must be understood of one that is called to the Chriftian Religion in Wedlock, with an unbelieving Confort. That must in all likelihood be the meaning of the unbelieving Confort's departing, ver. 15. that is, upon the converfion

ad Ux. c. 2.

converfion of the other Confort. The fame thing alfo Tertullian obferves from the Words: Tert. 1. 2. If any Brother bath a Wife that believeth not, ver. 12. He does not fay marrieth, as Suppopofing him to have married her before he was a Brother, fo that his Chriftianity found him in poffeffion of her. This therefore being fuppofed to be the cafe; the Apoftle reasons from the fame Principles by which thefe mix'd Marriages were condemned, to fhew, that there was no need of divorcing in this cafe. One was the danger of the feduction of the Orthodox Confort. In oppofition to this, the contrary Profpe&t is infifted on, the more probable hope of the converfion of the Infidel ConSort: What knowest thou, O Wife, whether thou shalt fave thy Husband? Or, How knoweft thou, O Man, whether thou shalt fave thy Wife? ver. 16. In the new Fervours of a new Converfion, there was lefs danger of a relapse of the new Convert. And there was a particular advantage for gaining the other Confort. Befides the convenience of a domeftical Inftructor, the Favour for the Perfon would go far to recommend those Reafons which otherwife would not have been regarded. And the Good Will fhewn in not Separating, would be a farther endearment of the Perfon, and the Religion too, that obliged the Perfon to fo great a candor in Behaviour, notwithstanding fo great a difference in their Opinions. The fecond Reafon infifted on against Marriages with Infidels, is this I am now difcourfing of, concerning the holinefs of the Seed. And here alfo he reafons, from a known conceffion of the Adverfaries of this fort of Marriages. He fhews, that they did not deny the holiness of the Seed proceeding from this fort of Marriages. Plainly fup

E 4

pofing,