to fasting and prayer and come together again that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency If a mans case be such that without the use of Marriage Fornication or other bodily uncleanness or inward impurity of desires and motions cannot be ordinarily avoided by him and if in that case it be his duty to marry then the avoiding of Fornication or other impurity corporeal or mental is one lawful and honest end of the use of the Marriage-bed even when there is no power of procreation and the procreation of children is not always necessary to be respected therein § 28. When there be several lawful and necessary ends of the use of Marriage viz procreation and the avoiding of fornication or burning it is not necessary that the later of the said ends should be always conjunct with and referred to the former but it may be sometimes separate and independent thereon For the said ends are not things subordinate but coordinate each of them is intended for it self and the one is not in meer subserviency to the other It is granted that the former end is more noble as being necessary to Nature in it self considered and the later less noble as being made necessary by Nature fallen Yet it doth not appear from Scripture or right Reason that the use of the Marriage-bed is sinful and impure in the less noble yet necessary end thereof upon the failing of the other which is the more noble The truth is as the state of man is since the Fall there is no end of Marriage of greater moment than the preserving of Chastity and the due benevolence 1 Cor. 7. is one of the essential dues of Marriage Let it be here noted that they who hold the use of the Marriage bed without respect to procreation to be sin do hold it no sin in that case to render the due benevolence when required because it is a point of justice But if this thing be a sin on the demanders part the rendering of it cannot be a due It is granted there may be a sinful demanding of a just debt and in that case the rendering of that which is sinfully demanded is a point of justice but it is not so if the very thing demanded be the sin of the demander For sin cannot be a matter of right and there can be no obligation of Justice to cooperate to anothers sin And therefore if the rendering of this benevolence be a righteousness the demand thereof is righteous and the thing demanded is no sin § 29. They who reject the aforesaid end and condemn the aforesaid use of Marriage which is clearly justified 1 Cor. 7.2 3 4 5 do alledg that which is said ver 6. This I speak by permission not of commandment Wherein they say the Apostle by way of pardon grants the use of lust within the bounds of Matrimony Hereupon the true intent of those words is to be examined The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used both for permission and for pardon and here it is evidently used for permission being opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commandment and it signifies not the remitting of a fault but the allowing of an honest liberty as contradistinct to the injoining of duty The Apostle's meaning is that he doth not injoyn Marriage or the use of the Marriage due as a general duty for he wishes that all men were as himself but allows it as a lawful benefit And not only so but he doth prescribe it as a remedy against sin for those that have need of it in which case it becomes a duty To say that the use of lust is here granted within the bounds of Matrimony is I think an imputation too foul to cast upon the word of God and for it to grant by way of pardon the committing of a lesser sin that some greater sin may be avoided seems to derogate from its perfect purity Never was any moral evil permitted by Gods Moral Law upon the reason of avoiding a greater evil The permission of Divorce among the Jews was but political and did of it self amount to no more than a legal impunity in that Commonwealth For the Divorcing of a Wife might be a mortal sin notwithstanding Mal. 2 16. The Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away Moreover if the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs signifie Pardon let them who will have it so shew cause why it must not be applied as well to the rendering as to the demanding of the conjugal due For whatsoever the sense of the word be neither the express Text nor rational interpretation doth carry it to one part excluding the other But themselves deny that the rendering of the due doth need pardon § 13. It is common with those who are loose in the Commandments of God to be very severe in the Traditions of men according to this kind of principle Popish Writers hold that the intendment of corporeal delight in the use of Marriage is a sin and that it is not without fault if it be done partly for procreation and partly for pleasure tho the pleasure be not chiefly intended What strange rigor is here imposed upon mankind against human nature it self to make it sin for a man to be affected with desire of pleasure in the fruition of his own Wife If sensitive pleasure be naturally connex with the innate appetite the intended fruition thereof can be no more sin than Nature it self Yea let these rigid Imposers think whether the non-fruition or non-intendment of that which is inseparable from sensitive Nature be naturally possible and consequently whether according to this