TO preserve the strength of the marriage-bond and the Honour of that estate, against those sad breaches and dangerous abuses of it, which common discontents (on this side Adultery) are likely to make in unstaied minds and men given to change, by taking in or grounding themselves upon the opinion answered, and with good reason confuted in this Treatise, I have approved the printing and publishing of it.  
Novemb. 14▪ 1644. JOSEPH CARYL▪   

Errata.  
IN pag. 1. line 17. read aut for and, p. 2. l. 2●. r. ken case for Ker●s▪ case, p. 9●●. o. r. to for as, p. 12. l. 24. leave out natural in the first place, p. 14. l. ult, ●. Obligee for Obligor.   

An Answer to a Book, entitled, THE Doctrine and Discipline OF DIVORCE, OR, A Plea for Ladies and Gentlewomen, and all other married Women against Divorce.  
Wherein, Both Sexes are vindicated from all bonadge of Canon Law, and other mistakes whatsoever: And the unsound Principles of the Author are examined and fully confuted by authority of Holy Scripture, the Laws of this Land, and sound Reason.  Concil. Anglic. Anno 670. Can. 10. 
Nullus conjugem propriam nisi (ut sanctum Evangelium docet,) fornicationis causa relinquat.  
LONDON, Printed by G. M. for William Lee at the Turks-Head in Fleetstreet, next to the mitre tavern. 1644.   

An Answer to a Book, entitled, The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce restored to the good of both Sexes from the bondage of the Canon Law.  
FOr our more orderly proceeding in this question of Divorce, viz. whether a man may divorce or put away his Wife for indisposition, unfitness, or contrariety of mind, we will do these three things.  
1. Show what the Doctrine or discipline of Divorce is.  
2. Give some reasons why a man may not put away his wife for indisposition, unfitness, or contrariety of mind, although manifested in much sharpness.  
3. We will answer the Arguments and Scriptures, which are brought by the Author of the Book, intitultd, The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, to prove that a divorce may lawfully be for contrariety of minds, &c.  
Concerning the first thing, what Divorce is, or the Doctrine and discipline of it.  
The word Divorce comes from the Latin word divortium, which comes a divertendo and divortendo, to intimate that by divorce a woman is separated, divided, or turned aside from her husband: the Greek is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ex {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. repudio, rectius {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, dicitur quod ab {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. ab & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. sto, quasi dicas abscessio. The Hebrew word is Cherithuth from Chorath, which signifies a cutting off, dismembering, or separating, or foedus icere; but Cherithuth is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, properly a Bill of divorce or parting. Thus concerning the word.  
Now concerning the divorce itself, to show what it is, we must consider it under a twofold notion.  
First, as it hath been practised by the Jews according as they thought directed by Moses' Law, and so Divorce was a free and a voluntary act of the Husband, made known by writing, whereby he did dismiss and for ever put away his Wife, and give her leave to marry to another man: To this purpose some of the Hebrew rabbins have set down the form of the Bill of Divorce used amongst the Jews: in effect thus.  
I such an one (setting down his name, the day and year) do voluntarily, with the willingness of my soul without constraint, dismiss, leave, and put away, thou, even thou, (naming her name) which has● been my wife heretofore, but now I dismiss thee, that thou Mayst be free, and be married to whom thou wil●: And this is unto thee a writing of divorce, according to the law of Moses. witness R. and T.  
The Jews require to make a lawful divorce, that the man must put her away willingly, that it must be by writing, that he must put her quite out of his poss●ssion, that she be truly named in the deed of divorce, and that the deed of divorce be given to her either by himself or his Deputy before witness.  
Thus of Divorce as practised by the Jews in relation to Moses' Law.  
In the second place we will consider of it as practised by the laws of England.  
And so Divorce is a sentence pronounced by an ecclesiastical Judge, whereby a man and woman formerly married, are separated or parted. Cook lib. 7. Keras' case.  
This Divorce is twofold: 1. There is a divorce a vincul● matrimonii from the very bond of matrimony itself. 2. There is a divorce tantùm à mensa & thoro, from bed and board only.  
Concerning the first kind of divorce from the very bond of matrimony itself: the cause of this divorce must precede or go before marriage: amongst which are,  
1. Causa precontractus, because the parties or one of them was contracted to another before: a●d so if a man marry one precontracted and have issue, it's the father's child till divorce for precontract, and then is it nullius filius, a Bastard. Cook lib. 6.66. Di●r 105.  
2. There is a divorce a vinculo matrimonii causa frigiditatis, vel causa impotentiae, for cause of impotency to marriage duties: yet if after a man be divorced for impotency, and take another wife and have children by her, these shall not be Bastards, because a man may be habilis & inhabilis div●rsis temporibus, able and unable at divers times. Cook lib. 5.93. Di●r fol. 178.  
3. There is a divorce à vinculo matrimonii, causa minoris aetatis vel impubertatis▪ because they are within age at the time of mariage● and so if two be married infra annos nubilos, and after full age are divorced for the same, the woman may bring an assize against the man, for land given her in frank-marriage, Lib. Ass. 19 An. plac. 2. which proves the divorce is from the very bond of matrimony. Besides these there are divers other causes of divorce à vinculo matrimonii, as causa affinitatis & causa consanguinitatis, by reason of affinity and consanguinity or kindred, Cook come. Littleton.  
So causa professionis, and termino paschae 30 Edw. 1. coram Rege, there William de Chadworths' case, how that he was divorced from his Wife, because he carnally knew the Daughter of his Wife before he married her mother: these are causes of divorce from the very bond of matrimony allowed on by the Common law; concerning which the civil or Canon law makes some distinctions and additions. So in the case of divorce causa impotentiae vel frigiditatis, for impotency to marriage duties. Although Justinian (as some think discreetly) did will, that there should be three years' trial of the disability: yet here the Canon law expects present proof: yet some think this cause doth not dissolve from the very bond of matrimony, except the impotency or impediment can be proved to be before marriage, and not to fall out after: So of impotency the same they say, Vt per en matrimonium nunquam extitisse judicitur. And concerning marriage of kindred in the line ascendant or discendant, it is counted so detestable, that Bartel says, they suffer confiscation of goods and deserve exile.  
The civil and Canon law allow of divorce after a long time absence of either party, but they certainly agree not of the time of absence. So Cod. lib. 5. tit. 1. leg. 2. const. sponsa post biennium, &c. allowed to marry after two years' absence, but tit. 27. after three years, leg. 27. after four years. Others say the civil law requires five years' absence.  
In Consil. Lateran. part. 50. cap. 23. There is an example of a Decree, upon a woman complaining her husband had been gone ten years, and it was commanded the parents of the husband should send for him home, and he in a long time came not; upon which the Bishop did pronounce a sentence of divorce, and gave the woman leave to marry, and the sentence was allowed of by the whole council.  
So the Canon law decrees causa 28. quest. 1. cap. 4. That if the wife refuse to dwell with her Christian husband, he may without any fault leave her.  
Thus of the first kind of divorce from the bond of matrimony itself, and this makes the children Bastards and bereaves the woman of her dower.  
Secondly, there is a divorce à mensa & thoro, from bed and board only, and this is for some cause subsequent or during marriage, and not before marriage, as for adultery committed. Yet this being subsequent to the marriage, the bond of marriage by the law is not dissolved, but the freehold continues, the wife shall be endowed, and the children are mulier, and not Bastards.  
Concerning the justness or conveniency of all these laws in every thing, whether they will stand in foro conscientiae it's not needful now to dispute: our end being only a little to open the law of Divorce, that we may see what it is. And so now we leave this first thing what Divorce is, and the doctrine and discipline thereof, and come to the second thing.  

2 Thing  And that is to prove that whatsoever other causes of Divorce may be allowed of, yet that disagreement of mind or disposition between husband and wife, yea though it shows itself in much sharpness each to other, is not by the law of God allowed of for a just cause of divorce, neither ought to be allowed of by the laws of man.  
For the proof of this second thing propounded to be handled, to prove that Husbands and Wives ought not to be divorced for contrariety or unfitness of minds or dispositions, although it should be manifested by much harsh carriage each to other, I shall as briefly as I can demonstrate the same.  
Where the Scripture commands a thing to be done, 
1 Arg.  it appoints when, how, and for what it shall be done: as in the case of death: when any one is by the law to die, it sets down for what cause and fact: and so excommunication it teacheth when and for what. But now concerning Divorce for disagreement or contrariety of disposition, in regard there is between all married people some contrariety or disagreement of minds: and the Scriptures speak nothing to direct to what a measure of disagreement or contrariety it must grow to, before it shall be lawful to divorce or part: therefore I conclude the Scripture allows not of any divorce at all for disagreement, &c.  
If it be not lawful for a Husband to put away an infidel wife who acknowledges not Christ, 
2 Arg.  in case she be content to dwell with him: Then may not a man put away his wife for disagreement of minds only: but the first is true, ergo the latter.  
For the first part of the Argument the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 7.13. If any brother hath a wife who is an infidel, if she be content to dwell with him; let him not put her away.  
And for the second part, that if a man may not put away his wife who is an infidel, much less may he put his wife away for disagreement of disposition, this seems clear: because difference in religion in its own nature, breeds as great a dislike and disagreement and greater than any natural disagreement of disposition, constitution, or complexion whatsoever. Christ speaking of this difference, even between them of the nearest relation, saith, The father shall be against the son, and the son against the father, even to persecute with extremity: And that the Disciples should be hated of all for Christ's sake: and yet I never heard of any that was hated of every man for his contrariety of natural disposition.  
So that if disagreement in religion be a greater cause of hatred and variance than disagreement of natural dispositions and constitutions; and yet a man may not put away his wife for that disagreement, then much less for this.  
The third Argument shall be from Deut. 22.13, 14, 15, &c. 
3 Arg.  There if a man shall take a Wife and hate her, and raise an ill report upon her, to the end that he might be rid of her: and if the report be found true she shall be stoned to death; but if it be not found true he shall not put her away all the days of his life: here although a man hates his Wife, so that he seeks by false reports to scandalize her▪ even to danger of her life, yet is not he permitted to put her away all the days of his life; and yet how great the disagreement of mind and disposition must of necessity be between such a man and his wife who so did hate her, let any man judge.  

