them for their incontinencie But this divorce between me and my wife is not of this nature and therefore contrary to the word of God except it be upon the account of her whoredome in Scripture-sence for neither the consent of the Parties nor the consent of the Bishops can make that lawfull which the word of God saith is unlawfull Mat. 19.6 Those whom God hath joyned together let no man put asunder 6. Now that she is a whore in Scripture-sence I prove is thus Iudges 19.2 the text saith The Levits wife played the whore againâ—t her husband and departed from him four full months but my wife hath departed from me seven years and five months if the Levits wife had actually played the whoâ—e she should by the Law have been stoned to death Levit. 20.10 neither had it been lawfull for him to have taken her againe Levit. 21.7 and 1 Cor. 6.16 He that is joyned to an harlot is one flesh therefore it is conceived that the Levites wife departing from him without his consent it is in Scripture-sense whoredome for she ought to have been in subject on to her husband as the Church is to Christ. Ephes. 5.24 This truth is further confirmed by comparing this with Prov. 2 17· where a harlot is descrâ—bed to be one that forsaketh her husband and forgetteth the covenant of her God some Margents say she forgetteth the promise of the marriage covenant Ier 3.3 compared wâ—th the 20 verse Thou hadst a Whores fore-head as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband these three Texts prove sufficiently that a wife forsaking her husband is a whore in Scripture-sence So that from the union that is between Christ and his Church Eph. 5.32 we may gather that as forsaking the Lord is called harlotry Isa. 1.4 compared with the 20 21. They have forsaken the Lord how is the faithfull Citie become an harlot even so a wife forsaking her husband is in Scripture-sence whoredome and God threatens to punish both with one and the same punishment Ezekiel 16.38 I will judge thee as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged and breaking wedlock and shedding blood are both the sins of her that was my wife To conclude as Christ himselfe said Therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them I beseech you consider it as if it were your case what you would have others do unto you and trouble not your selfe to answer but grant me a Lycense to marry whâ—ch if you do yet it can be no President to others to follow for no mans condition doth paralell mine First in regard of my wifes obstinacy these seven years and five months notwithstanding all lawfull means that hath been used to â—eclaime her and in that respect she is woâ—se then most whoâ—es are for few whores do altogether deny their husbands though they company with other men as with their husbands Secondly in her indeavouring to murther me by stabbing at me with a knife and cutting me in the face Thirdly I have suffered twenty five dayes imprisonment by Charles Fleetwood for taking hold of my wife and desiring to talke with her but one quarter of an hour to know if she could shew any reason why she dealt so with me besides she procured my imprisonment in London for 1700 pound when I owed not one penny Fourthly I have a Bill of divorce by vertue of his Majesties reference to two Bishops and under the two Bishops hands all which considered granting me a Lycense to marry can be no president for others to follow Novem 12 th 1661. Your Lordships most humble and unworthy servant George Pressicke The Bishop's Answer Mr. Pressicke I Have perused your Paper and I am still of the same judgement I was they who expound Scriptuâ—e accoâ—ding to theâ—r own private fancies doe often change but they who expound it in the same sence which was delivered to the Catholique Church with the Scripture can hardly vary fâ—om themselves To the first objection I acknowledge the words of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.15 If the unbelieving depart let hâ—m depart a brother or a sister is not â—n bondage in such cases But there is a difference bâ—tween the marriage of Infidels and the marrige of Christians the marriage of Infidels being only a civil Contract and may be dâ—ssolved by consent the marriage of Christians is moâ—eover a â—â—gne of the Mysticall union between Christ and his Church and therefore indissolvable secondly You plead the law of the Land which alowes a woman to marry after her husband hath been seven years absent but you mistake the Law for if the huâ—band be known to â—e living seventeen years absence wâ—ll not make it lawfull for the wife to marry again take an instance Mr. Mole was absent above twenty years in the inquisition for his religion yet his wife did not she could not marry again The reason of your mistake is this that if a man be not heard off in seven years the Law presumeth that he is dead and death dissolves the bond of marriage yet if it appear that the foâ—mer husband was not dead he ought to be restor'd to his wife notwithstanding her second marriage thirdly You prove nothing but presume that since you have the law of God and the law of the Land for you the precepts of Men cannot comptroll the law of God but you erre every way for you have neither the law of God for you nor the law of the Lanâ— but both the law of God and the law of the Land are exâ—resly agaâ—nst you heâ— saint Marke chap. 10. verse 11. Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her the words are generall and admit no evasion hear saint Luke chap. 16. v. 18. Wâ—osoever puâ—teth away his wife and marryeâ—h another committeth adulâ—ery aed whosoever marryeth her that is put away committeth adultery â—here is no restrictâ—on nor exception indeed saint Mathew seemeth to have an exception Mat. 5.32 Whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication causeth her to commit adultery and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commiâ—teth adultery and Mat. 19.9 Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth adultery which two places have both the same sence The exception if it be an exception and not rather a pure negation extendeth it selfe only to the divorce not at all to the second marriage he that â—utteth away his wife without the cause of fornication maketh her commit adultery but if he put her away for fornication she is the culpable cause of her own adultery not he that puts her away justly but having put her away whether he may lawfully marry again without sinne saint Mathew saith nothing but saint Marke and saint Luke speak expresly that he cannot yet even this place of saint Mathew howsoever understood speaks directly against your second marriage for you do not so much as pretend that your wife hath
be this she breaking the bond and covenant of marriage and will not be reconciled in so many years she being an Infidell and giving her consent to that divorce it doth dissolve the marriage as your selfe said before and sets me free to marry as St. Paul saith a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases if you say she is not an infidell she hath been baptized and is a Christian I say no she is no Christian that walkes in practice as my wife hath done Indeed I must say that so long as persons do outwardly hold and embrace the Christian faith in Charitie we are bound to esteem them Christians untill they manifest something to the contrary in their conversations but when they break their faith and covenâ—nt and all both humane and christian bonds as my wife hath done and will not be admonished neither by Ministers noâ— christian friends but all Scripture and counsell hath been rejected by her and she wittingly and maliciously acting against the light of her owne conscience it is no breach of charity to esteem such an one an Infidell or unbeliever while they so walke for such an one cannot be said to be a believer in any other sence then the Devill is said to believe and tremble for if she did believe in any other sence she durst not act so contrary to the rule of Scripture in breaking faith and covenant with God and her husband she cannot be said to be a christian for believers were first called christians at Antioch they werâ— first believers and then called christians but some Ministers have said she is worse then an infidell for Infidells act ignorantly and she acts against knowledge I grant also that the marriage of Christians is a signe of the mysticall union between Christ and his Church but that such a marriage is undissolvable I thinke by what you have said it doth not appeare foâ— to the third Objection you gâ—rnt that a wife may be divorced foâ— fornication and I thinke I shall by Scripture make it appear that beâ—ng divorced for fornication the innocent party may lawfully marry To prove thâ—s the best way to expound Scripture is to compare Scripture with Scripture now Marke 10.11 it is said Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another commiteth adultery against her and Luke Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another commiteth adultery and whosoever marrieâ—h her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery these Texts you say admit of no evasion exception nor restriction but compare them with Mat 19.3 and they wâ—ll yeild another sence The Pharises came unto Christ tempting him and saying unto him is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every cause Christs answer seems to include as if he should say no it is not lawfull for a man to put away hâ—s wife for every cause for if you do both he that puts her away for every eause and marrieth another and he that marrieth her that is put away for every cause both of them committeth adultery this I conceive to be the true meaning of both these Texts the putting away for every cause and marrying another is to commit adultery and Moses saith