Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	great_a	law_n	write_v	2,881	5	5.4884	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66870	The case of divorce and re-marriage thereupon discussed by a reverend prelate of the Church of England and a private of the Church of England and a private gentleman ; occasioned by the late act of Parliament for the divorce of the Lord Rosse.	Wolseley, Charles, Sir, 1630?-1714.	1673 (1673)	Wing W3307; ESTC R9734	27,389	164

their infirmities But you would have God lay more burden upon them because of their perverse hearts which is not Gods method but to whom much is given of him much will be required 20. Fifth Reason soon satisfied whoever said that Christs precept about Divorce was injoyned Then to the Jews and only at That times It was in force from the beginning without indulgence but in force with that indulgence from Deut. 24. a●● no time so opportune as when Christ was on the earth and spake with his own mouth to his Disciples to let them know they were not priviledged like the Jews if their Wife were an Adulteress but to take up their cross and bear it 21. Divorce admitted in the Christian Church for Fornication but superinduction of another Wife is another thing There were great mistakes in the Imperial Laws Did not Valentinian make a Law for marrying within degrees prohibited Others for Bigamy I have not leasure to search the Books I lay St. Austine against St. Jerome who did not write transcursorily but two studied Books upon the Argument 22. Why should not the orders of the canon-Canon-Law be as rational as the Laws of Theodosius and Justinian Separatio à toro mensa is for peace sake till opportunity of attoning Must all directions to keep them aloof that are imbittered one against the other and to prove them for a time how they will piece again be grounded upon Scripture Shall humane Prudence have no hand in such things These are no fictions of the Canon Law for they falsifie no Text but make tryal of such ways as may conduce to the good of both parties What if à toro mensa have no divine warrant is there any divine warrant against it They that look for divine warrant express in all frames of Government in all circumstances of Gods worship have been told sufficiently how much they mistake the purpose and use of Holy Scripture 23. You say 'T is not reasonable that the obligation of marriage should remain and the helps and advantages of it be taken away why what if a ma● or a woman be taken Captive Incur an irremediable diseass or the Wife though chaste will not render due benevolence or her Joynture she brought be consumed by fire Here are helps and advantages substracted yet no wedlock broken 24. By Divorce à toro mensa they are not shut from all converse with one another they may return to mutual embraces again though the bond of marriage be not broken the use and comfort may be suspended 25. Far more Bishops by thousands have disliked it than that have allowed it I reverence the Councils yet they were but Provincial Had I leisure to peruse them I should know to interpret them 26. Grotius lived in the Netherlands and wrote after their practice and doctrine It hath been the practice of the Church of England but once in Parliament Edw. 6. and once in this late Session of Parliament I take no pick at any man that is of a contrary judgement to me But the first instance of Parre Marquess of Northampton who had two Children in secret before the Act of Parliament passed on his side makes his case far worse than the Lord Rosse's but the Marquess and his posterity sunk quite away and let survivors behold the end of this last Instance For an Appendix I will ingeniously add the unreasonableness of the Church of Rome who generally deny him that puts away his Wife for Adultery to marry again yet they consent to the sentence of Pope Gregory the first who resolves this upon a question moved Questio est quidam parentes mulieres presertim proprios filios susceperunt in lavacro An illiviri mulieres ad suum proprium redire possint usum Imo separent se mulieres vero cum separata fuerint pro hac illicita re à propriis viris totam precipimus recipere dotem post expletum annum recipiant alium virum similiter viri uxorem which is easily thus refuted by their own doctrine Si proprios filios in casu necessitatis baptizare non solvit matrimonium quanto minus eosdem è Baptismo suscipere 27. To end such as hold to my opinion lay it the more to Conscience foreseeing that the contrary may stir up some wicked Husbands to suborn false witnesses upon Oath to convince innocent Wives that They being divorced it may admit them to marry where they like better Moreover it may fall out not seldom that a wicked Woman will confess her self an Adulteress upon assurance of some ample compensation More might be added The Answer to the Animadversions Animadversion 1. UNchastity before marriage in a Virgin not in a Widow Answer The direction in the 22. of Deut. for conviction of unchastity before marriage relates peculiarly to a Virgin and cannot be applyed to a Widow yet should a Widow by other evident proofs be convicted of unchastity after the death of a First Husband before marriage to a second the equity and reason of the Law seems to reach her 'T is a firm Maxim in the Civil Law ut ubi eadem est ratio jus idem valet I find no exception any where made in that case nor any particular direction given about a Widows previous unchastity to a second marriage to punish it any other way Animadversion UNchastity to be punished wth death if proved by two witnesses if but one Divorce if only strong suspicion the water of Jealousie Answer The first is evident that unchastity when punished with death was to be proved by two witnesses not by reason of any particular direction about the proof in That case but because God established That as a general rule for all Judicial proceedings that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every sentence should be established Deut. 19. 