principle the procreation which they allow must not necessarily be accounted sin These and the like opinions greatly detract from the purity and honour of Marriage and manifestly lessen the impurity and dishonour of Whoredome by making Marriage it self so vile and faulty and consequently they intangle the consciencious sort of men in causeless scruples and imbolden the licentious in dissolute ways The truth of the case is That if Pleasure be ultimately intended in this or any other act of the Animal Nature it is a mortal sin but if it be intended in subserviency to holy and spiritual ends it is no sin at all Pleasure and Lust which is the inordinacy of Pleasure are very different things Lust tho it keep within the bounds of Marriage is in it self ever dishonest and repugnant to Reason and cannot be venial as the Papists hold it to be The truth is the aforesaid Doctrines of Popish Writers do but serve according to their known design to debase Marriage and render it a less desirable yea a more unsafe state to the strictly consciencious that they might inhance the estimate of single life The Church of England hath otherwise determined in this case That Marriage was ordained for a remâ—dy against sin and to avoid Fornication That such persons as have not the gift of Continence might marry and keep themselves undefiled
less perfect and some of them as Jerome were almost contumelious against it Yet in those times some appeared to give some check to those contumelies cast upon Marriage When Christianity obtained the Empire those Laws which were made in special favour of Marriage and disadvantage of single Life were abrogated and the Monastick state was greatly propagated and priviledged Yea in later times Married persons were encouraged to forsake their yokefellows and go into Monasteries § 7. Upon this occasion I am led to consider what worth or excellence in celebate and virginity more than in the Married Life can be shewed from the Holy Scripture or from right reason In the Scripture we find no greater excellence ascribed to single continence than to Matrimonial chastity It is said 1 Cor. 7.1 It is good for a man not to touch a Woman The goodness here spoken of is a moral convenience and in that respect to abstain from Marriage is here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vertuous For it is vertuous to choose that which is most commodious to Christian life and to avoid all avoidable hinderances of the freer exercise of godliness Now divers cares and troubles which accompany Marriage may well be avoided by one who hath the special gift of continence And those difficulties and sufferings which come upon us in times of the Churches calamities may be better born and the temptations thereof more easily escaped in a single than in a Married Life In the same Chapter vers 25 26. Virginity is commended not from its intrinsick excellency as far as that appears but from its conveniency in regard of the distresses of the Church The Apostle saith It is good for the present distress Here also he useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shews that the thing is vertuously good but upon what account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It had in that state of things a Moral convenience and therefore to make choice of it was vertuous Yet he shews vers 28. that to Marry in such a time is no sin tho not to Marry be more expedient Likewise vers 32 33 34. and so to the end of the Chapter single Life is prefered before Marriage by reason of its convenience and on no other account § 8. Marriage was instituted for man in the state of innocence And it must needs be acknowleeged by all that in that state it would have been altogether as pure and perfect as Celibate and Virginity If Matrimony by reason of the fall be accompanied with some unavoidable irregularities or inordinate motions in the sensitive Nature single life is a like yea perhaps more obnoxious in that respect Matrimonial chastity is as truly chastity as Virginal chastity And the same degree of Matrimonial chastity is equally pure with the same degree of Virginal chastity or to speak in other terms there may be as great chastity both of body and mind in Matrimony as in Virginity If there be a glory and excellency in that Victory over sense which they have who having the gift of continence abstain from the sensitive pleasure of the Marriage-bed it may be equalled by the sobriety and regularity of the use of the Marriage bed being accompanied with a Christian Wisdom Fortitude and Patience in bearing and managing the difficulties of the Married condition for the glory of God and the good of the Church and Commonwealth besides the private good of Families And there appears much less self-denial in a single than in a married life to be exercised by those that have the gift of continence § 9. Principles tending to render Marriage vile and loathsome have been propagated by some out of an excessive admiration of Virginity and total abstinence from carnal conjunction and by others whose interest it was to inhance the reputation of single life for the strengthning of the Papal Kingdom Of which sort are these viz. The natural desire of copulation is prohibited lust That corporeal delight may not be intended in the conjugal act That a mans desire of pleasure with his own Wife cannot be without sin