he verses 8 and 9. Because of â—he hardnesse of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives for every cause but I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and marry another committeth adultery but without all peradventure these Texts thus compared together holds forth to us that if the divorce be for fornication and not for every cause if he marry another he doth not commit adultery for likewise Mat 5.32 whosoever shall put away his wife except for the cause of fornication causeth her to commit adultery If he put her away for every cause but if she be put away for fornication she is the cause of her own adultery and he is no adulterer if he marry another is included in these words except for fornication in all the three Evangelists for there cannot be a contradiction between one of them and another speaking all by one spirit therefore one Text must be compared with another to find out the true sence and I think it is very clear as above being thus explained by Mat 19 3. I conceive it very clear that being put away for fornication and not for every cause the innocent party may lawfully marry without sin and I do humbly conceive that it was upon this account that the old Lord Primate Docter Usher and Docter Martin did seperate Mr. Richard Lingart and his wâ—fe after they had 2 or 3 children and presently after while the old wife was living he married the Organists widow of St. Patrick's and was after Arch-Deacon of Meath all this I can make good And I humbly conceive from Marke 10.12 compared with the 1 Cor 7.15 that it is as cleare that a wife putting away her husband and departing from him and will not be reconciled the husband may as lawfully marry as if he had put her away for fornication and ought not to be kept in bondage Marke 10.12 If a womâ—n put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery but the Evangelist doth not say that if he marry another after she is departed and hath put him away that he committeth adultery and St. Paul saith abâ—olutely that he is not in bondage in such cases the reason I conceive is because the wife ought to be in subjection to her husband and not he in subjectâ—on to her and therefore the putting him away and will not be reconciled doth alter the case so as to set the husband free a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases For God knowing mans weaknes and requiring that man should be holy in body and mind and God knowing Satans sleights and continuall temptations seeking whom he may devour it cannot in reason be imagiened that God would have a man left in such a foâ—lorne condition without a Remedy through the perversnesse of a whore or unbeliever it doth not stand with the bounty and goodnes of God to man it is also against naturall reason and contrary to Scripture Ephes 5.24 that saith As the Church is in subjection to Christ so let the Wiues be to their own Husbands in every thing but if in such cases the Husband be not set free to marry then must some Husbands be in subjection and bondage to the humours of whores and some to infidells and unbelievers and she that was my wife is both in Scripture-sence and I think sinns in Scripture-sence are of the deepest dye adde also to this that I have a bâ—ll of Divorce which all considered together I see not but for all that is yet said against it I may lawfully marry You say and that truly I have not hitherto so much as pretended that my wife hath committed actuall adultery I reply the reason why I have
A Case of Conscience propounded to a great Bishop in Ireland Vizt Whether after Divorce the innocent Party may not lawfully Marry With the Bishop's Answer to the QUESTION AND A Reply to the Bishops Answer And also some Quaeries Whether the Silencing of Godly Ministers be not near of kin to the killing of the two Prophets Revelation the 11. chap By George Pressicke of Dublin He that justifieth the Wicked and he that condemneth the Iust even they both are an abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 17.15 Printed for the Author in March 1661. To the Reader Christian friends YOu may understand by what followes that I propounded a Case of Conscience to a great Bishop in Ireland by way of petition but had a very slight Answer whereupon I went to my Chamber and writ to hâ—m a large Letter wherein I did hint to hâ—m that I had not written and printed three Books against Anabaptists and Quakers to be put off with such an Answer as he had given me and 〈◊〉 urge him from that Text 1 Peter 3.15 that I did conceive he was bound in conscience and duty to God to answer to the Question which I desired might be in writing which after he had read he gave order I should come to his house and he would answer it which I dâ—d and drew up the substance of my Petition and Letter into certain Questions and Arguments which hereafter followeâ—h together wiâ—h hiâ— Answer and my Reply to hâ—s Answer And