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	fornication_n	put_v	1,670	5	6.4986	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15422	Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.	Willet, Andrew, 1562-1621.	1592 (1592)	STC 25696; ESTC S119956	618,512	654

second marriage be then doe they disallow second marriage because a man is thereby disabled to be a Minister if not simply yet they make it lesse lawful nay more offensiue and subiect to obloquie and reproch But the scripture maketh no difference betweene first second marriage S. Paul saith For auoiding of fornication let euery man haue his own wife he saith not his first wife but generally so that it is lawfull for auoiding of fornication to marrie the second or the third wife as well as the first 2 If it be as lawfull to marrie the second wife as the first if it be for auoiding of fornication then secōd marriage doth no more hinder the receiuing of orders then the first but the antecedent is true for what should make the second marriage lesse lawful not any dutie that the wife or the husband oweth to the partie deceased for they are free in that respect set at libertie Rom. 7.3 Neither is the end of marriage made frustrate more now then before for hee that marrieth the second time may haue as good cause to doe it for auoiding of fornication as he had at the first 3 Second marriage make the worst of it you can is not so great a blot as fornication or adulterie or to haue a Concubine but these were no lets of priesthood in poperie Nay we reade that Augustine in the purer age of the Church that confesseth he had two Concubines yet afterward was made presbyter and at the last a Bishop for all that Wherefore there is no reason that exception should be taken against a twice married man seeing a fornicator is free Lastly of this opinion Augustine seemeth to be That it is as lawfull to marrie the second time the third as the first Ait Apostolus mulier alligata est viro quamdiu vir eius viuit non dixit primus secundus tertius aut quartus The woman is bound sayth the Apostle so long as her husband liueth he sayth not the first husband second third or fourth So the woman is as free after the first or second husbands death as when she was a virgin Yet if she can content her selfe with her widowes estate and haue the gift of continencie she shall do better not to marrie But if she haue not it is better to marrie S. Paul sayth not the first second or third time but so often as she hath neede rather then to burne THE THIRD PART WHETHER MINISTERS ought to refrayne the companie of their wiues being entered into orders The Papistes THey confesse that Peter and other of the Apostles were married but after their calling they had no companie with their wiues Rhemist Math. 8. sect 3 error 79 And so ought the Ministers of the Gospell sayth Bellarmine be kept from the vse of their wiues to whom they were married before their calling 1 The Priests of the lawe were bound to withdrawe themselues during the time of their seruice while they attended vpon the sacrifice and to forbeare the companie of their wiues much more the Priests of the lawe that must alwayes offer sacrifices must be alwayes free from matrimonie Rhemist Luk. 1. sect 10. Ans. 1. The Leuiticall priesthood did represent and shadowe forth the priesthood of Christ and their legall cleansings washings abstinence purifyings did shewe forth the holines and perfection of the priesthood of Christ wherefore the lawe of their abstinence doth no more binde vs then other of their legall purifications they haue their end in the priesthood of Christ. 2. We acknowledge no sacrificing priesthood in the newe testament nor any sacrifice in the Church for sinne but onely that sacrifice of atonement vpon the Crosse but our sacrifices are spirituall of praise and thanksgiuing therefore the argument followeth not from the priests of the law to those that are no priests Fox pag. 1166. 3. Purenes of life we grant is as much required now in Ministers of the Gospell as it was then in the priests of the lawe therefore they ought as well to haue libertie to marrie seeing matrimonie is the best remedie agaynst fornication and vncleannes of life 2 Another argument they picke out of S. Paules words 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraude you not one another vnlesse it bee by consent for a time that you may giue your selues to prayer If the lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife the Priest that must alwaies pray must alwaies abstaine Rhemist Ans. 1. The lay man is bound to offer prayers alwaies as well as the Priest and so by this reason neither ought any lay man to performe his duetie to his wife if it were an hinderance to praier 2. S. Paul speaketh not here of all praier but of a speciall kind which to be made more feruent requireth fasting and abstinence which kind is not alway necessarie but vpon some certaine occasion 3. It is so farre off that a lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife that many times he prayeth more quietly then he that is vnmarried or abstaineth if he haue not dominion ouer his lust Fulk annot 1. Cor. 7.5 The Protestants NEither the Apostles forsooke the companie of their wiues after they were called and chosen of Christ neither ought the Ministers of the Gospell to renounce abandon and forsweare the societie and fellowship of their wiues but rather to liue with them in all temperance and sobrietie for the good example of others 1 It is proued out of the 1. Cor. 9.5 that Peter the other Apostles did leade about their wiues in their companie and S. Paul there sayth that he also might vse the same libertie Likewise 1. Timoth. 