and separate maintenance. So that the arguments drawn from the
terms of husband and wife are fallacious, and by no means fit to
support a tyrannical doctrine, as that of absolute unlimited
chastity and conjugal fidelity.

"The general exhortations to fidelity in wives are meant only for
rules in ordinary cases, but they naturally suppose three conditions
of ability, justice, and fidelity in the husband; such an unlimited,
unconditioned fidelity in the wife could never be supposed by
reasonable men. It seems a reflection upon the Church to charge her
with doctrines that countenance oppression.

"This doctrine of the original right of change is congruous to the
law of Nature, which is superior to all human laws, and for that I
dare appeal to all wives: It is much to the honour of our English
wives that they have never given up that fundamental point, and that
though in former ages they were muffled up in darkness and
superstition, yet that notion seemed engraven on their minds, and
the impression so strong that nothing could impair it.

"To assert the illegality of change, upon any pretence whatsoever,
were to cast odious colours upon the married state, to blacken the
necessary means of perpetuating families--such laws can never be
supposed to have been designed to defeat the very end of matrimony.
I call them necessary means, for in many cases what other means are
left? Such a doctrine wounds the honour of families, unsettles the
titles to kingdoms, honours, and estates; for if the actions from
which such settlements spring were illegal, all that is built upon
them must be so too; but the last is absurd, therefore the first
must be so likewise. What is the cause that Europe groans at