seeing I could have no further satisfaction I thought good to put all in Print to publike view that he understanding Reader may consider and judge That if I should take anoâ—her Wife as I do intend for any thing I yet know to hâ—nder me whether there be not sufficient ground of Scrâ—pture for me so to do besides the example and practice of oâ—her Churches Reasons and Arguments shewed to prove the lawfullnesse thereof And if one or more be otherwise minded I may say as Peter and Iohn said in another case Acts 4.19 Whether it is right in the light of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye so I say wheâ—her should I be concluded by one or some few Mens opinions contrary to the Word of God and the prâ—ctice of Proâ—estant Churches and so be lyable to continuall temptations all my life long or take that liberty which the Word of God and former Proâ—estant Churcheâ— hath allowed that I maye escape Satans snares and have a remedy against my owne Corruption Iudge ye Thus I leave â—ll to your charitable constructions and am according to that measure I have received A lover of the Truth George Pressicke A Case of Conscience propounded c. vizt whether a Man whose wife hath forsaken him seven years and five months without any just cause and will not be reconciled and he having satisfied the Law so far that by his Majesties Reference to two Bishops in London he hath a Divorce under the Bishops hands whether he may not lawfully Marry Mr. Pressicke to the Byshop Right reverend Father in God I Have accordâ—ng to my weak ability drawne up the chief Heads of my petition and Letter into a more orderly Forme than before that your Lordship may with lesse trouble conâ—â—der of it and God Almighty direct you therein And first If the Law of God say 1 Cor. 7.15 If the unbelieving will depart let him depart a brother or a sister is not under Bondage in such cases but if in such a Case the innocent party have not liberty to marry he must needs be in bondage still 2. If the Law of the Land allow that if a Husband or Wife forsake one another seven years and be not heard off the innocent party may marry then why may not I much more have lâ—berty to marry whose Wife hath forsaken me seven years and five months for what more benefit have I of her than if I did not heâ—r whetheâ— she were deâ—d or lâ—ving yea more I have a Dâ—vorce under two Bishops Hands by a reference from his Majesty and though it be not in Forme according to the Canon-Law foâ— that had been many years silenced but having his Majesties Royall Assent from whom the Canon-Law receives it's vigoâ— and strength doth supply that defect as if it had been done by the Canon-Law 3. If both the Law of God as 1 Cor. 7.15 and secondly if the Law of the Land according to the practice of the Church of England as above the benefit of which cannot in equity be denied me there being no Law as your Lordship said to compell a wife to perform the duty of a wife and thirdly which is more I having a Bâ—ll of Dâ—vorce And fouâ—thly the example and practice of the Church in Germany in the like case who allowed Galeatius to marry because his wife refused to co-habit with him as mine hath refused to co-habit with me then why should I be hâ—ndered of my lawfull liberty more than oâ—hers 4. If there be no Law to compel a wife to her duty as your Lordship said there is not and if there be a Law to restrain the husband from his lawfull lâ—berty which the Word of God allowes hâ—m and according to the practice of other Churches as above then whether is that Law that restrains him if any such Law there be whether is it a just Law according to the woâ—d of God or whether is it not rather against the word of God and is not that Law if there be any such a setting of their thresholds agaiâ—st Gods thresholds and their Posts by Gods Posts Ezek. 43.8 compared with Isa. 29.13 â—heir fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men Foâ— such a law would destroy an Ordinance of God that is Marriage and Pâ—ocreâ—tion and one end foâ— which man was câ—eated that is That the wife should be in subjection to her huâ—band as the Church is to Christ. Ephes. 5.24 But if this lâ—berty be denied him then must the husband be in subjection to hâ—s wâ—fes humour though she be a whoâ—e oâ— an Infidell and of never so perverse a spirit he must be kept in bondage and laid open to all temptations if not a necessity of sinning 1 Cor. 7.4.5 If it be objected that nothiâ—g but whoredome can divorce as some have ignorantly said 5. To that I say that though there are other lawfull causes of divorce besides whoredome yet except the Bishops made that divorce between me and my wife upon the account of my wifes being a whore in Scripture-sence as I writ to them before they made that divorce the Bishops must needs fall under the breach of that Scripture Math. 19.6 Those whom God hath joyned together let no man put asunder for there can be no divorce from bed and board as some call it but it is absolutely against that Text Except it be with consent for a time 1 Cor. 7.5 to give themselves unto prayer and come together again lest Satan tempt