3.5 S. Paul giueth rules concerning the house and familie of the Minister his children the behauiour of their wiues vers 11. But where I pray you is it fitter for the Ministers wife and children to be then with her husband By these places it is apparant that Ministers wiues were not excluded from their husbands companie as a thousand yeere after more it was decreed by Anselme that they should not dwell in house with their husbands nor talke with them without two or three witnesses Fox pag. 1167. 2 It is cleane contrarie to the scripture First our Sauiour sayth whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it be for fornication causeth her to commit adulterie Math. 5.32 By this rule therefore a Minister ought not for any other cause to put away and dismisse his wife but for fornication Ergo it is not lawfull because of his calling or vpon any other colour to send her away Secondly S. Paul sayth They ought not to defraud one another but for a time and that with consent 1. Corinth 7.5 Therefore if the wife will not consent her husband cannot goe from her nay though there be consent yet they must be asunder but for a time they cannot by consent altogether breake off and dissolue their marriage which was made before God though they would neuer

is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liueth nothing but death dissolueth the bond betweene man and wife therefore not lawfull to marry againe after diuorse Rhemist ibid. Ans. Saint Paul must be expounded by our Sauiour Christ who maketh exception of fornication Math. 5. Neither doth Saint Paul denie that mariage may be dissolued while they liue without breaking of wedlock but that although the knot holde during their life yet by death it is dissolued Againe Saint Paul hauing no occasion to intreat of diuorse speaketh of mariage as it standeth whole and sound by the ordinance of God that if a woman ioyne her selfe to another man her former wedlock being not lawfully dissolued she is a wedlock breaker Arg. 2. 1. Corinth 7.11 If she depart let her remayne vnmaried or be reconciled Ergo the parties separated for fornication may not marry again Rhemist Ans. Saint Paul speaketh of other separations which are caused by dissentions in mariage and not of diuorse for adulterie for he sayth If she depart not If she be put away neither was it so vsual a thing for reconciliation to be sought after solemne diuorse Againe he sayth Let not the woman depart as being in her choyce whether she would depart or not but in the case of fornication she was to depart or rather be put away whether she would or not The Protestants FOr no other cause in the world but only for fornication may there be either a finall separation or cleane dissolution of mariage by way of diuorse But for that cause our Sauiour hath graunted libertie both to dissolue matrimonie and to marrie againe Argum. Math. 5.32 Whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it bee for fornication committeth adulterie Ergo for fornication it is lawfull for a man to dismisse his wife Likewise Math. 19.9 Whosoeuer shal put away his wife except it be for whoredome and marrie another committeth adulterie Ergo for adulterie it is lawful for the man both to put away and renounce his wife and the wife likewise her husband for there is the like reason for both and for them to marrie agayne This libertie graunted by our Sauiour Christ by no humane law can be restrayned or cut off Argum. 2. Saint Paul sayth Let euery man haue his wife and euery woman her husband for auoyding of fornication and it is better to marrie then to burne Wherefore it is lawfull the first mariage according to the word of God being broken both for men and women to vse the remedie agaynst incontinencie and to be maried agayne for he speaketh generally of all Augustine sayth that he which putteth away his wife for adulterie and marieth another Non est aequandus ei is not in the same case with with him which for any other cause putteth away and marieth agayne But if it bee as lawfull for other causes to be diuorsed as for heresie infidelitie as the Iesuite telleth vs there should be no difference made betweene the second mariage of the one and the other Augustine in the same place though he bee elsewhere resolute against mariage after diuorse yet graunteth that it is not playne out of scripture whether he be an adulterer that marieth againe after diuorse for adulterie Sed quantum existimo venialiter ibi quisque fallitur but as I thinke we are euery one of vs herein deceiued I end this poynt better allowing Pollentius iudgement for this matter then Augustines betweene whom there is much discoursed of both sides Si mulier à viro non fornicante discesserit non ei licere alteri nubere propter praeceptum si autem à fornicante non ei expedire propter opprobrium If a woman departe from her husband being no adulterer it is not lawfull to marrie another because of the commaundement but if he be an adulterer it is lawful to marrie but not expedient alwayes because of the shame and reproch Ad Pollent lib. 1. cap. 6. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE degrees in mariage prohibited FIrst of the supputation of degrees Secondly whether the degrees forbidden Leuit. 18. may be dispensed with Thirdly whether any other degrees may by humane law be prohibited beside those THE FIRST PART OF THE SVPPVtation and account of degrees THe degrees are either of consanguinitie which is of diuers persons comming of the same stock and blood or of affinitie which ariseth of mariage as when the kinsmen of either partie that is maried are by mariage allied to the other though not of his blood as Laban the brother of Rebecca was allied by mariage as also by blood vnto Isaac though not so neerely In both these kindes of kindred there is a right line both vpward and ascending as in consanguinitie the Father or Mother Grandfather Grandmother and so forth in affinitie the Father in law and mother in law the stepfather or stepmother as also descending as the sonne the sonnes sonne the sonne in law or daughter in law and their sonnes and daughters There is also a collaterall line in consanguinitie as brother and sister brother and sisters children vncle or aunt in affinitie the brothers wife sisters husband the vncles wife or aunts husband Now our aduersaries set downe these rules to know the degrees by The Papists error 32 1 IN the right line there are so many degrees as persons Abraham Isaac 1. Iacob 2. except the first from the which wee beginne the account as in this example Iacob is in the second degree from Abraham Answer We see no reason why the first should be left out for looke how many generations so many degrees But euery person is a generation And this is the manner of account in scripture as Math. 1. there are 14. generations reckoned from Abraham whereof Abraham maketh one Iudg. 14. Enoch the seuenth from Adam Adam being the first himselfe in that number Thus the scripture numbreth inclusiue not exclusiue inclusiuely comprehending also the number from whom the account beginneth And thus Abraham must be counted the first degree and Iacob not in the second but the third from him The Papists error 33 2 IN the collaterall line if the parties bee equally distant from the roote or stock of the generation looke how many degrees distant they are from the stock so is the distance betwene themselues Bathuel Rebecca Iacob Laban Rachel Iacob and Rachel are in the second degree because each of them is remoued from Bathuel in the second degree Bellarm. cap. 26. The Protestants Answ. NEither doe we allow this rule but rather follow the account of the ciuill law which in the collaterall line maketh so many degrees as persons excepting the stock which is not to bee counted in collaterall degrees because we begin not to number there Wherefore according to the rule afore sayd how many generations so many degrees According then to the account of the ciuill law which we here follow Iacob and Rachel are not in the second but the fourth degree each from other

and determination of the parents 2. Let vs heare what authoritie Augustine yeeldeth to the father ouer his children Agite vicem nostram in domibus vestris Episcopus inde appellatus est quia superintendit vnusquisque ergo in domosua si caput est domui suae debet ad eum pertinere episcopatus officiū de Sanct. Ser. 51. You saith Augustine their Bishop must supplye our stead in your houses a Bishop or Superintendent is so called because he ouerseeth therefore euery housholder being the head of his house ought to playe the Bishop in his house The father then is a Bishop ouer his children shall any man then dare to take any out of his house that is his Bishoprike or any sheepe out of his folde without the Bishop and sheepheardes consent THE THIRD PART WHETHER Married persons may with mutuall consent become votaries The Papists WIth mutuall consent the man the wife may separate thē selues and vow error 92 and promise single life for euer so long as they both shall liue Bellarm. Cap. 37. Marie and Ioseph were perfitely man and wife yet by mutuall consent they liued continently all their daies Ergo it is lawfull for married couples to separate themselues for euer both agreeing therunto Bellarm. cap. 37. Answ. 1. It appeareth by the text that there was no such thing purposed by Ioseph before he was admonished by the Angell in a dreame but that as she was already betrothed so there was an intent on Iosephs parte that they should come together Math. 1.18 But that in the meane time Marie was found with childe by the holy ghost and so from that time Ioseph being a iust man neuer knew his wife there was no such purpose or vowe before 2. That this was an extraordinary exāple who seeth it not When any man shall be admonished by an Angell as Ioseph was and shall haue the like cause as Ioseph had to abstaine which shall neuer bee hee may be bould to doe as Ioseph did The Protestants THey that are once ioyned together in marriage and haue made a couenaunt each to other before God can not separate them selues though they both consent there being no other cause but a purpose of single life for more holines sake 1. It is flat contrary to S. Pauls rule 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraud not your selues except it be with cōsent for a time that you may giue your selues to fasting and prayer and againe come together