4 Arg.  If every Christian ought to bear the burdens and infirmities of another Christian, to whom he is not bound by any civil relation; much more is he to bear the burden and infirmities of his Wife who is so nearly bound to him: but the first is true, Gal. 6.1. Ergo the latter. But he that for infirmities or contrariety of mind, or the like, puts away his wife, doth not bear with her infimities, and therefore he breaks the law of Christ.  

5 Arg.  If the Husband ought to love his Wife, as Christ doth his Church, then ought not a man to put away his Wife for weakness of nature, contrariety, or indisposition of mind. But the first is true, Ergo the latter.  
For the first part, the words of Paul Ephes. 5.29. husband's love your wives as Christ doth his Church.  
If any shall say, Similitudes hold not in every thing, and therefore Paul may not mean a man should love his Wife in perpetuity as Christ doth his Church, but for the sincerity, so long as she continues his wife.  
Answ. Paul specifies wherein they should express their loves like to Christ, at least implicitly: that is, by passing by and healing the faults and infirmities of their Wives, as Christ gave himself, &c. that he might wash his Church, &c. And for the second part of the Argument its clear, because such love as is there required aught to hide and pass by faults, disagreement of mind, contrariety of disposition, &c.  

6 Arg.  The sixth Argument is from the express words of Christ, Matth. 5.32. where he being a preaching to his Disciples concerning the true sense of Moses' law (as it seems) and of some addition thereto by his own Evangelical precepts: he precisely tells them: That whosoever puts away his wife except it were for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, scortatio, adultery, he commits adultery: so that whether you make it a true interpretation of Moses' law against the glosses of others, or take it as a new precept belonging to the law of the gospel, yet will it be an impregnable proof against all eff●minate and childish divorces, for disagreement and contrariety of minds.  
If any shall say, if Christ's words hold universally and except no cause but adultery: then all other causes, as frigidity, 
Object  marriage within degrees forbidden by Moses, &c. are no causes of divorce no more than contrariety of mind.  
Christ's speech holds universally according as he intended it, 
Answ.  namely, to condemn all such grounds of divorce as were groundlessly practised amongst the lewis, for every cause which they thought sufficient, and yet no ways checks the law which forbids marriage within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity, or forbids other cause which makes marriage void ipso facto; or by due proofs may make void the marriage. If there be any other objections against this place, we shall refer them to what will afterwards be said in explication of this text, and of Deut. 24.1.  
The seventh Argument is: If the Husband and Wife be by the Ordinance of God one flesh, 
7 Arg  then may they not separate or be separated from one another, except it be for some cause which either in itself or by consequence may justly be thought to be a just cause of dissolving the union of being one flesh. But the first is true, Ergo, also the latter.  
For the first part, that the Husband and Wife are one flesh, Paul confirms it, Ephes. 5. and Christ himself Matth. 19  
And for the second part of the Argument as it depends upon the former, viz. if they be one flesh, than they ought not to separate or be separated. It's the Argument of Christ himself against the Pharisees, why divorce ought not to be for light causes, but for adultery only; because saith he, they are no more two but one flesh, therefore, whomsoever God hath joined together, let no man put as under.  
Only as I intimated, such other causes may be allowed of as dissolves this union of being one flesh, either directly, or by consequence.  
But sure contrariety of disposition and unfitness of mind c●n be no such thing as makes the Husband and Wife (being once by marriage one flesh) to be two again.  

8 Arg▪  In the next place I conceive something may be gathered to this purpose from the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 7. when speaking of marriage, he tells them, such should have troubles in the flesh, and not that freedom to serve God which the unmarried had: yet he concludes, he spared them, and would not forbid them for that cause to marry.  
Now if troubles in the flesh coming by marriage which hinder the cheerful service of God, be not a just cause to forbear marriage: Then it would seem that to persons that are already married and bound to each other by the union of one flesh, by covenant, by love, by the bonds of Christianity, although through the p●evishness● or ill dispositions of their natures, their troubles should increase to multitudes above what is ordinary betwixt married persons, yet ought they not to part and to marry to others, because some sort and measure of troubles and discontent in marriage are inavoidable; and therefore where one is by marriage bound by so many bonds, he ought not to break the bonds to ease himself of disquietness and trouble which is inseparably incident to marriage, though not in that degree as he now lies under, and is subject to.  
Yet am I not over confident of this Argument, but that with some colour of reason it may be evaded.  
In the next place, if the Husband ought to love his Wife as himself, 
9 Arg.  then may he not for discontent or disagreement put her away, no more than for some discontent or disquietness in himself, he may separate his soul from his body. But the first is tru●. Ephes. 5. ult. Ergo the latter.  
Lastly, we may fetch an Argument from the inconveniencies that would follow if divorce were suffered, 
10 Arg.  for this disagreement of disposition and unfitness of mind, as for example, it would be an occasion to the corrupt heart of man without any just cause at all, merely for to satisfy his lust, to pretend causes of divorce when there is none; and to make quarrels and live discontentedly with his Wife, to the end he might have a pretence for to put her away: who sees not, how many thousands of lustful and libidinous men would be parting from their Wives every week and marrying others: and upon this, who should keep the children of these divorcers which sometimes they would leave in their Wives bellies? how shall they come by their Portions, of whom, or where? and how shall the Wife be endowed of her husband's estates? Nay, commonly, to what reproach would the woman be left to, as being one left who was not fit for any one's company? and so who would ventuae upon her again. And so by this means through her just cause of discouragement, she would probably hazard herself upon some dishonest and disgraceful course, with a hundred more the like inconveniencies, even as the overturning and overthrowing of all human society, which would inevitably follow if this loose Doctrine of Divocce were once established by law.  
To these Arguments we might add the consent of Antiquity, who in this follow the direction and doctrine of Christ.  
As Concil. Tolet. 12. Can. 8. Preceptum Domini est, ut excepta causa fornicationis, uxor à viro dimitti non debeat, &c. It's the command of the Lord, the Wife should not be put away but for fornication. So Cod. lib. 3. tit. 38. leg. 11. const. Quis ferat, &c. who can endure that Children from Parents, and Wives from Husbands should be separate?  
So Co●sil. Anglic. 670. Can. 10. No man may put away his Wife, except as the gospel teacheth for fornication. It is true, some of the imperial laws allow Homicide, sacrilege, Robbery, Manstealing, &c. for causes of divorce. Cod. lib. 5. tit. 17. leg. 8. but the Canon law decrees otherwise.  
Divers other authorities might be alleged as to this point rightly agreeing, as Greg. causa 29. qu●st. 7. cap. 19 So Zach. causa 29. quest. 2. cap. 2. So Instin Martyr Apol pro Christianis sub initio▪ Tertullian agrees lib. de Monogamia. As also the Confession of Saxony Artic. 18. Especially is Erasmus most clear in this in his Paraphrase upon the New Testament: And for our own Writers it is endless to name them being so numerous.  
Thus have we briefly passed over the two first things propounded to be handled.  
In the third and last place we come to answer the Book entitled, The Doctrine and Discpline of Divorce, which maintains the contrary, to what hath been here asserted, to answer which was the main thing intended in this Discourse.  
So without any Preamble or Answer to the Introduction to this following Discourse, we will presently come to the main Pillar upon which his whole Book is built, which is laid down in these words.  
That▪ undisposition, unfitness, or contrariety of mind, arising from a cause in nature unchangeable, 
Position.  hindering and ever likely to hinder the main benefits of conjugal society, which are solace and peace, is a greater reason of divorce then natural frigidity, especially if there be no children, and it be with consent.  
This being that which all his ensuing discourse is brought to prove, we shall first consider of the position itself, and then come to answer his reasons brought to defend the same.  
This his Position or groundwork as we conceive, may be divided into these four entire Propositions or Conclusions.  
1. That there is in some men and women a disposition, unfitness, or contrariety of mind, arising from a cause unchangeable in nature.  
2. That such a contrariety of disposition hinders the main benefit of marriage or conjugal society.  
3. That solace and peace are the main and chief ends of marriage or conjugal society.  
4. That such a contrariety of mind or disposition is a greater cause of divorce then natural frigidity.  
To the first we answer, that there is no such disposition in nature as is unchangeable, 
1 Answ.  so teacheth Philosophy: That by the careful use of diet and the help of physic, there is no disposition or constitution but may be altered, if not altogether, yet in a great measure. And as Philosophy teacheth so, that it may be; so natural History teacheth, that sometime there is a change even in the natural disposition, if not wholly, yet in part.  
Suppose there were some disposition in nature altogether unchangeable, 
●Answ.  yet the Scripture teacheth, That by the grace of the Gospel, the Lionish dispositions shall so be changed that they shall be fit for the society of milder natures; and if so, it will follow, that if the disagreeing dispositions of a man & his Wife are from their own corruption, and for want of the grace of the gospel, that they may not for this be separate the one from the other: for it is a rule in all laws both Divine and just human laws, that no man shall take advantage of his own corruption, to release himself from such bonds as God and Nature hath knit him in. So that here, unchangeableness of a corrupt disposition proceeding from a man's or woman's own fault and corruption, will never be allowed for a just ground, for any man to seek a Divorce from his Wife, or the Wife from the Husband, but rather a Divorce or parting with their own corruption, which is the cause of all discord and disagreement.  
2. To the second Position, that such a contrariety of disposition will hinder the main ends and benefits of marriage or conjugal society.  
We answer:  
That if by contrariety of mind is meant diversities of constitutions, then is it untrue: 
1 Answ.  for the soft words and carriage of the patient man or woman, will so far prevail with the choleric or sullen disposition of the other party, not only to a submission to the main conjugal and marriage duties, but even to ordinary converse, as experience declareth, and Solomon teacheth, namely, that soft words pacify wrath, which in effect is the same we speak.  
If by contrariety of mind or disposition he will mean some unheard of thing, 
2 Answ.  which God and Nature hath planted on purpose in such a man and woman who afterwards shall marry, who shall hate one another with that mutual antipathy as a man doth a Toad or poison; and this is not at all for any ill qualities that either sees in each other, but because they will hate each the other, as creatures between whom in nature cannot be any agreement. If he can find such an example in the World, let him send his Book to them for to take the benefit of it.  
If by your contrariety of disposition, 
3 Answ.  you mean a sordid filthy sullen disposition, or other crabbed quality, kindled in each against the other after marriage, and increased by each mutual provocation; this is not natural: no contrariety in Nature, but a sinful and corrupt aberration from God's law and their own duties, which they are bound to purge away and to amend; and so not being natural or of nature, but corruption wilfully nourished, if this should hinder in any the main benefits of marriage, yet doth it make nothing to your purpose.  
3. To your third Proposition, That solace and peace are the main benefits of conjugal society.  
We Answer.  

