justify such a proceeding to the world, and at the same time perhaps to conciliate for it the countenance of the legislature, he published in 1644 two editions, (one anonymously and one with his name,) of “The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce." This treatise, which was inscribed to the Parliament, was soon followed by "The judgment of Martin Bucer concerning Divorce:" by "Tetrachordon," and "Colasterion." The two last of these tracts were written in 1645; the latter of them as a reply to an antagonist without a name, and the former as an exposition of the four passages in the sacred writings, which are supposed more immediately to respect the permanency of the marriage-obligation. By these writings the fury of the Presbyterian Clergy was instantly kindled; and, unmindful of the recent and great services, which they had experienced from the au ' Gen. i. 27, 28. Deut. xxiv. 1, 2. Matt. v. 32, 31. Herbert Palmer, a member of the Assembly of Divines, in a Sermon preached before the Parliament, blames the legisla ture for suffering “a wicked book deserving to be burnt, whose author had been so impudent as to set his name to it, and de dicate it to themselves, to be abroad without censure." [Todd's Life of Milton.] I have seen this sermon, preserved in the curious library of James Bindley, Esq.. thor's pen, they now assailed him, from the pulpit and the press, with violent and acrimonious hostility. Solicitous also to make him the object of more effective vengeance, they endeavoured to infuse their passions into the legislature; and actually caused him to be summoned before the House of Lords. From this tribunal however he was soon honourably dismissed; and the Presbyterian ministers were left without any consolation for the loss of an able friend, and the excitement of a formidable enemy. Milton was now irrevocably alienated from their cause; and at last he fully discovered that these pretended zealots of liberty sought only their own aggrandizement, and the power of imposing upon others that yoke which they had themselves been unable to bear. On a question less incontrovertibly right, and perhaps more certainly important, we shall soon have occasion to notice our consistent asserter of liberty in determined opposition to these sanctified advocates of insurrection and of tyranny. On the subject of divorce he makes out a strong case, and fights with arguments which are not easily to be repelled. The whole context of the Holy Scriptures, the laws of the first christian emperors, the opinions of some of the most eminent among the early reformers, and a projected statute of Edward VI are adduced by him for the purpose of demonstrating that, by the laws of God and by the inferences of the most virtuous and enlightened men, the power of divorce ought not to be rigidly restricted to those causes which render the nuptial state unfruitful, or which taint it with a spurious offspring. Regarding mutual support and comfort as the principal object of this union, he contends that whatever defrauds it of these ends essentially vitiates the contract, and must necessarily justify its dissolution. "What, therefore, God hath joined, let no man put asunder.” "But here," says our author, "the christian prudence lies, to consider what God hath joined. Shall we say that God hath joined error, fraud, unfitness, wrath, contention, perpetual loneliness, perpetual discord? Whatever lust, or wine, or witchery, threat or enticement, avarice or ambition hath joined together, faithful or unfaithful, christian with anti-christian, hate with hate, or hate with love-shall we say this is God's joining?" In another passage he expresses himself with the most happy energy on the effect of this discordancy of character. Tetrac. P. W. ii. 178. "But unfitness and contrariety frustrate and nullify for ever, unless it be a rare chance, all the good and peace of wedded conversa- · tion; and leave nothing between them enjoyable, but a prone and savage necessity, not worth the name of marriage, unaccompanied with love." Though his arguments failed, and indeed they could not reasonably hope to produce general conviction, their effect was far from being inconsiderable; and a party, distinguished by the name of Miltonists, attested the power of his pen, and gave consequence to his pleading for divorce." The legislature however, coinciding evidently with a large majority of the nation, seem to have considered the evil, resulting from the indissolubleness of marriage, as not to be weighed against the greater good; and their wisdom permitted the abilities of Milton to be exerted in vain against that condition of the t Colast. P. W. ii. 249. "To these things I must add, that after his Majesty's restoration, when the subject of divorce was under consideration with the Lords upon the account of John Lord Ros, or Roos, his separation from his wife, Anne Pierpont, eldest daughter to Henry Marquis of Dorchester, he (Milton) was consulted by an eminent member of that house, as he was, about that time, by a chief officer of state, as being the person that was knowing in that affair." Wood's Fast. Oxon. P. 261. contract which provided the most effectually for the interests of the offspring, and which offered the best means of intimately blending the fortunes, the tempers, and the manners of the parents. Milton certainly entertained the opinions, which he professed; and, to evince to the world his consciousness of freedom, he proceeded, at this time when "*the golden reins of discipline and government in the church were let loose," to prefer his addresses to a beautiful and an accomplished young lady, the daughter of a Doctor Davis. It has been intimated that the lady was rather averse from the proposed union; but her objections (and her friends are not stated to have formed any) seem not to have been of a very serious nature, as it appears that the accomplishment of the match was prevented solely by the intervention of an extraordinary and interesting occurrence. The inauspicious aspect at this juncture, or rather the desperate situation of the royal cause, in consequence of the decisive battle at Naseby,' made the family of Milton's wife reluctantly sensible of the folly of their con * An expression in the famous Remonstrance presented by the Parliament to the King at Hampton Court, on the 1st of December 1641. ▾ In Leicestershire. |