lest Satan tempt you for your incontinencie First the Apostle saith directly they should but separate themselues for a time Secondly we doe thus reason out of his wordes there is no cause of separation but to be giuen to fasting and prayer but this may be done by a separation for a time neither is it necessary we should alwaies be giuen to fasting and prayer but vpon speciall occasion therefore perpetuall separation is not needfull 3. They that are long separated are subiect to fall into tentation the same cause therefore that moued them first to marrie for auoiding of incontinencie ought to moue them to come together againe Therefore it is not good nor lawful they should separat them selues for euer 2. That which God hath coupled no man ought to put asunder but they that are married haue made a couenant to God Pro. 2.17 as well as to themselues and are ioyned by Gods law together Ergo they can not dissolue their mariage by their owne power and will the Lord hauing an interest therein Augustine Thus writeth Non licet excepta causa fornicationis coniugem a coniuge dirimi nec sterilem coniugem fas est relinquere vt faecunda ducatur de nupt concupiscen Lib. 1. Cap. 10. It is not lawfull for married couples one to be separat frō another vnlesse it be for fornication nor to leaue a barren wyfe to marrie a frutefull Therefore if fornication onely be a iust cause of finall separation there can be no other If there were any other it is most like it should be for procreation of children But neither for that cause is a man to leaue his wife Ergo for no other Therefore not for any vow of continencie is marriage to be dissolued or any separation to be admitted Bellarm. saith that by their separation Marriage is not dissolued Auns It is asmuch dissolued as by your law in cases of diuorse 1. For these are your words for aduoutrie one may dismisse another but neither party can marry againe for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. Sect. 4. So ye allowe onely a kinde of dismission in the case of adultery and so you do in the vowing of continencie And thus you make this cause as forceable as the other to break off the Matrimonial duety which is contrary to the gospell THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER MARIage contracted not consummate may without consent be broken for the vow of continencie The Papists error 93 THeir opinion is that if the mariage be contracted onely and ratified but not yet consummate by the parties comming together it is lawful for either of them without the others consent to vowe chastitie cap. 38. Bellarm. His reason is because it is lawfull for a man to passe from a lesse perfect state of life to a more perfect if it may be done without detriment as this may be for yet they haue no children and the partie may as well bee maried to another Bellarm. Answ. First a single life is not alwayes the perfecter state nor to all as it is not to them that haue not the gift to containe as it is most like hee hath not that is contracted and hath made promise of mariage for then all this needed not Secondly though there be none of those impediments named yet there is a greater namely their fayth promise made each to other before God which they ought not to violate Thirdly Saint Paul saith If thou be bound to a wife seeke not to be loosed 1. Corinth 7.27 But they that are espoused one to the other are bound vnlesse you will say that the couenant made by them vnto God Prouer. 2.17 bindeth not The Protestants MAtrimonie whether ratified onely by lawfull contract or espousals or consummate ought not any way to be broken with consent or without for Monasticall profession 1 Our reason is because it is perfect mariage already in substance and before God which is ratified by contract onely and solemne vowe and couenant made each to other And being thus betrothed the one giueth power of their body to the other and now they are no more free That this mariage is perfect before God and in substance it appeareth by the law of Moses by the which a man defiling a mayd betrothed was to suffer death as well as if hee had committed vncleannes with a woman already maried Deuteron 22. verse 22.23 And Math. 1.18 Marie that was but betrothed to Ioseph is by the Angel called his wife vers 20. 2 August saith Coninges fidem sibi pariter

bond of mariage which is called repudium First then they affirme that the very bond and knot may bee dissolued in the mariage of Infidels if one of them after mariage become a Christian his reason is because mariage contracted in infidelitie is no sacrament and therefore may be dissolued Bellarmin cap. 12. Argum. Saint Paul sayth If the Infidell partie will departe let him depart a brother or sister is not in subiection in such a case 1. Corinth 7.15 Answ. Saint Paul giueth not liberty to the one partie at their pleasure vtterly to renounce the other as though they were no longer man and wife for Saint Paul had sayd before that if the Infidell partie bee content to dwell with the other he or she is not to be put away But his meaning is that if one partie wilfully depart the other is no longer bound nor in subiection for the performance of the mutuall dueties of mariage The Papists error 30 SEcondly separation from bed and boorde may be admitted they say for diuers causes Concil Trident. sess 24. can 8. Bellarmine nameth three