That a man doth sin except he come to the act with grief Accordingly some Popish Writers have said That most frequently mortal sin and always venial sin is committed in the conjugal act And the truth is if these things were true they were enough to deter from Marriage all those that have a due care of their own souls Some of great name among the Ancients held That there should have been no commixtion of Sexes in the state of innocence because tho it were used for procreation alone yet as they thought it could not have been without shameful lust § 10. Now for the redargation of such opinions let it be considered that when men otherwise very worthy shall give scope to their own conceits and shall advance self-chosen ways they will overlook the clearest evidence both of Scripture and Reason For what other cause could be rendered for the creation of the different Sexes but the foresaid commixtion And of a man and his wife in the state of innocence it was said They shall be one flesh And for the vehement desire of the said conjunction it is in it self an Animal Faculty for the conservation of the Species as the like desire of ingestion and egestion is for the conservation of the individual Since the Fall the sensitive appetite ought to be distinguished from its inordinacy from which by grace it may be separated and so it may be alike pure and sinless with other parts of human nature in this imperfect state And this being granted in other kinds of sensitive appetite why should it be denied in the kind here treated of Some say of it That it is a brutifying act and that the mind is so carried away therein that it can think nothing worthy of a wise man But I make no question but godly persons know the contrary by experience And I can see no reason but that they who have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts as all true Christians have may by due care carry themselves in this matter with a due sobriety and regularity and that the more perfect Christians ordinarily do so And tho herein they be not perfectly yet they are prevalently pure And that it is perfectly pure can scarce be said of any good act in the present state of mankind The delight of eating and drinking after hunger and thirst or of rest after labour doth swallow up Reason in the Vicious or more or less disturb it according to the degree of their intemperance And so the delight here considered doth swallow up Reason in them that use it inordinately and that more or less according to the degree of their inordinacy But as the delight of eating and drinking doth not brutifie the temperate so the delight here considered doth not brutifie them that use it purely and soberly not in opposition but subordination to spiritual delights § 11. Indeed it
Idolatry in any kind BY the meer appearance of idolatry I understand not external or meerly corporeal idolatry of which I have before spoken For this differs from that on this manner That is an outward sign of inward worship tho it be but seeming or feigned but this is only an appearance of being such a sign when it is not Query about incurvation towards the Altar or Communion-Table Whether it give not an appearance of idolatry before the Vulgar and those that are less accurate in distinguishing between an object to which and toward which Query much more about directing worship towards a Crucifix or other pictures tho but as to objects of remembrance The same appearance may be in the mixing of expressions of veneration to Saints or Angels amidst the worship of God tho they be not those expressions that are appropriated to Gods worship but only such as are common to the worship due to God and the creatures There may be indeed a notorious signifying of the difference of our veneration towards them from what is due to God Howbeit for fear of scandal it may be better wholly forborn Also the like appearance may be in bowing to a King or Potentate amidst the Worship of God except time custom and manner of doing do notoriously notifie the distinction Also when that which is a common expression both of Civil and Religious honour shall be made by a King to be a symbol of giving divinee honour to him if one use that expression towards him or his image with a civil intent without protesting against the idolatrous use thereof § 21. Whether a course of Idolatry in what kind soever infer a state of damnation THE meaning of this Question is Whether all Idolatry be mortal sin not only in respect of desert but existence as sins whose ordinary habitual practice denies the being of grace and presence of the sanctifying Spirit That all idolatry in whatsoever degree is not of this nature is plain For idolatry in general is the giving of that honour to the creature which is due to the Creator alone and this lies not only in solemn avowed worship but in the affection of the heart There are Idola seculi as well as Idola templi And it is too common among the true worshippers of God to rob him of his honour and to place it upon the creature and that habitually as on a Child or Wealth c. tho only in a mortified and not in a prevalent degree The remainders of covetousness which is idolatry is a witness hereof And if this may be in reference to the idols of the heart why not also in reference to the idols of the Templ◠Nay more easily may it be in this later than in the former