Answ.  That this is very true in a right sense. But that s●lace and peace which is contrary to discord and variance (in which sense you seem to take it) is not the main end of marriage or conjugal society, is very plain and apparent: nor yet the solace and content in the gifts of the mind of one another only, for then would it have been every ways as much, yea more content and solace to Adam; and so cons●quently to every man, to have had another man made to him of his Rib instead of Eve: this is apparent by experiences, which shows, that man ordinarily exceeds woman in natural gifts of mind, and in delectablensse of converse; upon which we suppose it may be plainly concluded, that the solace and meetness of a helper to Adam which is spoken of, was not that which you seem to speak of as contrary to discord only, but is a solace and a meetness made up chiefly as of different Sexe●, consisting of Male and Female.  

●Prop.  To your fourth thing, that contrariety of disposition is a greater cause of divorce then natural frigidity.  
We Answer.  

●Answ.  Contrariety of disposition or constitution is no cause at all of divorce (as shall be afterwards showed in the Answer to your Arguments) or if it were a cause, yet not greater than natural frigidity, as will appear. For,  
1. Contrariety of mind or disposition, may easier, or at the least as easy in nature be taken away and cured, as natural frigidity or coldness.  
2. But secondly, to prove that contrariety of disposition is not so great a cause of natural divorce as natural frigidity, I argue thus.  
If contrariety of mind or disposition be not so great a cause to ●ave married persons to burning in lust towards others, as natural frigidity is, in the one married party, to leave the other to burn in lust to others, than is it not so great a cause of divorce as natural frigidity is. But the first is true, Ergo the latter.  
For the first part of this Argument its apparent, for contrariety of dispositions is no cause of burning in lust towards others; b●cause notwithstanding that, they may, and we see usually do perform marriage duties each to other. But on the other side where natural frigidity or coldness bears sway, i. e. an impotency to marriage duties, there the other party is, as to burning in lust, as if they were not married at all, or very little better, and for want of conjugal duties by their yoke-fellow, and an impotency to the same, they are in a great measure as likely to burn in lusts towards others as unmarried persons are; which such as have only a contrariety of mind or disposition properly so called are not likely so subject to.  
As for the second part of the Argument, that if contrariety of minds be not so great a cause of burning in lust as natural frigidity, that then it is not so great a cause of divorce as natural frigidity. This appears from what was said before, namely, because by the natural frigidity of the one, the other is in its manner, as to marriage or marriage duties, as if they had no yoke fellow, and so if the marriage itself be not void ipso facto, yet all law and reason must yield, that for the reason before cited he ought rather to be relieved by leaving his impotent yoke-fellow, than the other by leaving his or her wrangling yoke-fellow.  
So much for to show the error of your position, upon which all your following discourse is, or aught to be grounded.  
Now to your reasons which are to prove contrariety of disposition a just cause of divorce; where we are to take notice, that you in your reasons go not about to prove your Position as you have laid it down, but only that contrariety of mind is a just cause of divorce between married persons, not taking notice whether it be unchangeable in nature, or whether it be a greater cause of divorce then natural frigidity, or whether there be children between them, or consent, as he hath expressed himself in his Position.  
We shall endeavour to trace you in the road you go, only we shall be driven to contract or shorten your Argument for brevity sake.  
But before we come to your particular Arguments, the Reader is to take notice of one thing, namely, that all his Arguments, to prove a man may put away his wife for disagreement of mind or disposition, except it be his Argument from Deu. 24.1. they prove as effectually, that the Wife may sue a Divorce from her Husband upon the same grounds.  

1 Arg.  Your first proof is the institution of marriage Gen. 2. to make woman a m●et help for man, because it was not good that man should be alone: whence you collect that a happy conversation by preventing loneliness, was the chiefest and noblest end of marriage; and in case this end cannot be found in marriage, there may be relief by parting.  

Answ.  We answer and tell you again, that it is a happy or a pleasant conversation, made up by creating them male and female, and not simply as Eve was a fit conversing soul for Adam, as you af●erward express it, for then would it have been more pleasant and beneficial to Adam to have had another man created, than a woman.  
2. What will follow upon this if it should be granted? will it follow, think you, that because the end of marriage is, that woman should be a meet help to man, therefore if she prove not so meet as is expected, he may then put her away and take another: I hope no: Such kind of reasoning deserves no answer at all. But now to his second Argument.  
His second Argument is, From the violence and cruelty which is in forcing the continuance of those married persons together, 
●Arg.  whom God and nature in the gentlest ends of marriage never joined.  
As for the phrase of the gentlest ends of marriage, it's too abstruse and of no use, 
Answ.  except it be as you think to please the Reader with a neat phrase.  
And for the main of your Argument, you take too much for granted: for though the case may be so, that some persons are joined together in marriage neither by God nor Nature, viz. not allowing● of it; yet that for disagreement of diss●tions or contrariety of minds the marriage should be void, we deny; for void it must needs be, if it be neither of God nor Nature. Now where a thing is void ipso facto, there needs no legal proceeding to make it void. For clearing of this I hope you remember this distinction in our law, that some things are void, and some voidable by due process of law. For example, if John a styles should enter into a bond of an hundred pound to John a Nokes with condition annexed, that if the Obligor did kill a third person before such a day, than the Obligation should be void. This Obligation being with● condition against law, is void by the very making of it, and the Obligor needs not to sue the Obliged in Chancery, to compel him to free him of the penalty, because void in itself.  
On the other side, some things are voidable, i. e. to be made void by the party himself by process of law; as if Titus within the age of twenty one years makes a feoffment, levies a fine, or suffers a recovery of land to Sempronius, this is not simply void, but voidable: so that Titus when he comes to age, if the conveya●ce were by feoffment, he may remedy it by his Writ of Dum fuit infra aetatem, if it were by fine or recovery reverse them by error, because within age at the time. To apply it to your case, if men and women of disagreeing dispositions being joined in marriage, the marriage is void, being neither of God nor Nature, than there needs no Divorce or legal proceeding to part them, and then it is nothing to the Title of your Book, being The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, which you pretend to handle, briefly when you have proved, that such men and women who are married, and are of contrary dispositions or minds, that their marriage is void, or not of God nor Nature, we will grant you the whole controversy, in the mean time it is too great a begging of the question.  
In your prosecution of this Section, you are pleased to fain an Objection, That the disposition ought to be known before marriage.  
You are pleased to answer. That a discreet man being wary in this, yet may be mistaken; for say you, the sobrest and best governed men are least practised in these things.  
But how so? if sobrest and best governed I hope they are the better able to judge of the disposition and carriage of a Maid or Widow: But go on. You say, Who knows not that the bashful muteness of a Virgin may oft times hide all the unliveliness and natural sloth, which is really unfit for conversation.  
Some are bashful and mute indeed: but what of that? 
Answ.  you speak of trial of them whether they are fit for conversation or ●o: if you would once tell what you mean by conversation, I doubt there is none so modest but you may make trial of that: If you mean fit for discourse, and flexible to your desires, to go abroad or stay at home, &c. I know nothing of any modesty to hinder you, the trial of these things before marriage, if you have so much time.  
You add, ●●at there is not that freeness of access granted or presum●● 〈…〉 to a perfect discerning till it be too lat●.  
〈…〉 you ●ain things to yourself, to make good your Arguments Kings and Princes indeed usually have little access to 〈◊〉 Queen or Princess● before marriage; but for lower deg●ee●, 〈◊〉 so much access is granted, without any immodesty to disce●ne what you speak of.  
You fu●●her go on, and say, That though they who have lived most loosely, prove most successful in their matches, because their wild aff●ctions unsettling at will have been as so many divorces to them to teach them experience: When as the sober man honouring the appearance of modesty, and hoping well of every social virtue under that veil, may easily chance to meet, if not with a body impenetrable, yet often with a mind to all other due conversation inaccessible.  