committed adultery and therefore by the undoubted consent of the three Evangelists you cannot marry again To this of the three Evangelists adde likewise the testimony of St. Paul Rom. 7.2 3. The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth but if the husbaâ—d be dead she is loosed from the Law of her husband So then if while her husband liveth she be marryed to another she shall be called an Adulteresse St. Paul knew no way to dissolve marriage but by death the same he saith 1 Cor 7 39. The wife is bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be marryed to whom she will and if we weigh the force of St Pauls argument exactly we shall find it to be this That as the bond of the Law could no way be dissolved whiles the Law lived that is was not abrogated notwithstanding any prevarication interceding so the bond of marriage is indissolvable so long as life lasteth notwithstanding any interceding fornication To conclude this point he that marrieth her that is divorced or put away either justly for fornication or unjustly without fornication committeth adultery for if it was justly for fornication then she was the nocent person and could not marry agaâ—n and if it was unjustly without fornication then the divorce was void and she still continued wife to her former husband howsoever it was whether justly or unjustly it can be no adultery except the bond of the former marriage were dâ—ssolved Another place we have to the same purpose 1 Cor 7.10 21. Unto the married I command yet not I but the Lord let not the wife depart from her husband but if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband and let not the husband put away his wife Either St Paul speaks of such a woman who had no just cause of separation or of one who had but he cannot be understood to speak of one who had no just cause of separation for then he would not he could not have said let her remain unmarried or be reconciled at her choice but let her be reconsiled and returne to her husband St Paul did not could not permit any unjust Diâ—oâ—ces contrary to the expresse Word of God It is plain therefore that he speaks of one who had just cause to depart and yet St Paul commandeth in the name of the Lord that such an innocent person should remain unmarried To these plain testiminies of holy Scripture we may joyne the evidence of right reason If married persons could so easily unmarry themselves by the consent of boâ—h parties and much more by the â—â—nister practises of one party what a Doore would this open to perjuries and subordinations to the slanders and deflamations of innocent persons whilest men pursued their own lusts under the cloâ—ke of justice what division and what ruine would this bring upon families what a curse would it be to poore children who many times without their own faults must loose one of their naturall parents and get a step-Father or a step-Mother in their place This Conclusion Mr. Pressicke is evidenced to us by the woâ—d of God by the light of naturall reason that marriage ought to be kept sacred and undissolvable It hath been long observed as a Nationall sinne of this people to have been over easy dissolvers of true marriages upon slaunderous or pretended Prae-contracts wanting all ground but lust and perjury and therefore I do give you the same Counsaile which I take God to witnes I would take my selfe if I were in the same condition Seeke once more to be reconciled to your wife and forget not to pray God to change her heart if you cannot prevail then follow St Paul's command or rather God's command by St Paul to remain unmarried You complain of this as a grievous burthen but you consider not that many holy Saints and Servants of God have lived much longer under the same Crosse that you have done and altogetheâ— without their own faults Some have had their Spouses imprisoned for 30 or 40 years together for conscience sake as I told you formerly of Mr. Mole some again have had their husbands made slaves by the Turkes and detained from them as long as they lived some have been smitten with an incurable disease presently after Marriage inconsistent with the duties of the marriage-bed what must they doe in these cases and many more of the same nature Presently marry again God forbid This is a better remedy that is by fervent and frequent prayer to begge the guifte of continency of God if we prevail not it is because we pray amiss If it be not a crosse which we have pulled upon our selves but which God himselfe hath imposed upon us we have his promise that he will hear uâ— and help us let who will whisper to you other thoughts Mr. Pressicke this is your remedy In your fifth Paragraph you run into one