Page:Tetrachordon - Milton (1645).djvu/36

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

20

TETRACHORDON.

mat conversation, and mutual benevolence, &c. Wherin is to be markt his placing of intimat conversation before bodily benevolence; for bodily is meant, though indeed benevolence rather sounds will then body. Why then shall divorce be granted for want of bodily performance, and not for want of fitnes to intimat conversation, when as corporal benevolence cannot in any human fashion bee without this? Thus his definition places the ends of Mariage in one order, and esteems them in another. His Tautology also of indissoluble and individual is not to be imitated; especially since neither indissoluble nor individual hath ought to doe in the exact definition, beeing but a consectary flowing from thence, as appears by plain Scripture, Therfore shall a man leav, &c. For Mariage is not true mariage by beeing individual, but therfore individual, if it be true Mariage. No argument but causes enter the definition; a Consectary is but the effect of those causes. Besides, that Mariage is indissoluble, is not Catholickly true; wee know it dissoluble for Adultery, and for desertion by the verdit of all Reformed Churches. Dr. Ames defines it an individual conjunction of one man and one woman, to communion of body and mutual society of life; But this perverts the order of God, who in the institution places meet help and society of life before communion of body. And vulgar estimation undervalues beyond comparison all society of life and communion of minde beneath the communion of body; granting no divorce, but to the want, or miscommunicating of that. Hemingius, an approved Author, Melanchtons Scholler, and who, next to Bucer and Erasmus writes of divorce most like a Divine, thus comprises, Mariage is a conjunction of one man and one woman lawfully consenting, into one flesh, for mutual helps sake, ordain'd of God. And in his explanation stands punctually upon the conditions of consent, that it be not in any main matter deluded, as beeing the life of wedloc, and no true marriage without a true consent. Into one flesh he expounds into one minde, as well as one body, and makes it the formal cause: Heerin only missing, while he puts the effect into his definition instead of the cause which the Text affords him. For one flesh is not the formal essence of wedloc, but one end, or one effect of a meet help: The end oft times beeing the effect and fruit of the form, as Logic teaches: Els many aged and holy matrimonies, and more eminently that of Joseph and Mary, would bee no true mariage. And that maxim generally receiv'd, would be fals,

that