●Answ.  Modest men s●ldome deal with any, who as they are not of bodies impenetrable, so neither are they to all due conversation inaccessible. It is true, if every man were of your breeding and capacity, there were some colour for this plea; for we believe you count no woman to due conversation accessible, as to you, except she can speak Hebrew, Greek, Latin, & French, and dispute against the Canon law as well as you, or at least be able to hold discourse with you. But other Gentlemen of good quality 〈◊〉 content with meaner and fewer endowments, as you know well enough.  
Very true it is, that it is not amis●e, for men of the best capacities, learning, and breeding, that they should match with those of the best wits, quality, and breeding, and leave the duller Virgins for the simpler sort; there is enough to own them, and ordinarily they fall to their shares, and that it is not always so, you have no need to attribute it to modesty, that men do not try their sweethearts wits before they have them: you know that may be done with modesty enough, although to try whether their bodies are impenetrable (as you call it) savours of the con●●●ry.  
Well, but you go on to make up this your second Argument 〈◊〉 the diverse evils that would follow if Divorce should not be ●●ffered for contrariety and disagreement of minds.  
The first you say, Is an imputation upon God and his law, of dispensing with open and common adultery among his own people; which, say you, the rankest politician would think it shame and disworship, that his laws should countenance any such thing. But the showing how this comes to pass, you say you will reserve to another place.  
We answer you, 
Answ.  that we think this the fittest place for this controversy, seeing you have named it here, and therefore shall free the law of God from any such imputation, and clear that here which you after bring from Moses, permitting divorce, and the sense of Christ in the gospel.  
Only first we shall speak to your phrase and manner of speaking, and then to the matter of it.  
Your phrase is, That such an imputation as would be cast upon the Law of God by this means, the rankest politician would think it shame and disworship that his laws should be charged with any such thing.  
Is this the fine language that your Book is commended for: Good your worship look a little upon your rhetoric in this one piece, shall I say of nonsense: however I am sure it is contrary to all laws and customs of speaking. Rankest politician. wonderful!  
What a Boarish Adjective you join with a politician. Politician is a title worthy of honour and respect, and why you should so disgrace it with this homely language, I cannot imagine; except it be, because politicians ordinarily differ from you in this your opinion. For although its likely some politicians sometimes at a time of need are content to make use of others then their own wives, yet to be divo●ced from their own upon a little contrariety of minds or dispositions, politicians will not easily agree to it.  
But to go on, The rankest politician would think it shame his laws, &c. His laws; strange! Where were you bread? Sir, What are the laws of your commonwealth made only by one politician? sure that same is a barren country of Noble and Learned men. And if it be not barbarous, yet is it a very harsh phrase, to call the laws made in any commonwealth, the laws of the politicians, much more of one only politician.  
But peradventure you mean the King, and the laws may be called his, you think.  
If you do mean him, it's no usual phrase to call him politician without farther addition: or if it were, you know it's no good sense in your own country, for I b●leeve you are not to hear of, Qui vulgus elegerit: And if you mean of some other country, write your Book in their language, for the English will but deride such language as this is.  
Again, He would think it shame and disworship, (say you) to what, say I? to his laws: strange Philosophy! Are laws now capable of shame and blushing? Speak a little plainer if you have any such point to broach.  
But, peradventure you mean, the politician would think it shame and disworship. Well, but upon whom do you mean he thinks this shame and disworship will light? for you show us not whether the politician would think this shame to redound to the laws themselves, or to himself, or to a third person or thing, pray let's know the next time.  
But again, why shame and disworship? Do the laws or the politician that makes them, use to be worshipped in your commonwealth? Well, we leave the Gentleman of that worshipful country, who looks for Good your Worship at every word, and utinam they are not too worshipful to be W.  
Thus from your phrase we pass on to the matter, which should be put in here for the proof of this first evil: namely, that denying of divorce for cause of contrariety of mind and disposition, will cast an imputation upon the law of God, of dispensing and conniving with common and open adultery amongst his own people.  
Well, how do you prove this? For the proof of this we must be driven to bring in your Text of Deut. 24.1. which as you say, permits, nay, is a wise and pious law, that such who did not love their Wives for some displeasing natural quality or unfitness in her, he should write her a Bill of Divorce: so you speak pag. 26. compared with pag. 10. Now how this imputation will come to fall upon the law of God, I believe you mean thus. That for a man to divorce his Wife unjustly and to marry another, is adultery: But the law of God allows divorce unjustly, except disagreement of mind, or unpleasant natural quality be a cause. Ergo.  
In plain terms you mean God by Moses suffered men to put away their wives, if they found not love and favour in their eyes: by reason of some unpleasing natural quality, (for so you are pleased to read the Text of Deut. 24.1.) Now you infer, if Moses allowed this, and yet indeed it was not a just cause of divorce, than did God by Moses' law tolerate adultery, in that it tolerated a man or woman to marry to another, whilst they were not lawfully parted from their first Husbands or Wives.  
To take off this great scarecrow and the main Pillar which he trusts in to hold up his whole Book, or most part of it: 
Answ.  it will be necessary a little to consider of this Text of Deut. 24.1. whether it doth indeed speak any such thing or no. Our English Translation hath it, If a man shall take a Wife and lie with her, and she find not grace in his eyes because of some uncleanness, let him write her a Bill of Divorce. So that it is for some uncleanness, and not for some displeasing quality that is in her. According to our English: the French Bible agrees, Pourtaunt que il a trouue quelque laid attach in elle, because he hath found in her some foul, unhonest, or abominable reproach, spot, or infamy; for so signifies laid attach. Ieromes Translation hath it, Propter aliqua● foeditatem, filthiness or shameful thing. Junius and Tremelius agrees.  
A Translation according to the Septuagint printed at Basil hath it, Quoniam invenit in ea foedam, the Septuagint reads it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Substantive pragma, is used, Acts 5.4. to signify res; and 1 Cor. 6.1. negotium, business: James 3.16. opus or work: and the Adjective is used by Paul 1 Cor. 12.23. for indecorus, shameful, dishonest, or unbeseeming: so signifying that they understood this place of Deut. 24.1. to be meant of some shameful or dishonest thing. So they which translate by the Septuagint have it, rem turpem, filthy thing. In the Hebrew it is Gneruath Dabhar, the very same words which are used Deut. 23.14. The Lord thy God walketh in thy Camp to deliver thee, therefore shall thy camp be holy, that he see no Gneruath Dabhar in thee: that is, no uncleanness or unclean thing, as is apparent by the foregoing Verses: so here, if she find not favour in her husband's eyes because of some Gneruath Dabhar, some uncleanness or unclean thing. The Hebrews themselves expound this Text, to be understood of a woman of evil condition, who is not modest according to the honest Daughters of Israel. So that here seems to be no ground for your understanding the Text to speak of any unple●sing natural quality, when as indeed it speaks of uncleanness: so that as we conceive, the main Pillar of your Book is not able to hold up itself, much less will it serve for a prop to hold up the rest of your discourse.  
But it may be demanded, what manner of uncleann●sse this Text speaketh of; 
Object▪  for it seems it cannot be meant of adultery: for Christ speaking (as it s●ems) with a relation to this Text, Matth 19 saith, Moses indeed suffered you to put away your Wives, &c. But I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his Wife except it be for fornication, commits adultery; so that which Moses suffered to put away Wives for, was another cause than what Christ here speaks of, namely, fornication, which could not be that which Moses suffered putting away for, seeing Christ opposeth putting away for fornication to putting away by Moses' law.  

Answ▪  To this we answer, that though it be little material to our point in hand, what uncleanness this Text Deut. 24.1. speaks of; whether it be a legal, ceremonial, or a moral uncleanness; for it sufficeth to our purpose, if it be not some unpleasing natural quality, as this author hath affirmed: Yet we shall humbly propose to the judicious and learned with their favour, and under correction, what uncleanness this Text of Deut. 24. speaks of.  
Not proposing it as a sense infallible, but one which may be something probable.  
And that is, that this Text Deut. 24.1. speaks of an uncleanness● committed before marriage, which we usually call by the name of fornication; the same uncleanness which is spoken of Deut. 22.13, 14, 15, &c. Where it is said, If a man take a wife and lie with her, and hate her, and shall say, I took this woman to wife, and when I came in unto her I found her not a maid; and the Text goes on, and shows what shall be done in this case.  
This Text is doubtless to be understood of a man who takes a Wife and finds she hath committed folly before marriage, which we ordinarily call by the name of fornication. The same kind of uncleanness (under correction) may be here meant: that when a man marries a Wife and finds her not a maid, but defiled, and to be unclean by fornication committed before marriage.  
Against this sense of the place we conceive there may be two strong objections made which we shall endeavour to answer, and so leave it to the consideration of the Reader.  
The first Objection may be from that Text Deut. 22.12, 13, 
1 Object.  &c. where the direction is there, that if it be found according to the complaint of her Husband, that she was not a maid but defiled, that she should be stoned to death, and not be put away by Divorce; by the same reason, if this Text of Deut. 24.1. speaks of that uncleanness, she ought to be stoned to death, and not suffered to escape by Divorce.  
To this we answer two things.  
First that there was a twofold uncleanness or defilement of Virgins by the law; the one was, 
1 Answ.  when she consented not to the uncleann●sse or defilement, but it was committed upon her by force, and this in the maid did not deserve death, as is showed Deut. 22.26.  
Secondly, there was a defilement with the consent of the maid, and this seems to be distinguished by the law to be of two qualities.  
1. The first was, when a man by enticing words should tempt and entice a Maid to lie with her, and she upon his promises and enticements yielded to it, but presently after the fact did discover it to her father or kindred, to compel the same man to marry her: and of this kind it seems is spoken of Exod. 22.16. In this case the man was compellable to marry her, and so she was not in this case to be punished with death.  
Secondly, there was another distinction of this defiling of a Virgin, viz. When the maid consented to commit folly with any privately, and so as it proceeded from her whorish spirit principally, with a mere desire to commit filthiness, as a common Strumpet or Whore, and concealed this; so that the party by her concealment could not be compelled to marry her: and after, this defiled Virgin takes another man to Husband, and he finds her not a Maid, but to have committed folly in her father's house, and never declared it, to the end the man who committed folly with her might be compelled to marry: this (under f●vour) is that which Deut. 22.12, 13, 14, &c. was to be punished with death, and a Divorce not to serve the turn.  
But then for the uncleanness, Deut. 24.1. which a man found in his Wife, it might very well be, that a man ignorantly took such a woman to wife, as either had been ravished by force (as in the first sense) and so was defiled, or that had been defiled by the enticement of some man, of which fact she had made known to her father, to the end to compel him to marry her who defiled her, and her father upon knowledge of it utterly refused to give her to him to Wife, as Exodus 22.17. and she after marries another who finds her defiled or unclean is displeased therewith, so that she finds no● favour in his eyes, he may not in this case prosecute her to the death, as in Cap. 22. but only divorce her, as Cap. 24.1. & 2.  
But secondly we answer, that in case it should be the same uncleanness and defilement with that Deut. 22.11, 12, 
●Answ.  &c. than we say it was left by the law to the choice of the man to prosecute her to death, as Cap. 22. or to Divorce her, as Cap. 24. And though I know this will sound very harsh and irreconcilable at the best: yet (under favour I conceive) I may as easily reconcile these two places thus together, as Christ's speech, Matthew 5.32. can be reconciled to the law of adultery. For as I conceive, there is no man but will confess that at that time when Christ spoke, the law of putting to death for adultery was in force; and yet you see, Matthew 5.32. he says not, he that prosecutes not his Wife to the death for being an adulteress, is guilty: but whosoever puts away his Wife, except for fornication, he commits adultery.  
Now if there had been an absolute necessity in the man to pros●cute his Wife to death for adultery, I suppose Christ would never have mentioned Divorce, for that which must of necessity have death. So it may seem it was left to the mercy of the Husband. The same I say to the reconciling the command of putting to death the defiled Virgin, Deut. 22. and divorcing her, Cap. 24.  
It may further by objected, that it cannot be the same uncleanness meant here which in Chapter 22. because there direction is given for a trial of the charge of uncleanness laid to her, but not so here: and if upon trial there it be found a false charge he may not put her away all the days of his life.  
To this we answer two things.  
First it will not follow, but that the same trial ought to be in the 24 Chapter as in the 22. although not mentioned, 
1 Answ.  yet to be understood; as well as the father's dissent to the marriage of his Daughter to one who hath defiled her be not mentioned, Deut. 22.29. yet is to be understood as well as it is Exod. 22.17. where it is mentioned.  
But suppose the same trial be not to be understood in the 24 Chapter as in the 22. 
2 Answ.  yet will it not follow but that it may be the same uncleanness (Only differing in the consent of the maid, &c.) for though it be the same uncleanness, yet doth there not need that examination and trial where only a divorce is intended, as where death is intended.  
But there seems to be another great Objection against this sense of the word uncleanness, 
Object.  that it cannot be meant of fornication before marriage; because Christ speaking with relation to this Text, as it seems, understood it otherwise then of fornication, as appears by his conclusion, that whosoever should put away their Wives except for fornication, &c. So that it would seem plain CHRIST understood not this Text to be meant of fornication, for he seems to blame this putting away founded upon this Text, and yet allows divorce for fornication.  
For answer to this briefly, 
Answ.  we conceive the words fornication and adultery are used in the New Testament, if not reciprocally, yet at the least promiscuously: and that that by fornication is many times meant more than uncleanness committed between unmarried persons: as 1 Corinthians 5.1. there the word fornication is used and applied to incest: And in 1 Corinthians 10.7. Neither let us be fornicators, &c. being applied to the Israelite Numb. 25. who lay it is said, with the woman of Midian, which seems to be no Maid, for the title Woman is seldom applied to them: So 1 Cor. 6 he that commits fornication sins against his own body, is doubtless to be understood of adultery as well as of uncleanness between single persons, if it be not solely meant of adultery.  
So than our answer is, that the word fornication is often used for adultery, after marriage: and we conceive Christ intended it so, when he saith, Whosoever shall put away his Wife, except for fornication, &c. that is, for adultery, or defiling his marriage bed; and so Christ speaks not of the same uncleanness Moses doth, although Moses' should be meant of fornication.  
Thus you have our first answer to this your place of Deut. 24.1. that it is meant of uncleanness, as the original and other languages reads it: and though we are not over confident of the kind of uncleanness whether it be fornication before marriage, as we have showed, or some natural, legal, or sinful uncleanness, it much matters not: this we only propose to the Readers consideration, upon trial to reject it, or receive it as he finds it upon examination.  
But in case this answer fails; we have two other answers to your place of Deut. 24.1. only two Objections remain.  
1. That Christ finds fault with this Divorce grounded upon Moses' law, 
Object.  and shows it was not so from the beginning, nor ought not to be so now: which proves the divorce for uncleanness Deut. 24.1. cannot be understood of fornication, or uncleanness committed before marriage, for that was always allowed of from the beginning as a just cause of divorce, and so seems to be now.  
To this we only answer, that when either of these two are proved, 
Answ.  we shall willingly let f●ll that interpretation; in the mean time we leave it to the considerate Reader.  