respect in some devout persons that live in darker times and places because it may proceed not from the love of the creature more than God but meerly from ignorance and error about the way of Divine Worship Wherefore I doubt not but many holy Souls in darker Ages Countries have been habitually or customarily guilty of a lower kind of Idolatry in making Idols to themselves not simply as God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the excessive honour they gave to the creature did not distroy the sincerity of their Devotion towards God nor deny their unfeigned giving of the highest honour to him alone For such we now speak of may heartily and prevalently own the true God and all the essentials of Religion and so they may be of the true Church of God as True is taken for the essence and not for the integral perfectness and healthfulness of the Church The Third Part Of Superstition less than Idolatry § 1. Of excess in the quantity or measure of Religious Observances ALL Superstition is an excess in Religion The excess in the object thereof being opened in the Second Part here it remains that I speak of that which is in the Acts thereof and this excess is either in the measure or in the kind when the Rule of Religion is transgressed in either of these ways and in some instances there may be an excess in both Excess in the quantity or measure of Religious Observances is when tho the thing in kind were not an excess yet for the quantity it is more than conduceth to the end of Religion yea is an hindrance thereto as for Example Prayer or Preaching of the word too Prolix or at an unseasonable time too rigid a pressing of Religious Exercises on the Lords day or at any other time lawfully set apart thereunto contrary to the works of Mercy or present necessity yea that conveniency to life and converse which doth not divert the mind from the things of God too much care and curiosity about circumstances of Decency and Order and too great a heaping up of Rites and Formalities § 2. Of Excess in Religious Observances for the kind thereof EXcess in the kind is when mans presumption in giving honour to God gives such signs of honour to him as for kind he would not should be given but hath forbidden the same God may forbid the kinds of Religious Observances either in particular as he did some heathenish rites to his people of old expressing them by name or else in general viz. by a general rule forbidding all of such a nature and reason in common Some kind of Religious Observances are unlawful in themselves or in the nature of the things as being naturally unfit to be offerrd to the Holy God namely such kind of Worship as was given to Bacchus and other like heathen gods who were served congruenti vitio And such need not to be forbidden in specie because they are naught in their common nature being vices and 't is enough to be forbidden in genere Some kinds of Religious Worship may not be vicious in their nature nor contrary to Gods holiness to command or allow Yet may be forbidden by the general precept of Scripture or other supernatural Revelation § 3. Of the Rule that limits the kinds of Worship OF Natural Worship the Law of Nature is the limiting Rule for all the kinds thereof Of positive Worship namely all that which in specie is not necessary in nature but is of free Determination the kinds thereof are supposed to be either restrained to Divine Institution or left to humane choice That there are Divine Institutions of positive Worship in sundry kinds is acknowledged by all that acknowledg the Scriptures Divine Authority And that many kinds of positive Worship have been taken up by humane discretion is known by all that know what is practiced in the World Now the Question is Whether these kinds that are of humane choice are lawful or lawfully intermingled in their use with Divine Institutions That all kinds of positive Worship should be left to humane choice seems in reason repugnant in regard of mans natural darkness in Divine things and proneness at the best to mistake therein and to
yet not from the bond of Matrimony is but idle talk The state is dissolved where all the obligations consequent to such a state are abrogated Moreover the Papists themselves allow the dissolving of a Marriage with such an Infidel as will not cohabit without using contumely against Christ and seeking to turn the yokefellow from Christ And is not Adultery especially if continued as just a cause of the dissolution seeing this cause is expressed in Gods Law whereas the other is not And whereas they say there is not the same firmness in the marriage of Infidels as of Christians this they speak without proof and against the Law of God which hath made Matrimony as inviolable among Infidels as among Christians This is a Divine Ordinance belonging not to the Church only but to all mankind § 22. As touching the allowableness of another Marriage to the innocent party in case of a declared wilful desertion by the other we find this written 1 Cor. 7.15 If the unbelieving depart let him depart A brother and sister is not under bondage in such cases It is hence gathered by some that in a Marriage between a believer and an unbeliever in case the unbelieving party depart out of hatred to true Religion and if the believing party hath used all possible and reasonable means to reduce the other to a due