or two errors more that every ordâ—nary divorce is forbidden as a breach of Gods command What God hath joyned together let no man put asunder Mat 19.6 and that there is no other cause of divorce but fornication For first that Text Mat 19.6 is understood properly of dissolving the bond of marriage as you would have it for eveâ— not of lesser separations made out of prudence or piety for a time Secondly there are other causes of divorces besides foâ—nication as when one married person shall seek to poyson or make away the other or to starve them it is very lawfull to seperate them out of prudence to prevent murther Judge whether this be not your case or no and when the one person is continually inticing the other to Heresy or blaspheming or soliciting him or her to sinne against God in such cases also such a temperary Divorce is lawfull as no man that understands himselfe will deny In the 6 and 7 paragraph you endeavour to prove your wife a whore in Scripture-sence because she is departed from you but you mistake every way For first in all pâ—obabâ—lity the Levites wife did more then depart from him and though a Levite might not marry a known whore yet being married he might pardon conceal or connive at her lewd courses But this is nothing to the purpose for this adultery or whoredome foâ— which a man may put away his wife is not the spirituall whoredome that is Idolatry nor civill whoredome that is desertion of her husband but carnall whoredome whereby the bond of Marriage is dissolved and the innocent party acquited for the future from all Conâ—ugall duties But to imagine that she who only deserts her husband and she who takes another into his bed are both alike guilty of the breach of wedlocke and both to be punished with the same punishment as you say in the 7 paragraph is ridiculous In the
contrary both to the Law of God and man and naturall reason that I should suffer for my wives trangression if she commit murther must I be hanged for her murther or if she commit adultery must I do pennance all my life after to live out of a married condition for her adultery or separating her selfe from me though I have never so much need of a wife this were a sad pennance indeed for her whoredome But perhaps you will say she is not a whore I say she is in Scripture-sence if she be not otherwise and Scripture-sence is the best sence and best proofe to prove a whore by for it is very well knowne that according to the Lawes of Men it is a very hard taske to prove a woman to be a whore but I have shewed you enough before to perswade reasonable men that she is no lesse I hope the Scriptures shall not be streched like Cloth upon tenter-hookes to keep men in such cases still in bondage God is more gracious than men to bâ—nd such heavy burthens and lay them upon mens shoulders which themselves will not touch with one of their fingers You say further from the 1 Cor 7.10 11. that St Paul cannot be understood to speak of one who had no just cause of seperation for then he could not have said Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband Reply I humbly conceive these words will bear another construction moâ—e agreeable to other Scriptures for you speak of just cause of separation for which she should remain unmarried or be reconciled but do not tell us what that just cause might be if you mean her Husbands fornication or adultery then the Scripture tells us plainly in the 3 Evangelists explained by Mat 19.3 that upon a lawfull divorce she needed not to remain unmarried for being divorced for her Husbands fornication she might marry because she could not upon that account return again and be reconciled to him but in so doing she should sin by making the members of Christ the members of an Harlot 1 Cor 6.15 16. therefore it must be some inferiour cause of separation as some rash or unadvised act for whâ—ch she mâ—ght depart for a time and remain unmarried untill her husbands rage or anger were past and they reconciled again And I do humbly conceive that where a Text will bear a double construction it is most agreeable to the mâ—nd and will of God to expound it in that sence that in observing thereof pesons may be preserved as much as may be fâ—om temptations to sin rather than to expound it in such a sence as by observing thereof persons shall be laid open to most horrid temptations to sin and I do verely believe that the late Lord Primate and Dr. Martin did seperate Mr. Lingart and his wife upon this account which Mr. Lingart about 3 or 4 months after married another wife while the first was living which if it had not been lawfull to have been done I presume those precious servants of Jesus Christ Dr. Usher and Dr. Martin would not have suffered it to have been done In the next place you say it is evidenced by right reason that if persons could so easily unmarry themselves what a doore it would open to perjuries subordinations and