Object.  2. But it may be further objected, that whatsoever it was that Moses allowed of Divorce for, whether for fornication before marriage, as is said before, or for some unpleasing natural quality, as our Author would have it; yet the imputation of dispensing with common adultery is not taken away, in case it was not a just cause of divorce. For answer to this we come to our second answer to this place of Deut. 24.1.  
In the second place we answer to Deut. 24 1. in case your reading should be found good to be of a displeasing natural quality, 
Answ▪  and that they did unjustly put away by this law their wives: then we answer, this place of Moses permits no divorce at all; but was only a law made in favour of the woman who was unjustly put away, and a sufferer: in this case Moses provides, that though a woman should be wrongfully & by force be put away, yet he would by this law compel the Husband to give her a Bill of divorce, which should be a token to her father and her friends that it was the act of her husband to dismiss and put her away, and not her voluntary act: for which, had it been voluntary on her part, she would have been judged a Whore and a wandering Vagrant, and so would scarcely have been received into her father's house: so that Moses may seem here not to give any law of divorce; but rather a law to compel such of the Jews, who in their cruelty, and from the hardness of their hearts would unjustly and by force put away their wives, to make them a writing of divorce and to give it her, which should be a testimony for the woman after she departed, that she wandered not as a Whore or a Vagrant of her own mind from the company of her Husband, but it w●s his fact by force to put her away.  
For the proof of this sense of the place we conceive three things make to this purpose.  
1. Because I find no law of divorce allowing men to put away their wives before this law, (if in case this should be found to be such a law) a●d yet I find divorce practised by the Jews, therefore Levit. 21.14. it is commanded to the Priest, that he should not marry a Widow, or a woman that was divorced, which implies there were some women divorced. Now if divorce was practised and no law allowing it, I have reason to think this place of Deut. 24.1. is a law to remedy the extremity of their unlawful divorces, by compelling them to make a Bill in favour of the woman that was put away, and not a law either commanding or allowing the divorce itself.  
2. It seems to appear from the connexion of the words, he shall give her a Bill of divorce, that when she is departed out of his house she may become the Wife of another man; so that the Bill seems merely to be made for her benefit.  
3. The Text here allows the woman to marry again, she being the suffering party and unjustly put away; but he being the offending, it speaks nothing of allowing him to marry again; so it seems the provision of the Bill of Divorce was for her benefit only.  

Object  Against this the words of Christ will be objected, Matth. 19 and Mark 10.10 the Pharisees, when they had asked, if a man might put away his Wife for every cause, Matth. 19.3. Christ answers, That God at the beginning made them Male and Female, and that a man shall forsake Father and Mother and cleave unto his Wife: the Pharisees upon this, ask Christ, why Moses did command to give a writing of Divorce, and to put her away; then Christ answers, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. So that some may say, Christ here seems to affirm not only the Bill of Divorce to be of Moses, but even the Divorce itself.  

Answ.  It appears not to be so, but rather that Christ answers the Pharisees according to their opinion of Moses law, and he grants them that in some sort Moses might be said to suff●r men to put away their Wives, because he commanded the Bill to be made in favour of the woman, the suffering party: but saith Christ, from the beginning it was not so, that men should put away their Wives as the Jews did, neither was this Bill then invented: and this may seem to be the substance of Christ's words.  
We answer to your Text Deut. 24.1. in the third place, that if the other two satisfy not, 
●Answ.  then may that be a good positive law made by Moses, during the time of the Jewish polity or government, properly called mosaical: yet now Christ under the New Testament hath aboli●hed that law to all his followers. To this purpose that of Christ Matth. 5.31, 32. It was said unto of old, that whosoever shall put away his Wife, let him give her a bill of divorce: then Christ adds, But I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his Wife except it be for cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoeur shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. This place of our Saviour concerning divorce may seem not to be to the end to reform the false glosses of the Pharisees concerning divorce, (as it is usually thought) but rather to show the law of the gospel to require more mutual love and passing by injuries then the law: As who should say, under Moses, where there was many duties required; and yet through the darkness of the dispensation of heavenly things, there was little grace and power to perform what was required, than the law of Divorce did mercifully bear with the infirmities of people; and during the time of this dispensation, this law of Divorce was a good positive law: But now whosoever will be my follower and profess himself to have received the plenteous grace of the gospel, he must be so far from using hardship or unkindness to his Wife, or others to whom he is nearly bound, that he must not revenge wrong done from strangers & enemies, but pray for them, and bless them; he must be so far from turning his Wife out of doors for her ill carriage, yea although it should proceed to cursing and persecuting him, that he must use all mildness, and love, and godly means to reform her; compare this with verse 43, 44. and indeed with all the latter part of the Chapter, and you will find the drift of Christ, to give as it were new enlargements of laws under the gospel, requiring more spiritualness in observation, than the Mosaical government.  
This interpretation I cannot conceive to be either contrary to the scope of Christ in this Chapter, which principally is, to show that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it: nor is it contrary to any other sound and wholesome Doctrine laid down in Scripture, neither opens any gap to any to throw away Moses' law, as not at all pertaining to us. I think there is none that thinks, but that there were given by Moses, not only ceremonial Precepts, but even judicial, to the Jews, which for us to observe under the gospel, would be so far from piety, that it would be sinful; and I know nothing why this law of Divorce may not be one.  
Only one word to your corrupt and wicked gloss upon our saviour's words, Matth. 19 and Mark 10. where he tells the Pharisees, that whosoever should put away his Wife, except for fornication, he did commit adultery; you ●o put off the matter, as if Christ's speech was never intended to forbid a Divorce, for your indisposition, unfitness, or contrariety of mind, but was only as you say, That Christ here did only deal like a wise physician administering one excess against another to bring us to a perfect mean, and that where the Pharisees were strict, there Christ seems to be remiss; and where they were too remiss he saw it needful to seem most severe: In one place, say you, he censures an unchaste look to be adultery already committed, and at another time he passeth over actual adultery with less reproof then for an unchaste look: So here, say you, he may be thought to give this rigid sentence against Divorce, not to cut off all remedy to a good man who consumes with a disconsolate matrimony, but to lay a bridle upon the bold abuser of those overweening rabbis, &c.  

