Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	adultery_n	commit_v	fornication_n	1,452	5	12.1572	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34542	The remains of the reverend and learned Mr. John Corbet, late of Chichester printed from his own manuscripts.; Selections. 1684	Corbet, John, 1620-1680.	1684 (1684)	Wing C6262; ESTC R2134	198,975	272

and purely as a Priest or Minister of the Gospel And that which doth not lessen the holiness of a Christian doth not lessen the holiness of a Minister Indeed Ministers are more strongly obliged than others to keep themselves chast in body and mind because whereas others are under a single they are under a double Obligation therunto both as they are Christians and as they are Christs Ministers But the chastity to which they are obliged is the common duty of all Christians Only where there is a greater engagement to chastity there is a greater aggravation of the sin of uncleanness And it concerns Ministers more than others that they break not the Common Laws of Christianity in this regard because thereby they give a greater scandal than others Moreover Marriage is no more a hinderance to Ministers than to all Christians in their acts of devotion For all are required to exercise themselves unto godliness to pray always watching thereunto with all perseverance And such exercises as require abstinence from conjugal embraces as extraordinary prayer with fasting do alike concern Clergy and Laity Notwithstanding this evidence of Scripture and Reason for the Honesty of Marriage in the Clergy the Policy of Hypocrites and the Superstition of honest minds hath so far prevailed against it as to make it no better than Incest and worse than Fornication § 19 There is no more reason to restrain the Clergy from second Marriages than from the first For there is commonly as great reason impelling to a second Marriage as to the first And there is no more impurity or uncomeliness in the second Marriages of Clergy-men than in the first The Matrimonial acts of second Marriages have no more blemish nor unseemliness in them than those of the first There is no reason to restrain the Clergy more than the Laity from second Marriages For if it may be sanctified to the one it may as well be sanctified to the other also if it may be necessary for the one it may be also as necessary for the other And the Matrimonial acts of second Marriages are no more uncomely in a Clerick than in a Laick No reason can be given why there ought not to be as great a chastity in every Christian as in a Bishop Every Christian is in a true sense a Priest to God and a devoted person The Priests under the Law were expresly forbidden to take a Wife that was a Whore or prophane or a woman put away from her Husband Lev. 21.7 And good reason there might be for prohibiting a Priests marriage with a divorced woman because the Law of Divorce was but of divine sufferance to the Jews for the hardness of their hearts as our Saviour saith The High-Priest was expresly forbidden to marry a Widow ver 14. Some of the said Prohibitions were most probably in reference to a ceremonial sanctity peculiar to the Mosaick dispensation But neither the High Priest nor other Priests were forbidden to marry a second Wife upon the death of the first I see no reason to conceive that by the Text 1 Tim. 3.2 any thing is forbidden in a Bishop which is lawful in other Christians By the husband of one Wife the Apostle means one that is not married to two Wives at once according to the custome of the Jews and other Eastern Nations and one that hath not married a second Woman after he hath put away the first without lawful cause or that hath not taken one that was unlawfully put away by another according to the custom of the Western Nations § 20. The forbidding of the innocent party to marry after a just divorce was another groundless and unreasonable prohibition Now the crime of adultery is the ground of a just divorce Matt. 19.9 Whosoever putteth away his Wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth adultery Here the putting away of a Wife and the marrying of another is declared to be the committing of Adultery except it be for Fornication This by the most unquestionable Rule of interpretation shews that if a man put away his Wife for Fornication and marry another he doth not commit adultery For this is the case expresly excepted from the general proposition and therefore exempt from the guilt therein expressed and unless such an exemption were thereby signified the exception were in vain And it is to be further noted that the excepting of the case of Fornication must refer more especially to the later clause of marrying another because by the bare putting away of a Wife in any case without proceeding further there is no committing of Adultery Therefore it is the marrying of another in the said case of exception that is designed to be exempted from the said guilt Hereupon those general propositions about the same matter Mark 10. Luke 16. must according to a just interpretation be limited by the exception here expressed which must be necessarily there understood Howbeit upon an unjust divorce for the innocent or injured party to marry another we do not find it lawful For Christ declares Mart. 5 21. Whosoever putteth away his Wife s●ving for the cause of fornication causeth her to commit adultery and whosoever marrieth her that is divorced committeth adultery Here he seems to resolve That he is an Adulterer that marrieth the innocent party that is put away and that the first contracted relation is not dissolved by the unjust divorce and that the woman unjustly put away ought to stay unmarried in hope of being reconciled to her husband until such time as his Adultery in any kind and in particular in the marrying of another Wife doth set her at liberty § 21. For the further clearing of the point here discussed it is to be noted in what sense the Mar●iage-bond is dissolved and in what sense it is not dissolved by Adultery Certain it is that the said bond is not dissolved ipso facto by the said crime so that the conjugal relation immediately ce●seth and conjugal famillarity thenceforth becomes unlawful N●vertheless the bond is so far dissolved that the offending-party hath forfeited the relation and all the consequent Rights thereof and the injured party is no longer bound to continue the relation and the consequent duties thereof if he will take the forfeiture and so the bond is actually dissolved and the relation ceaseth by his will yet he is bound to proceed in it regularly and according to publick order Whereas it is said by many That the allowed divorce doth not signifie the breaking of the conjugal bond in the substance but a relaxation thereof as to conjugal duties it to be noted that the question put to our Saviour by the Pharisees was about putting away as to the Matrimonial bond For there was no other putting away among the Jews nor among the Romans nor other Nations among whom Divorce was in use Besides to speak of a putting away and of a being at liberty from bed and board and all Matrimonial duties and