slaundees of innocent persons c. Reply This is as if Children should not have bread because sometimes Doggs snatch it from them Shall the Children of God be debarred â—heâ—r lawfull lâ—berty for fear the Children of Beliall should draw false Conclusions from sound Principles or shall innocents be punished with transgressors for company If my case were weighed in the ballance of right reason I could not be denied my desire how have I pursued all lawfull means that could be invented and procured Doctors of Divinity and Ministers and Christian friends to perswade my wife to own me as a Husband and she would not nor shew any reason but her own will and I have shewed your Lordship in my other paper four severall reasons that if I have a Lycence to marry yet no wicked person can make my condition a president for them to follow I grant as you say it is evidenced by the Word of God and the light of naturall reason that Marriage ought to be kept sacred and undissolvable it ought so but if one party break the Bond it is against the Word of God and the light of naturall reason that the innocent party should be punished all his life long for the Nocents transgreâ—sion What you say of Mr. Mole or others comes not near my case for as I said before they would have come home if they might and my wife might have come if she would and has been as much solicited to come as might be and this was Galleatius case his wife would not come at him for which the Divines in Germany suffered him to marry while the first wife was living To my fourth Objection you are silent which was to this effect that seing it doth appear for any thing that is yet said against it that according to the Word of God that he whose wife commiteâ— adultery and he whose wife departeth from him and denies the duty of a wife as mine hath done thâ—s 7 years and 5 months may lawfully marry and I have shewed you that Dr. Usher and Dr. Martin did allow it and the Church in Germany and New England hath allowed marriage in such cases then I say if there be no law to compell a wife deserting her husband to her duty nor to punish her for her disobedience and if there be any law of men to restrain the Husband in such a case from marriage then whether is that Law that restrains him a just law according to the Word of God or whether is it not rather against the Word of God and the practice of other Churches and a binding of mens Consciences to insupportable burthens and whether is not such a Law if any such there be a setting of their thresholds against God's thresholds and their posts by his posts Ezek 43.8 compared with Isa 29.13 Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men Indeed I know not of any such Lâ—w my study hath been more in Divinitie neither did I ever know where to get a Booke of Canons to acquaint my selfe with that Law but it seems strange to me if amongst all the Canons there be none to punish a Husband or wife that refuseth to performe the duty of a Husband or wife To my 5 Argument you say I run into one or two errors more viz That every ordinary Divorce is forbidden as a breach of Gods command What God hath joyned together let not maâ— put asunder Mat 19.6 and that I say there is no other â—ause of Divorce but only fornication Reply This heavy charge of one or two errors I shall easily wipe off for I do not say there is no other cause of Divorce but fornication for I said in
my other paper and I say in this that an unbelieving wife departing from her Husband and denying the duty of a wife and will not be reconsiled to her husband it is cause of divorce as well as fornication if the Scripture may be believed before private fancy 1 Cor 7.3 4 5 11 15. If the unbeliever depart a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases Nay I thinke it is no false Exposiaâ—on to say further that whether she be a believer or unbeliever if she depart and persist in it and will not be reconciled it is cause of divorce otherwise the Apostle would have said a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case in the singular number in case of the unbelievers deparring but he saith A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases speaking of more cases than one which may well be understood not only of an unbelieâ—ers departing but in the like case of a believers departing if she continue obstinate and unreconcilable a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases Further you say that Text Mat 19 6. is understood properly of dissolving the bond of marriage for ever as you say I would have it and not of lesser separations made out of prudence or piety for a time I said before and I say still that except the Bishops made that Divorce between me and my wife upon the account of my wifes being a whore in Scripture-sence oâ— else upon account of her departing and not performing the duty of a wife one or both as I writ to them of the lawfulnes of