Answ.  To this we answer, that this your gloss is not only intolerable abuse of Scripture, but smells very strongly of little less than blasphemy against Christ himself.  
For what is it else, to say Christ was here most severe, where the Pharisees were most remiss, and that here he administered one excess against another, &c. For though it should be found that Christ sometimes, to check the pride and hypocrisy of the Pharisees, should by his not affording them an answer seem remiss, where they were too severe, and so on the contrary. Yet that Christ should positively lay down a resolution, as one of his Precepts under the gospel without any exception; and this his Precept to be an exc●sse to reduce the Pharisees to a mean, is too bold and dangerous an ass●rtion for any man to venture upon.  
And for your examples which you cite where Christ was one time remiss, and another time more severe against a less sin, they are both utterly false; for in the one place Christ doth not say, that an unchaste look is adultery, but he that upon looking on a woman doth lust after her, he hath committed adultery in his heart, so that it is not the looking on her, but the lusting after her which is adultery, and that but of the heart neither: truly I find not here an excess, or too much severity in Christ, but fearful audacity in you.  
And for your other example of the woman taken in adultery, where he was more remiss, and gave her not so sharp a reproof as here for an unchaste look; this is as false, for he bids her go away and sin no more lest a worse thing than death by stoning came to her; and I hope this is severer than Christ speaks of the unchaste look, as you call it.  
But to answer to what you chiefly intend, you are to know, Christ Matthew 19 doth not direct his speech concerning Divorce, as an excess against the Pharisees tempting question only, but as a firm stable resolution of the gospel: to clear this consider but two things.  
1 That Christ before this time had given the same resolution to his D●sciples Matth. 5.32. where he spoke principally to his Disciples, as appears Verse 1. And therefore it cannot be intended that Christ spoke it to repress the pride and false gloss●s of the Pharisees only.  
2 And secondly its apparent that Christ did intend otherwise then you say to contradict the Pharisees, for if he had only told them, that he which puts away his Wife except for fornication, committed adultery, this had been enough to have contradicted them: but he adds, that whosoever shall marry her who is put away otherwise, he commits adultery: And so I conclude, Christ intended this speech to his Disciples, as a direction binding all Christians under the gospel; and gave it not as an expressive resolution to repress and cross the pride and false glosses of the Pharisees.  
Now for the rest of your stuff which fills many Pages about the sense of Moses Deut. 24.1. and of Christ Matth. 19 and the opinions of other men upon the same, of which, some you approve, and some you confute, we conceive it needl●sse to trace you, as thinking we have given you the true sense of Moses and Christ already, to which we refer the trial of all which you are pleas●d to speak upon the same.  
In brief the sum of our answer to this place of Deut. 24.1. for the lawfulness of putting away a man's Wife for some displeasing natural quality, is, that first, that it speaks of Divorce for uncleanness, and not for disagreement: or secondly, if it doth, it allows not of the Divorce, but appoints the Bill in favour of the woman: or thirdly, if it allows both, yet now is it altered by Christ under the gospel.  
If any shall think these answers to fall foul upon each other, we easily grant it, and say its usual in this kind; and besides we write not as Prophets but as men: and if any of the answers be to the point, and overthrow that which we conceived to be an error, its sufficient.  
Your second evil which you say would follow, if Divorce were not lawful for displeasing natural qualities, &c. is, That the Law and the gospel would be subject to more than one contradiction, but to show this you defer it to another place.  
Answer. We shall take it here, and tell you, it's no contradiction at all, that Moses should allow a Divorce and Christ deny it, if it could be proved: For there is a twofold contradiction (as you know well enough;) one is, when the gospel shall blame the Law for tolerating things contrary to itself, that one time it made a thing lawful, at another time unlawful; this is the contradiction you must speak of if you speak to the purpose, that the Gospel shall blame or contradict Moses' law, for maintaining contrary things in itself.  
Then secondly, there is a contradiction of the gospel to the Law; that the Gospel counts some things under its dispensation to be altogether unlawful to be done, which the Law allowed as lawful and pious in the time of its dispensation: this kind of contradiction we grant there is between the Law and Gospel many times, but is nothing to your purpose at all: for example, Circumcision was a duty of weight; now it's a heinous crime: so Sacrifices, Offerings, Washings, and a hundred the like, and yet the Gospel blames not the Law for these things in the time of its dispensation: no more will it follow in case of Divorce, if it should be allowed then and denied now, except you can show the first kind of contradiction.  
Your third evil which you say would follow if Divorce should be denied to such as are of contrariety of dispositions is, That hereby the supreme dictate of Charity, would be many ways violated and neglected. But how is ●his done? You say, we know Paul saith, it is better to marry then to burn: 'tis true, Paul doth say so: what will follow of that? Is Paul's positive resolution become the supreme dictate of charity? else how follows it, the supreme dictate of charity is violated by denying Divorce on your grounds, because Paul saith it is better to marry then to burn: remember yourself well, sure you think all Gospel you speak.  
Well, what would you infer from Paul's words, it is better to marry then to burn?  
You say, That marriage was given as a remedy of that trouble. So say we; but yet not properly that ordination of marriage first in Paradise, for then was no such burning.  
Well, go on; we ask you what this burning in lust is which Paul means: you are pleased to answer, ●hat, certainly not the mere motion of carnal lust not the mere goad of a sensitive desire, God doth not principally take care for such cattle.  
Truly you are apt to speak very high language: but what would follow if Paul should take care, not for the nourishment, 
Answ.  but for the suppressing of a mere motion of carnal lust? Sure no evil.  
Well, but we will have your advice positively, as well as negatively, what the Apostle means, when he says it is better to marry then to burn.  
You say, It is that desire which God put in Adam in Paradise, before he knew the sin of incontinency: it was that desire, which God saw it was not good that man should be left alone, to burn in a longing to put off solitariness, by uniting another body, but not without a fit soul to his in the cheerful society of wedlock.  
We pray you seriously to retract this sentence, 
Answ.  and openly to conf●sse you were asleep when you writ it.  
We desire any indifferent man but to consider the scope of the Apostle in that Chapter of 1 Cor. 7. and to tell us if your exposition of these words, it is better to marry then to burn, be not such a mere trifling and abusing the Scripture as seldom is met with. This must needs be a just Paraphrase upon Paul's words if your exposition were sound.  
I Paul am a bachelor, and I never met with any fit and meet conversing soul, to fit my desire, to discourse and converse with me as I had when I was in Adam; but I speak to you Virgins and widows, although it be thus with me, yet it were good if you could remain solitary without any fit conversing soul to discourse with you: but if you cannot live altogether alone all the days of your life (however I shift for myself) yet do you marry, viz. get some fit conversing souls, such an one as Adam thought of when he was alone in the Garden, and nobody created but he. For it is better for you seeing you cannot live always alone, to have some such fit conversing soul, to drive away the time with, then to pine away like a Dove in a wilderness, where there is none to bear her company. This is the effect of your exposition of Paul, when he saith, it is better to marry then to burn: the relating of which your exposition is enough to confute it and make it lighter than vanity itself.  
So we pass to your third Argument, the effect whereof seems to be this.  
That the not allowing of divorce in case of contrariety of minds and dispositions in married persons, 
●Arg.  will be a ground or occasion of their desire after other persons, besides their own Wives; because when a man finds no contentment at home he is apt to look for the same abroad.  
We answer you, what if he do look abroad, so long as it is but to meet with a fit conversing soul, 
Answ.  provided he med●les not with he● body, let him recreate himself, its lawful enough: 'tis your own doctrine, A fit conversing soul for man is the noblest end of marriage: Therefore I think we may without danger, let a man's reins loose to accommodate himself so, if his Wife hath not such a fit conversing soul as she should have, only let him remember to come home to her at night. If you should say, that you mean want of content at home will cause a man to lust unlawfully after the bodies of other men's Wives.  
We answer you there is no congruity in that sense with the rest of your Book: 
Answ.  for according to your own Doctrine we may reason thus: That desire which is not satisfied at home by a man's own Wife, will break out towards other men's Wives; but the desire which is to be satisfied by a man's own Wife is, that she be a fit conversing soul: Ergo, the not finding a man's Wife a fit conversing soul, will not endanger or stir up any other desires but to converse with the souls of other men's Wives; and this we allow you to do and keep your own still.  
But enough of this: only we desire the next time you write, to tell us the meaning of this fit conversing soul. We have heard that Angels converse with one another as they are Spirits; but for Husbands and Wives, though they ought not to love in word only, but in deed and in truth with the affections of the heart, yet we know no conversing with one another, but what is by words or actions.  
Well you go on and talk in this Section, Of a man meeting instead of a sweet co-p●rtner of pleasant society, it often happens, that young men, who have put their chief content in a contented marriage, yet they meet with an Image of earth and phlegm.  
We confess this is something a sad case: 
Answ.  but yet I believe you speak but hyperbolically (as they use to say) for women are usually more than earth and phlegm, they have many times spirit enough to wear the Breeches, if they meet not with a rare Wit to order them. I wonder you should use such phrases; I know, nor hear of any Maids or women that are all earth and phlegm, much less Images of earth and phlegm: If there be any such, yet you need take no thought for them, there are enough dull enough to own them; & for yourself or any other who desire them, there are spirited Dames enough, who are something besides mere Images of earth and phlegm.  
Your fourth Argument is, Because marriage is a Covenant, 
4 Arg.  whose very being consists not in a forced cohabitation or a counterfeit performance of duties, but in unfeigned love and peace.  
It is true, but how prove you by this, 
Answ.  that if there be not found this peace and joy between married persons, there may then be a Divorce: for where the chief end of a thing is not always attained in its full measure, yet will it not be lawful to seek a separation from it. Will you argue, that because Heman Psal. 88 found not that peace and solace which is the main end of communion with God, that therefore he might break off that communion. Or how think you; suppose you should covenant with a man at Hackney, that he should dwell in your house at Aldersgatestreet, & you in requital would dwell in his house at Hackney for a time; I doubt not but your main end in this your Covenant was your own solace, peace, and refreshing. Well, but suppose when you come there, the Cavaliers or other soldiers should trouble you, and should be quartered there; who peradventure if they did not quite put you out, yet would lie in your most pleasant Chamber best situate for your solace and refreshing; and divers other ways would annoy you; by means whereof you could not enjoy that pleasure and delight which you intended in your Covenant, when you changed houses with the other. Think you in this case it would be lawful or accepted on by the other party if now you should come to him and say; Sir, I covenanted for your house at Hackney for my own refreshing, comfort, and solace, but I am disturbed of it, I do not enjoy the end of my Covenant, give me my own house again, and go you live there. He would tell you, and so he might justly, stay Sir, take your own fortune, a bargain is a bargain, you must even stand to it. In the same case I suppose, though it be the end of marriage, that love and peace should be maintained; yet if it fall out otherwise they must be content.  
But let us see your proofs to the contrary: and that is say you, in such a case, where we find not that content in marriage which was the end of it, but on the contrary vexation: Paul himself speaking of marriage and Divorce, determines therein, that God hath called us to peace and not to bondage.  
Well, we will examine what Paul makes for you, the place 1 Cor. 7. (though you seem loath to quote the place) where the Apostle speaks to Men and Women, 
Answ.  who were Christians and had Infidels to their Husbands or Wives: And he tells them if any believer had a Wife who is an infidel and yet she was content to dwell with him, that he should not put her away, &c. And then when he hath given the reason of it in the next Verse, he after tells them, that notwithstanding if in such a case the infidel Husband or Wife will not dwell with their Christian Husband or Wife, but that they will depart and go away to live in some other place; a believer, saith Paul, is not in subjection in this case, but God hath called us to peace. Now what an argument will this be, if a Christian Husband hath an infidel to his Wife, who out of spite and hatred to religion and to her Husband, and will depart and divorce herself, in such a case the Husband is not bound to follow her wandering about, to keep her company whether she resorts, on purpose from his company. Ergo, will it follow that when a man dislikes his Wife, and she peradventure willing to live with him, yet he may by force against her will put her away: the truth is, this place makes quite against you as hath been showed. But besides, you mistake the very gramatical sense, when you will bring in these words, God hath called us to peace, as a reason why the believing Husband may suffer his Wife being an infidel to depart: for they rather seem to be an Introduction to what he speaks after, how knowest t●o● O man whether thou shalt not save thy Wife, &c. As much as if he should say, though I tell you in the case before cited, a believer is not in subjection to his Wife, where there seems no means available with her to procure her cohabitation; yet says Paul I must tell you, God hath chiefly called us to peace, that is, he rather expects that as we are to follow peace with all men whatsoever, so especially with our Husbands and Wives, and to keep company and cohabitation together: and the Apostle says in effect, I will give you a good reason for this; For how knowest thou O man, but that thou by dwelling and conversing with thy Wife, thou Mayst convert her and save her. So that it seems you are quite mistaken, in alleging this Text for your opinion.  
Well, but have you any other Scriptures to prove this? Yes, say you,, For God himself commands by his law more than once, and by his Prophet Malachy, as Calvin and the best Interpreters read, that he who hates his Wife let him divorce her, that is, say you, he who cannot love and delight in his Wife.  
We desire you to show out of your new Scripture (if any such you have) where God in his Law commands, 
Answ.  and that more than once, that he who hateth his Wife, should put her away; show it but one time and we will yield you the whole controversy: If you mean Deut. 24.1. that is but one place, and we have given you an answer to it.  
And as for Malachy, although it be true, that some translations do read it so, as Jerome and some margins: yet why you should call these the best Interpreters of this Text, I know no reason, but because they agree with your opinion, which you dream to be the best. The last of our English Translations which other men count the best, hath it otherwise, Mal. 2.16. and it says. for the Lord God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away. In the Hebrew it is, Ci saene shallach, amar Jehovah Elohe Israel: which if your learning can make any other than a reason of what God had spoken before, you may peradventure make this place speak something for you. The truth is, this your reading is quite contrary to the scope of the place; for God by his Prophet Malachy in the former verses vehemently complains against the Jews for dealing treacherously with the Wives of their youths: Now how this was, although it be not so plain, yet it seems probable it was, by having of other lovers, and growing weary of their own, and so a pretending some fault in them, to the end to put them away: Well saith God in the 16 Verse, The Lord God of Israel hateth this treachery of yours in seeking other lovers and being weary of your own wives put them away. But on the other side, if your reading should be admitted, what a preposterous sense would here be; as if God should say, Oh you deceitful Jews, you treacherously deal with your own Wives, I pray let me hear no more of this treachery; but this I command you, if you would ●aine be rid of them, do but hate them and then put them away, and then you are at liberty: And so God to prevent treachery against men's wives, should command the greatest treachery that can be devised.  
In the prosecution of this reason you are pleased to say, It is a less breach of wedlock to part with quiet consent betimes, than still to profane that mystery of joy with a polluting sadness.  