yet not from the bond of Matrimony is but idle talk The state is dissolved where all the obligations consequent to such a state are abrogated Moreover the Papists themselves allow the dissolving of a Marriage with such an Infidel as will not cohabit without using contumely against Christ and seeking to turn the yokefellow from Christ And is not Adultery especially if continued as just a cause of the dissolution seeing this cause is expressed in Gods Law whereas the other is not And whereas they say there is not the same firmness in the marriage of Infidels as of Christians this they speak without proof and against the Law of God which hath made Matrimony as inviolable among Infidels as among Christians This is a Divine Ordinance belonging not to the Church only but to all mankind § 22. As touching the allowableness of another Marriage to the innocent party in case of a declared wilful desertion by the other we find this written 1 Cor. 7.15 If the unbelieving depart let him depart A brother and sister is not under bondage in such cases It is hence gathered by some that in a Marriage between a believer and an unbeliever in case the unbelieving party depart out of hatred to true Religion and if the believing party hath used all possible and reasonable means to reduce the other to a due Conjunction and hath staid a convenient time for that purpose and cannot prevail therein he is loosed from this bond This inference from the Text seems to me highly probable that I cannot disallow it Many Reformed Churches have determined this and applied it further to other cases of obstinate desertion besides this before mentioned that the matter being judged by the Magistrate the Innocent party may Marry another As for the prohibition Vers 11. If she depart let her remain unmarried therein another Marriage is forbidden only to such as voluntarily depart It is to be noted that there may be a just voluntary departing which is not of the same reason with a just divorce § 23. Abishag who was sought for David to cherish him in his extream age 1 King 1.2 was his Concubine that is not his Harlot but his lawful Wife in a secondary degree or inferior rank I mean lawful only by Gods permission or connivence in regard of his plurality of Wives at once according to the custom of the ancient times yet lawful by Divine Approbation in case he had had no other Wife then in being From this example it is at least probable that it is not a sin in it self in extream old age to take a Wife as a cherishing Nurse or a bosom companion For the declared intent of Davids taking Abishag was that she might lie in his bosom and cherish him in his age when he could get no heat And it is said That she cherished him but he knew her not § 24. The Bed undefiled Heb. 13.4 is that which is not defiled with Adultery Fornication or any kind of unchastness or unsoberness To the maintaining of which undefiledness and the avoiding of all uncleanness Christians are greatly obliged by the purity of their Religion Here I design to speak of uncleanness not without but within the bounds of Matrimony and to give caution against all corrupt behaviour between a Man and his own Wife because men are commonly least aware of this evil and because this is the Damnation of multitudes who defile not themselves with strange embraces and while they think they live chastly do securely allow themselves in very great breaches of the laws of chastity To keep the Bed undefiled it is necessary to observe not only the due object of Conjunction or the legitimate person but all due eircumstances of time place measure manner c. For inordinate sensuality or lust is not excused by being acted between persons lawfully married The honesty and honour of Matrimony cannot make that to be lawful and honest which is in it self dishonest and sinful All manner of lust or evil concupiscence and the imperated acts thereof are forbidden by the Law § 25. There be divers ways of abusing the Marriage-bed between a Man and his own Wife whereof some are more foul and gross than others There be nefarious irregulaties that some fall into by unbridled lust There are preternatural ways by which humane nature cannot be propagated and which are justly to be abhorred by all who have not lost the sense of humanity Moreover a man may come to his Wife as to a Harlot with a spirit of Whoredom and seek a brutish pleasure which extinguisheth the fear of God Such excess as doth notably impair the health of the Body or vitiate the mind and make it more carnal is unquestionably to be avoided and will be avoided by those that are careful to keep a sound state of body or mind § 26. It is by all confessed that in two cases the conjugal embraces are without fault first when they are for the sake of Procreation secondly when the due is rendred to the yoke-fellow requiring it The reason of the former is because then the action is referred to the primary end for which Matrimony was ordained The reason of the later is because it is an Act of Justice that being rendred to another which is his right For herein the married parties have a mutual power over each other 2 Cor. 7. Yet be it always minded that even in the said cases it must be regulated by the Rules of Christian Purity Some have said That the use of the Marriage-bed without respect to Procreation of Children is base or unclean And some chief Schoolmen have determined that the use thereof to allay the inordinancy of carnal desire or to avoid Fornication when Procreation is not designed is a sin tho but a Venial sin This requires our animadversion § 27. Among the ends of Marriage this is one and a principal one and which renders it necessary viz. To be a remedy against Fornication or against burning that is the inordinacy of carnal desire 1 Cor. 7.2 Nevertheless to avoid Fornication let every man have his own Wife and every Woman have her own Husband Vers 9. If they cannot contain let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn Now if this end of Marriage be so momentous as to make it necessary in this case Certainly the use of the Marriage-bed for this end cannot be sin That which God hath ordained for the cure of this disease commonly adhering to fallen nature cannot be sin being used to that end tho the disease it self which is the occasion of it be not without sin Moreover that cannot be sin which the Apostle directs men to make use of to avoid Satans temptations to sin But the Apostle directs to the use of the Marriage bed as a preventive remedy against Satans temptations to incontinency 2 Cor. 7.5 Defraud ye not one the other except it be with consent for a time that you may give your selves