15. One witness shall not rise up against any man for any iniquity at the mouth of two witnesses or three shall the matter be established The second that if unchastity were proved but by one witness it was Then matter of Divorce I crave leave to dissent from Unchastity if proved could never be ground for Divorce for death was to ensue so that if one witness in case of unchastity were sufficient proof it produced death if it were not it amounted to no more than suspicion Nor do I find any direction for any proof at all to be made as Necessary in case of Divorce nor in any case where proof was Judicially required was one witness sufficient Neither by the first allowance of Divorce Deut. 24. Nor in the subsequent practice of it amongst the Jews was there any proof required in case of Divorce nor any Judgement to be passed by the Magistrate about it farther than that there should be libellum repudii given to the Woman It seems to me that the judgement in case of Divorce rested in every mans own breast though every man was in his own private conscience obliged

ends cannot be attained this I assent to but it will not reach this case Ability to perform is implyed in all contracts providential disability no way cancels the matrimonial obligation because 't is entred into with a supposition of them But although God in his just Judgement and as a punishment upon both may bring married persons into such a condition yet 't is not a ground for men to make a rule to go by especially for the offence of one 't is There matter of necessity and not of choice There the ends of marriage cannot be attained Here they may only we obstruct them God does that many times providentially and Judicially which we can neither do reasonably nor regularly 't is mens duty to submit to God when he takes away those helps marriage affords but that is no ground for us to take them away while he continues them A man obliged by an oath of Allegiance to his Prince may providentially be brought into such a condition he cannot perform it but That will never warrant us to bring any man into such a condition where the obligation to a duty is necessary and the suspension of it is voluntary It may so fall out a Prince cannot protect his subjects nor his subjects obey him yet the obligations upon both remain But this will never justifie us upon any account to bring things into such a posture But suppose the woman refuse due benevolence where there is no disability I say she lives by so doing in a notorious sin and 't is not fit that what is a sin in either party voluntarily to do Both should be enjoyned to do which they are by divorce à mensa toro The woman in that kind is lyable to punishment for not performing matrimonial duties and in case all means used to reduce her to her duty prove ineffectual 't is worthy consideration whether she may not at last come under the equity of St. Pauls didirection about desertion which is nothing as I take it relating to divorce or putting away in that sense our Saviour speaks of it but a help that the Law of nature which is ever implyed in all divine institutions affords to an innocent wronged person unjustly forsaken and actually or perhaps virtually put away the Apostle says A brother or a sister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not inslaved in such a case The truth of this whole matter is our Saviour has in the Gospel established a Law for Divorce and Remarriage in the single case of Fornication instead of That liberty given by Moses under the Law it must be proved that he intended That part of the Gospel as a rule to the Jews only which he never intended any other part of it to be nor does any where say he intended This to be or else the matter is determined Amongst the Jews never any Divorce heard of without liberty to remarry and it was only intended for that purpose Calvin upon that passage He that marries her that is put away commits Adultery speaks fully says he This sentence hath been most corruptly expounded by many Interpreters for they thought generally and confusedly that is was commanded to live sole after Divorcement so if the Husband should put away the Adulteress of necessity They both should live unmarried as if This were the liberty of Divorcement only to lye away from the Wise as if also Christ did not evidently in this case permit That to be done which the Jews were wont generally to usurp unto themselves according to their own pleasure Therefore their errour was too gross for when Christ condemneth him for Adultery that marries her that is put away 't is certain that this is to be understood of unlawful and frivolous Divorcements By the Roman Laws all Divorces admitted of a second marriage In the Christian Church in the beginning it was so Nor indeed was Divorce ever thought of any where but in order to a second marriage till this contrivement of a Divorce à mensa toro came in the effect of which in the Roman Church where it hath been chiefly practised has been such as does no way credit it Cajetan one of their own is so ingenuous that upon the 19th of Matthew he saith Intelligo igitur ex hac Domini Jesu Christi l●ge licitum esse Christiano