Answ.  mystery of joy, what language is this? is marriage now a Sacrament signifying joy? this I never heard of before: the Papists indeed make it a Sacrament, but not of joy, and yet I doubt they can say more for their opinion than you for yours.  
But how a less breach of wedlock? is not wedlock quite broke by your divorce, though it should be with consent: but I am sure it is not quite broke by living sad and pensive lives; and yet their duties are to amend their faults which are the occasion of the sad living, and not to be separated from one another's persons.  
And whereas you say, It is not the outward continuance of marriage which keeps the covenant of marriage whole, but whosoever doth most according to peace and love, whether in marriage or divorce, he breaks marriage least.  
We answer: this is a wild, mad, and frantic divinity, just like to the opinions of the Maids of Algate: 
Answ.  Oh say they, we live in Christ, and Christ doth all for us; we are Christed with Christ and Godded with God, and at the same time we sin here, we joined to Christ do justice in him, for our life is hid with God in Christ. So you, what, tell you of bearing the infirmities of your Wife, and so fulfil the law of Christ, and of giving honour to her as the weaker vessel: why you can do this when you have put her away, you do all in love and peace, you keep these commandments well enough. Fie, fie, blush for shame, and publish no more of this loose divinity. But I would ask you a question or two.  
May a man keep and maintain that love which is required between married persons towards her who was his Wife, 
1 Quest.  but now is divorced from him. If not, why say you in effect, if there be but peace and love marriage is kept well enough, either by continuing in marriage or by divorce. If he may maintain that love to her that is divorced, this is just fast and loose, marry and hate, divorce and love: I will hate her now she is my Wife, but love her when my Concubine: So, so, you teach us good courteous Doctrine.  
I ask you, whether marriage may continue after Divorce, if not, why say you in effect, 
2 Quest.  that the marriage covenant is better kept by Divorce, so there be but love and peace, then by continuance in the sad company of marriage. I grant according to the laws of the kingdom there is a Divorce only à mensa & thoro, yet I believe they hardly allow that manifestation of love to each other which the covenant of marriage requires.  
But let us see, have you any Scripture for this your new gospel: yes, enough, say you, often repeated: yea, what is, that? The words of Paul forsooth, Love only is the fulfilling of every commandment.  
You must remember you put in the word only, and so add to the Scripture. But well it is true, the Scripture doth say, 
Answ.  love is the fulfilling of the law, and so by consequence of every commandment: but how this will make for your purpose I cannot yet possibly see. Sure I am Paul never intended to be a Patron of all injustice and injury to be committed, under a feigned pretence of keeping the same commandments they broke, by a secret unknown love in their hearts. It's true indeed, he that doth unfeignedly love his Neighbour, he will honour his Parents, not commit murder, nor by adultery defile his neighbour's Wife, nor steal his goods; this is Paul's Doctrine. But Paul never taught, that a man might despise his Parents, murder, steal, and commit adultery, and yet with a pretence of the grace of love earnestly burning in his heart, say he hath kept all the commandments: No more doth he suffer a man to hate and put away his Wife with strife and variance, and tell him by the love and peace he had in his heart towards her, he had kept the Command of marriage unpoluted. Paul's intent in urging us so often with the duty of love is, to put us in mind not to content ourselves with the bare performance of duties to our Neighbour, without Christian love to their persons, he says 1 Cor. 13.2. If I give all my goods to the poor, and yet have no love, it profiteth not, &c. But he never intended men should gape altogether upon this general precept of love, and stick there, for Paul knew that would deceive thousands: therefore in the same place he descends to particulars, and thinks it not enough to bid them to love one another, but he bids to pay tribute to whom tribute belongs, and so keep the fifth commandment: that they should owe nothing to man, and so keep the eight commandment: To walk honestly as in the day time, not in chambering and wantonness, and so break the seventh commandment; not in strife and envying, and so break the sixth commandment: (this I speak according to the ordinary received opinion of ranking duties under each commandment, though I could never yet see how these duties can so well be brought in as being required in the 10 commandments in a proper sense so to speak: its fit every Scripture should have its own weight and authority.) But to our purpose; as Paul is thus particular with the Romans, notwithstanding his general precept of love; so if you will here bring in that love which is commanded between Husband and Wife, Paul means you shall express it, by covering or passing by a multitude of her faults, and by seeking to heal her errors; and by your meek, wise, and godly conversation towards her, labour to win her to God, and yourself, and not most inhumanly hate her and put her away, and still say, you keep the command of love. Thus of your fourth Argument.  
The effect of your fifth Argument is, That as the Priests of old were not to be long in sorrow, 
5 Arg.  to the end they might execute their Priesthood rightly: So Christians now being Priests to God, dedicate to his service, they ought not by trouble and vexation of a disagreeing Wife to be hindered from serving God, but rather by divorce put her away, and so procure liberty to serve God.  