Conjunction and hath staid a convenient time for that purpose and cannot prevail therein he is loosed from this bond This inference from the Text seems to me highly probable that I cannot disallow it Many Reformed Churches have determined this and applied it further to other cases of obstinate desertion besides this before mentioned that the matter being judged by the Magistrate the Innocent party may Marry another As for the prohibition Vers 11. If she depart let her remain unmarried therein another Marriage is forbidden only to such as voluntarily depart It is to be noted that there may be a just voluntary departing which is not of the same reason with a just divorce § 23. Abishag who was sought for David to cherish him in his extream age 1 King 1.2 was his Concubine that is not his Harlot but his lawful Wife in a secondary degree or inferior rank I mean lawful only by Gods permission or connivence in regard of his plurality of Wives at once according to the custom of the ancient times yet lawful by Divine Approbation in case he had had no other Wife then in being From this example it is at least probable that it is not a sin in it self in extream old age to take a Wife as a cherishing Nurse or a bosom companion For the declared intent of Davids taking Abishag was that she might lie in his bosom and cherish him in his age when he could get no heat And it is said That she cherished him but he knew her not § 24. The Bed undefiled Heb. 13.4 is that which is not defiled with Adultery Fornication or any kind of unchastness or unsoberness To the maintaining of which undefiledness and the avoiding of all uncleanness Christians are greatly obliged by the purity of their Religion Here I design to speak of uncleanness not without but within the bounds of Matrimony and to give caution against all corrupt behaviour between a Man and his own Wife because men are commonly least aware of this evil and because this is the Damnation of multitudes who defile not themselves with strange embraces and while they think they live chastly do securely allow themselves in very great breaches of the laws of chastity To keep the Bed undefiled it is necessary to observe not only the due object of Conjunction or the legitimate person but all due eircumstances of time place measure manner c. For inordinate sensuality or lust is not excused by being acted between persons lawfully married The honesty and honour of Matrimony cannot make that to be lawful and honest which is in it self dishonest and sinful All manner of lust or evil concupiscence and the imperated acts thereof are forbidden by the Law § 25. There be divers ways of abusing the Marriage-bed between a Man and his own Wife whereof some are more foul and gross than others There be nefarious irregulaties that some fall into by unbridled lust There are preternatural ways by which humane nature cannot be propagated and which are justly to be abhorred by all who have not lost the sense of humanity Moreover a man may come to his Wife as to a Harlot with a spirit of Whoredom and seek a brutish pleasure which extinguisheth the fear of God Such excess as doth notably impair the health of the Body or vitiate the mind and make it more carnal is unquestionably to be avoided and will be avoided by those that are careful to keep a sound state of body or mind § 26. It is by all confessed that in two cases the conjugal embraces are without fault first when they are for the sake of Procreation secondly when the due is rendred to the yoke-fellow requiring it The reason of the former is because then the action is referred to the primary end for which Matrimony was ordained The reason of the later is because it is an Act of Justice that being rendred to another which is his right For herein the married parties have a mutual power over each other 2 Cor. 7. Yet be it always minded that even in the said cases it must be regulated by the Rules of Christian Purity Some have said That the use of the Marriage-bed without respect to Procreation of Children is base or unclean And some chief Schoolmen have determined that the use thereof to allay the inordinancy of carnal desire or to avoid Fornication when Procreation is not designed is a sin tho but a Venial sin This requires our animadversion § 27. Among the ends of Marriage this is one and a principal one and which renders it necessary viz. To be a remedy against Fornication or against burning that is the inordinacy of carnal desire 1 Cor. 7.2 Nevertheless to avoid Fornication let every man have his own Wife and every Woman have her own Husband Vers 9. If they cannot contain let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn Now if this end of Marriage be so momentous as to make it necessary in this case Certainly the use of the Marriage-bed for this end cannot be sin That which God hath ordained for the cure of this disease commonly adhering to fallen nature cannot be sin being used to that end tho the disease it self which is the occasion of it be not without sin Moreover that cannot be sin which the Apostle directs men to make use of to avoid Satans temptations to sin But the Apostle directs to the use of the Marriage bed as a preventive remedy against Satans temptations to incontinency 2 Cor. 7.5 Defraud ye not one the other except it be with consent for a time that you may give your selves