such a Divorce and of the Germane Divines allowing the like to Galeatius before they made thâ—s Divorce I shewed these reasons why I desired it or else to have my wife to lâ—ve with me which she before them did refuse I say exceâ—t they made this Divorce upon this account whâ—ch you say dâ—ssolves marriage for ever the Bishops must needs fall under the breach of that precept Those whom God hath joyâ—ed together let noâ— man put asunder foâ— this divorce cannot be undeâ—â—tood as youâ— Loâ—dship speaks of lesser separations for a time but of a perpetuall Divorce for the Bishops bound us in five hundred pound Bonds apeece that we should not owne one the other not one the others estate and bâ—d us to take leave of one anoâ—her as if one of us were going to the grave therefore it cannot be understood of a lesser Divorce for a time but of a perpetuall dissolution of marriage for ever or else the Bishops stand guilty of the breach of that precept Mat 19 6. Thus both according to the Word of God and the Lawes of men I mean the Bishops and His Majesties Royall assent the bond of marriage is dissolved what hinders then but I may have Lycence to marry and whereas I say there can be no divorce from bed and board as some call it except it be with consent for a time and come together again least Satan tempt them to incontineâ—cy 1 Cor 7.5 but it is absolutely againâ—t this and that precept Mat 19.6 and 1 Cor 7.3 4 5. I beseech you let not this be condemned for an error which is justified by Scripture For your distinctions of temporary Divorces and lesser seperations divorces of prudence and piety I find no such distinctions of Divorces in Scripture and I dare not pinne my faith upon any mans opinion without Scripture-proofe I pray you bear with my plainnesse for I have read in an ancient Author that one Lay-man bringing Scripture to prove his assertion was to be preferred before a whole Counsell that decreed things without warrant from Scripture and I read of no such Divorces in Scripture except it be for every cause Mat 19.3 and that Christ himselfe condemns as unlawful And if any married persons should be so desperately wicked as to endeavour to kill or poison or intice to Heresie or Blasphemy or the like the Magestrates by Law may take order and secure the innocent party without making Divorces not warrantable by Scripture and which oftentimes proves a bane to the innocent party and binds him to more bondage then the Nocent To the 6 7 Arguments where I prove my wife to be a whore in Scripture-sence you say I mistake for it is probable the Levites wife did more then depart and though a Levite might not marry a known whore yet being married he might pardon or conceal or connive at her lewd courses Reply I conceive it not so much as probable that she did any more than depart without his consent that was enough for the Seripture mentions not that she did any more for which she was called a whore for if she had been an actuall whore she should by the Law have been stoned to death Levit 20.10 neither had it been lawfull for him to have taken her again Levit 21.7 and I say he could not pardon nor connive at her lewd courses so as to take her again 1 Cor 6.13 15 16. The body is not for fornication but for the Lord. What know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot God forbid What know ye not that he thâ—t is joyned to an harlot is one body for two saith he shall be called one flesh These Scriptures shews plainly that if a believers wife playes the Harlot he ought not nor cannot without grievous sin joyne himselfe to her again for in so doing he dishonours Christ and makes his members the members of an Harlot Now if such an innocent party have not liberty to marry then is he for his wifes sinne in perpetuall bondage all his life after except he will joyne with his wife again and so make the members of Christ the members of an Harlot but as for my wâ—fe if I would she would not owne me as a Husband I desire it may be better conâ—â—dered of for to say that neither for civill whoredome as you call a wifes deserting her Husband nor carnall whoredome doth free the husband no further then from conjugall duties is such a distinct on as I am assured is not suitable to Scripture Grace and Believers priviledges those that thus deal with men do as much as in them lyeth to provoke them to incontinency but as I said before Dr. Usher Dr Martin dealt not so with Mr. Lingart for without doubt if either the wife desert her Husband or play the harlot for they are both one in Scripture-sence the innocent party may lawfully marry rather than burne and those that hinder such must answer for their sinns if they transgresse and all men have not the gift of continencie Then you that to imagine that she who deserts her Husband and she who takes another into his bed are both alike guilty of the breach of wedlock and both to be punished with the same