Notes to Chapter 1that stand / In sight of God enthron’d, our happie state / Hold, as you yours, while
our obedience holds; / On other surety none; freely we serve, / Because wee freely
love, as in our will / To love or not; in this we stand or fall.”
138 Pages 347–8. Cf. PL 8.224–31, Raphael’s explanation to Adam that he does not know
of man’s creation because he was absent that day; also God’s statement to Michael that
he will “enlighten” him about the future events that he is to reveal to Adam (PL
11.113–16).
139 Pages 351–3. Cf. Eve’s careful statement of the distinction between natural and posi-
tive law in PL 9.651–4.
140 Pages 353–4. A cross-reference points to Book 2, chapter 7, which treats Christian
worship. See pp. 438–9, and the discussion of Christian liberty, pp. 434–5.
141 Pages 352–3; cf. Areopagitica, CPW II, 514.
142 CPW VI, 355, 369–70. Cf. Wollebius, Abridgment, 312–13, and Ames, Marrow of
Sacred Divinity, 323.
143 CPW VI, 381. See CM XV, 176–7, and chapter 6, this volume. Cf. from The Doctrine
and Discipline of Divorce and Tetrachordon: no “Law or Cov’nant how solemn or strait
soever... should bind against a prime and principall scope of its own institution.” “In
Gods intention a meet and happy conversation is the chiefest and the noblest end of
marriage.” The inbred desire of joining “in conjugall fellowship a fit conversing soul
... is properly called love.” To affirm that the bed is the highest end of marriage “is in
truth a grosse and borish opinion.” Marriage was not given to remedy “the meer
motion of carnall lust... God does not principally take care for such cattell” (CPW II,
245–6, 251, 269).
144 Pages 372–5. See chapter 6.
145 My translation follows both Sumner and Carey in recognizing a direct reference to
Milton’s Tetrachordon. I find Paul Sellin’s challenge to this reading unpersuasive (“The
Reference to John Milton’s Tetrachordon in De Doctrina Christiana,” SEL 37 (1997)
137–49, and his further comments in “Some Responses,” MQ 33 (1999) 38–43); see
my discussion in “Milton and De Doctrina Christiana,” 208–10. The Latin reads:
“Fornicationis autem vox si ad orientalium normam linguarum exigatur, non adulterium
solum significabit, sed vel quicquid res turpis aliqua dicitur, vel rei defectus quae in
uxore merito requiri potuit, Deut. 24.1. (ut cum primis Seldenus in Uxore Hebraea
multis Rabbinorum testimoniis demonstravit) vel quicquid amori, fidelitati, auxilio,
societati, id est, primae instiutioni pertinaciter contrarium, ut nos alias ex aliquot
scripturae locis et Seldenus idem docuit, reperitur” (CM XV, 170–2). The parallel
exegeses in De Doctrina and Tetrachordon for the term “fornication” are also quite strik-
ing (Tetrachordon, CPW II, 672–3). The similar citation of Selden and himself on the
meaning of fornication in the Second Defense (CPW IV, 624–6) occurs in a passage
reviewing his past publications: “Concerning also what should be thought about the
single exception, fornication, I also delivered my own opinion and that of others; and
that most celebrated man our countryman Selden demonstrated it more fully in his
Hebrew Wife, published about two years later [quid item de excepta solum fornicatione
sentiendum sit, & meam aliorumque sententiam exprompsi, & clarissimus vir Seldenus
noster, in Uxore Hebraea plus minus biennio post edita, uberius demonstravit]” (CM
VIII, 132, my translation).
146 “Non amatam nec iniuria neglectam, fastiditam, exosam, servitutis gravissimae sub
Notes to Chapter 12