Answ.  This Argument is far fetched, yet is it not good for Ladies, nor scarce deserves any answer: but we tell you, most things concerning the priests were typical, do you show this to be the moral of this under the Gospel, that men might put away their Wives if they were cause of continual heaviness to them: how think you? might not many poor men by the same reason, who are by the providence of God compelled to labour, and so are hindered much from the cheerful serving God in the things of his worship, which others have liberty in: may they not lawfully now leave their honest labour and fall to plunder or steal one hour or two in a day, and serve God cheerfully the rest? Why not, as well as when a man is by the providence of God married to a yoke-fellow, which is in divers things cause of grief and vexation to him, therefore he may now break all bonds of law and providence, and under a pretence of serving God cheerfully, he may unchristianly thrust his Wife out of doors with a bare Bill of Divorce in her hand to seek her living. For the rest of our discourse in this Division concerning divorce from heretics, we shall pass it over as nothing to our purpose, and so pass to your sixth Argument, the effect of which is.  
That marriage which nature itself teacheth to be unlawful, 
6 Arg.  that may be destroyed or dissolved by divorce. But the marriage of persons of contrary minds & dispositions, nature teacheth to be unlawful. Ergo,  
For the present we agree to the proposition, 
Answ.  that such marriages as Nature itself teacheth to be unlawful, may be dissolved by divorce.  
But for the second part, that Nature teacheth such marriages to be unlawful, as are made betwixt persons who are of a contrary mind or disposition, this we utterly deny: and look for your proofs to the contrary.  
Well, you want not proofs, for you say, Moses teacheth the Jews that they should not sow their Vineyards with divers seeds, nor plough with an ox and an ass together.  
Ho brave stuff! but go on; Moses teacheth so indeed: but how will you make this last to fit your shoe?  
This you will do well enough, but how? By following the example of Paul's reasoning, say you. Well, let's see whether Paul or you are the best Logician. Paul reasons; doth God take care for Oxen and Asses how ill they yoke together, or is it spoke altogether for our sake? for our sakes doubtless: thus you would have Paul to reason for you: but the truth is, Paul doth reason thus, but it is in another case, the place is, 1 Cor. 9 Paul reasons thus; we that bestow our labour in preaching the Gospel, aught to be maintained thereby: and he proves it by familiar examples, that every one ought to be maintained by that which he takes pains in: as the Wayfaring man by travelling, the Vinedresser by planting, the shepherd by looking to his flock; all these eat the fruit of their labour; and to put it out of doubt, Paul citys the Law of Moses, proving that not only Men, but even Beasts ought to eat the fruits of their labour, for it saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox which treads out the corn. Well, Paul goes on in ●is reasoning, lest any idle pated fellow should answer and say; Paul, what makes this for you, I hope you are no ox, neither do you tread out the corn. No, says Paul, that's true; but the force of my Argument is this, That God by Moses did not only intend in that speech, that Oxen should be fed, but it was with reference to other cases among the rest even for us Ministers of the Gospel, that we should not take pains in the Gospel, but should also be maintained thereby, as well as Oxen and other mean Callings are maintained by their labour: lo this is Paul's reasoning, and it is impregnable logic: let's see how yours agrees. Moses tells the Jews they should not plough with an ox and an ass together, nor sow their field with divers seeds; Ergo, there being some other sense in this then merely to take care for Oxen, &c. it will follow from hence, that it is a foul incongruity and a great violence to the reverent secret of Nature, to force a mixture of minds that cannot unite, and to sow the furrow of man's nativity with seed of two incoh●rent and incombining dispositions. Is this your reasoning like Paul's, as you promised: sure Paul would be ashamed to reason thus.  
For although we believe there may be some typical signification of that of Moses, yet that it should be yours is ridiculous. But you say, Paul 2 Cor. 6. alludes to that of Moses, and applies it to misyoking in marriage, as say you by the Greek word is evident.  
To this we answer; that it may be likely both by the Greek word and English also, that Paul alludes to that in Deuteronomy. Yet that he applies it to marriage with Infidels you cannot prove, but rather to all needless conversation, but especially of companying with them in their service of Idols.  
But suppose he did apply it to marriage with Infidels, and forbade it; yet you see after marriage is perfected and consummated, he will by no means allow of a Divorce if the Wife be but so much as content to live with her Husband, as was showed upon 1 Cor. 7. And so this no ways makes for your purpose.  
Now for that reverent expression of you●s, That it is a foul incongruity, and a great violence to the reverent secret of Nature, to force a mixture of minds which cannot unite, and to sow the furrow of ma●● nativity with the seed of two incoherent and incombining dispositions.  
This Court compliment, so neatly and modestly dr●st, 
Answ.  I believe deserves the pains of the best Lady at Court to learn it. For answer to it being but a compliment, for your forcing ●f ● mixture of minds that cannot unite; I know nobody by force or fair means intends any such mixture in marriage: minds are not capable of mixing but only agreeing and uniting; indeed you talk much of fit conversing souls, whether you me●n by mixture or otherwise, it matters not, the language is too sublime and angelical for mortal creatures to comprehend it. And for your other phrase of a great violence to the reverent secret of nature by sowing the furrow of man's nativity, with the seed of two incoherent and incombining dispositions.  
This frothy discourse, were it not s●gred over with a little neat language, would appear so immeritous and undeserving, so contrary to all human learning, yea, truth and common experience itself, that all that read it must needs count it worthy to be burnt by the Hangman.  
For who ever thought before you, that the reverent sec●et of Nature, or the furrow of man's nativity (so there was lawful marriage preceded) might not be sowed by the seeds of such as are of di●ferent or uncombining disposition, if any such there be, without violence or foul incongruity? If any think otherwise as you it seems do; give advice that a Petition may be drawn, to have a Committee in every county of the kingdom who shall carefully see to, and severely restrain the marriage of any two Men or Maids who differ in constitution, complexion, hair, countenance, or in disposition, lest this reverent secret of Nature be defiled and violated.  

7 Arg.  Your seventh Argument is, The Canon law and Divines allow a Divorce where one of the parties conspires the death of the other: but sometimes through disagreement of dispositions, by a sad pensiveness the life of one of the parties at least, is brought into danger, Ergo it seems a divorce ought in the latter case to be tolerated.  
To this I answer three things.  

1 Answ.  1. For the opinion of the Canon law, the whole body of it is not of your mind, for Nichol. 1. de matrim.. Can. 6. is contrary, quicquid mulier contra te cogit averit, non est excepta causa ●●●ni●ationis rejicienda. Whatsoever thy Wife conspires or plots against thee, there is no other cause of putting her away but fornication.  

2 Answ.  The case is not the like, betwixt the conspiring of one party to kill the other, and your case: for where the one party conspires to take away the life of the other, and the conspiration continues, there the offender doth implicitly at least act a Divorce; and though it should be true, that the party grieved may in this case sue a Divorce, yet will it not follow in your case, that because a man may seek divorce from her who seeks his life, to the end to save his life, which Nature teacheth: therefore for disagreement of disposition, causing sadness, and wherein they are both actors, if not equals, there the Husband may will, she ●ll she, put her away; this is just a taking advantage of our own faults and corruptions, to release us from our duties.  

●Answ.  But thirdly it would seem that there is no such cause merely in Nature properly so called, that may cause such grief as is destructive to the life: and if the cause be not in Nature, but in corruption, in pride, haughtiness, sullenness, &c. let them amend their faults, repress their pride and sullenness, or else let them if they think best, die of the sullen disease, let them try who will pi●tie them.  

8 Arg.  The effect of your eighth Argument is this:  
Those who are destitute of all marriage gifts, but only fitness of body, they have no calling to marry, and consequently if married aught to be divorced: but such some are. Ergo,  

Answ.  Briefly to this simple Argument, quite besides that which ought to be the scope of your Book, for what is here to contrariety of dispositions, now it is a disability to all married duties: This wavering & shaking in your opinion is not fit to be answered: for if it be a lunatic no● compos mentis, without any wit, a natural pool, which cannot count the days in the week, or tell twenty, or measure a yard of cloth; you need not to inveigh against them, and you can seldom show such an example: if Guardians do sometime marry such let the Lawyers alone with it, they know how to relieve the suffering party well enough.  
marriage is a human society, 
9 Arg.  and so ought to have the consent of the mind; but if the mind cannot enjoy that in marriage which it may reasonably desire, it is no human society. Ergo.  
The consent of the mind ought to be had in marriage, 
Answ.  or else it will hardly become a human society: but that after marriage the minds of the Husband and Wife must in all things agree, or else the marriage becomes no human society, is a new principle unheard of till now, and so I leave it. As for the discourse of Deut. 24.1. and Christ's exposition to the Pha●isees, we have spoken of it in answer to your second Argument.  
Now a word to your last Argument and so farewell.  
Every law is made for some good, which good may be attained unto without a greater inconvenience: 
10 Arg.  but such is not the law that prohibits Divorce for disagreements of minds and dispositions: Ergo, it is not a just law.  
We deny this your Argument, and say, 
Answ.  that there are many laws which are made for good, and yet that good is not attainable through the defaults of the party, but a greater inconvenience follows, and yet are indeed still just laws.  
I will give you two or three instances in our laws of England. It is the righteous and just law of England, that every one shall peaceably enjoy his estate in lands or otherwise, according to the goodness and latitude of his title: and I hope none will deny this to be a just law: yet see by the default of the party how this may be evaded, and he fall into great inconvenience.  
And so if a man having fee-simple in land●, and yet will take a lease from another of the same lands, this shall be an Estoppell to him in an assize to recover his own land. ter▪ leg. estop.  
So if a Daughter mulier will sue live●ie of lands with her sister who is a Bastard, she shall not avoid it after by saying her sister was a Bastard not mulier.  
So if a man had a rent, liberties, Common, &c. by prescription, and after takes a grant of the same from the King by Patent, that shall determine this prescription. 32 H. 8. Bro. tit. Estop. 200.  
So 37 H. 8. Bro. Estop. 218. If two join tenants are, which hold of the King in capite, and the one release to the other in fee, and after both respite homage in the Exchequer, the other hath by this gained his mo●tie again against the other, without any valuable considerations, by the default of the other.  
So it is a just law in England, that no man shall be unjustly charged or taxed contrary to the right, and what he is bound to do.  
Yet a man by his own fault may charge himself, or do such things as the law will compel him to be charged, where before he was free.  
For example. If a township or a Corporation are bound to repair or maintain a Causey or a Bridge, and a private man where he is not bound will repair this Bridge or Causey, time beyond the memory of man, he shall then be compelled to repair it for ever by the Law, and at the first he was compellable.  
The end of citing these cases is to show you the weakness of your reason against the law of England which prohibits Divorce, for your pretended contrariety of mind. For though it should be granted this law of prohibition of Divorce, the end of it could not be attained without a greater inconvenience: yet this inconvenience coming, arising and growing from the fault of the parties, and not from the Law; this Law of prohibiting Divorce shall remain (maugre the malice of all opposers) a just and a righteous law.  
FINIS.