“With Dangers Compast Round” 1660–1665It was necessary that one thing at least should be either forbidden or commanded, and
above all something which was in itself neither good nor evil, so that man’s obedience
might in this way be made evident. For man... would not have shown obedience at
all by performing good works, since he was in fact drawn to these by his own natural
impulses.... Man was made in the image of God, and the whole law of nature was so
implanted and innate in him that he was in need of no command.... Positive right
comes into play when God, or anyone else invested with lawful power, commands or
forbids things which, if he had not commanded or forbidden them, would in them-
selves have been neither good nor bad.^139Laying the groundwork for the qualified antinomianism he will assert as a con-
comitant of Christian liberty in chapter 27, Milton insists that Adam and Eve did
not live by a covenant of works containing the substance of the Decalogue, as
Wollebius, Ames, and many others claimed. They were not held to Sabbath wor-
ship, which is not part of the natural law, so Eden offers no precedent for requiring
Sunday observance of Christians.^140 Echoing Areopagitica, Milton explains the tree’s
name and significance not from its nature but from its effects: after the Fall, “not
only do we know evil, but also we do not even know good except through evil.
For where does virtue shine, where is it usually exercised, if not in evil?”^141
As marriage was instituted by God in Eden, Milton reprises here his views on
marriage and divorce. Like everyone else, he declares that the validity of marriage
depends on the mutual consent of the parties, that its fruit is the procreation of
children, and that the husband’s greater authority was increased after the Fall. But his
definition of marriage as “a very intimate relationship between man and woman”
alters the usual formula, “between one man and one woman,”^142 allowing him to
defend polygamy as a legitimate form of marriage – legitimate because God who
could not sanction sin allowed it for the Old Testament patriarchs. Milton argues this
point at much greater length than in the divorce tracts, not because he is urging the
practice of polygamy but to strengthen the case for divorce: if plural marriage was
and is allowable, remarriage after divorce must surely be. Using familiar terms, argu-
ments, and even rhetoric from the divorce tracts, Milton repeats his description of
marriage as a contract that can be dissolved when its primary end is not met, and also
his definition of that primary end from God’s language instituting marriage in Eden:
Everyone admits that marriage may be dissolved if the prime end and form of mar-
riage is violated; and most people say that this is the reason why Christ permitted
divorce only on grounds of adultery. But the prime end and form of marriage is not
the bed, but conjugal love and mutual assistance in life.... For the prime end and
form of marriage can only be what is mentioned in the original institution, and men-
tion is there made of pleasant companionship.... No mention is made of the bed or
of procreation.... It follows that wedded love is older and more important than the
mere marriage bed, and far more worthy to be considered as the prime end and form
of marriage. Who is so base and swinish [tam prono tamque porcino] as to deny that
this is so?^143