dimittere uxorem ob fornicationem carnalem ipsius uxoris posse aliam ducere And a little after adds Non solum miror sed stupeo quod Christo clarè excipiente causam fornicationis torrens Doctorum non admittat illam mariti libertatem Wherever that kind of Divorce has been practised the consequence hath most commonly been that the innocent party hath by temptation fallen into sin the offending party into farther transgression for 't is not a thing probable or likely that such who would not live chastely in a marryed condition should do so in a single condition and at last greater inconveniences and animosisities have arisen from such a separation and the parties very rarely if ever again united It inslaves mankind into a very sad dilemma either to lye in a polluted bed and yield to every impudent Adulteress for so they usually grow at last or else to udnergo all those temptations men are subject to without a Wife in a single and unmarried condition God no where seems to have given the woman such an advantage over the Masculine Sex as to be able to intrap the Man in such a snare Animadversion TO end such as hold to my opinion lay it the more to Conscience foreseeing that the contrary may stir up some wicked Husbands to suborn false witnesses upon Oath to convince innocent Wives that They being divorced it may admit them to marry where they like better Moreover it may fall out not seldom that a wicked Woman will confess her self an Adulteress upon assurance of some ample compensation More might be added Answer 'T is a thing likewise to be feared that if no better remedy be provided for innocent Husbands than a Divorce à mensa toro it may provoke them to rid themselves of their Adulterous Wives by some undue means the rage of a man is great in those cases and truly sometimes unconquerable even in good men sad events have ensued and may ensue in such cases For suborning proof in this case there 's no more danger than in all other mens estates and lives and their highest concerns depend upon proof by witnesses there is no surer or better ground to proceed upon in all humane determinations this matter has the greatest advantage against proof of any being rarely within the reach of it and for one fact of That nature that can be brought to light by due proof many will pass in the dark without proof and so without punishment A womans own confession in this case will not prevail the rule in the Civil Law takes place Revelanti turpitudinem suam fides non datur In the raign of Henry the eighth when the Popes power was excluded an Act passed to inable the King to elect thirty two able persons to reform Ecclesiastical Laws This in the 6 year of Edward the sixth's Raign was put in execution and the Quorum of them by letters Patents reduced to eight they met and took great pains there was present Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Goodrich Bishop of Ely and other the chief of the Bishops Peter Martyr and other eminent Divines and the most eminent Canonists Civilians and Common-Lawyers then in the Kingdom they set forth a Book called Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum which we may well reckon the judgement of the Church of England at That time about those things being composed by such men impowred by the supream Authority and in That Book the lawfulness of Divorce in case of fornication and remarriage upon it is fully asserted and justified I shall only add that amongst learned men I find great disagreement in resolving this Question whether the same right of Divorce belong to the Woman that does to the man some say the superiority of the Sex makes this a peculiar prerogative to the man who is the head of the Woman ` T is certain in the Mosaical Law no such thing as a Womans putting away her Husband was ever allowed sometimes in fact it was illegally and irregularly practised yet very rarely we find in all the Jewish Writers but one instance and that is in Josephus The Roman Laws allowed it Those who espouse the Womans cause in this point urge that passage of our Saviour in the 10th of Mark where he saith And if a woman put away her husband and marry another she commits Adultery and so seems to make the right of putting away equal Calvin upon this place saith that although the Husband be superior in other respects yet in the marriage-bed the man and the woman are equal therefore saith he when as the Adulterer shall fall away from the knot of matrimony the Wife is set at liberty they also urge that of St. Paul who saith in case of desertion a Brother or a Sister is not bound and so seems to put the matter between Man and Wife upon even terms in all conjugal respects The Christian Church affords us but two instances that look this way The first of one Thecla who refused to marry one Thamyris in Iconium after she was contracted to him This story Mr. Selden relates at large from the report of Basil of Selencia but seems not much to credit it himself however it was but a refusing Marriage after contraction Mr. Selden calls her only Sponsa and saith Nuptias noluit sponsalibus renunciavit and it was to one that most bitterly detested Christianity The other instance is that in the beginning of Justine Martyrs first Apology where a Christian woman made use of the Roman Laws to put away her Husband and he commends her for it but that was evidently upon St. Pauls permission in case of desertion for her Husband was a notoriously wicked person and departed from her In this matter I shall make much a better choice to submit to your Lordships learned Judgement than to declare my own FINIS