Fornication according to Christs rule Math. 5. Heresie Tit. 3. An heretike must be auoyded Thirdly when one is a continuall offence to another a prouocation to sinne If thine eye offend thee pull it out Math. 5.29 Bellarmin cap. 14. Answ. Fornication we admit is a iust cause of separation and diuorce but not heresie for Saint Paul would not haue a woman to forsake an Infidell 1. Corinth 7.13 therefore not an heretike Wee must auoyd such that is take heede of their poysoned opinions and shun their company also where we are not otherwise bound Neither is the eye to be cut off where there is any hope but who knoweth whether the offensiue partie may returne to grace And this place proueth as well a finall ●utting off of mariage as a separation or disiunction The Protestants FIrst that there is no cause of vtter dissolution of mariage by way of diuorce but onely adulterie and fornication it is plaine by our Sauiour Christes wordes Math. 5.32 19.9 where neither infidelitie nor any cause beside is excepted but onely fornication Secondly Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion that the wife might be dismissed for infidelitie but he reuoketh and retracteth that opinion Lib. retract 1. cap. 19. For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus A viro non fornicante non licere omnino discedere that it is not lawfull for a woman at all to leaue her husband if he committe not fornication De adulter coniug 1.7 And yet further to make this matter more playne we acknowledge no other cause of lawful diuorse in mariage but that only which is prescribed in the Gospell namely for adultery or fornication Math. 5.32 19.9 There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the mariage knot may bee dissolued though not for fornication as when one of the parties doth wilfullie renounce leaue and forsake the other vpon no iust cause but either of lightnes or for diuers religion as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian a Papist a Protestant an heretick a true professor or vpon any other vnlawfull or vniust cause for the Apostle sayth playnely A brother or sister is not in subiection in such things 1. Corinth 7.15 that is is freed from the yoke or bond of mariage First it is plaine that the Apostle is so to be vnderstoode in this place for the word which he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no longer a seruant or in subiection which is to be taken in the same sense as if he should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he or she is no longer bound or tyed which word the Apostle vseth vers 39. And agayne the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse where hee sayth the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no power of her own bodie the husband likewise But now saith he the infidel partie hauing wilfully separated himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the innocent partie is no longer in subiection that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath now power ouer his owne body and is now become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free exempt from the mariage knot or bond in which sense the Apostle vseth the word verse 39. Secondly we must know what kinde of desertion it is that causeth a dissolution of mariage and in what manner First it must be malitiosa desertio a malicious departure without any iust cause But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affayres as the Merchant beyond the seas or is employed in some waightie busines as in warfare in ambassage or such like or is violētly deteined in prison or captiuity amongst the Turks or elswhere In these the like cases the wife is bound to waite expect the returne of her husband vnles she be otherwise aduertised of his death Secōdly the innocēt partie must vse all meanes to reconcile reclaime and bring home agayne the wilfull and obstinate partie so departing if it be possible Thirdly if he continue in his obstinacie and departe hauing no purpose to returne the matter must be brought before the iudge or Magistrate in such cases who after publike citation of the obstinate partie and certaine knowledge that he refuseth wilfully to appeare being cited and is not otherwise letted to come may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent partie free and at libertie to marrie according to Saint Pauls rule A brother or sister is not bound in such things Thirdly neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Sauiour Christ who alloweth no diuorce but onely for fornication for that is a diuers case from this whereof Saint Paul treateth And there is great difference betweene lawfull diuorse and vnlawfull and wilfull desertion for there the innocent partie first claymeth the priuiledge of separation here the guiltie partie first separateth himselfe there diuorse is sued and required here the innocent partie seeketh no diuorse but seeketh all meanes of reconciliation So that properly the setting free the innocent partie in this case cannot be called a diuorse Christ therefore speaketh of lawfull diuorce not of euery dissolution of mariage for then mention should haue beene made in that place of naturall death and departure which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of mariage Thus haue I shewed mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thi● poynt Herein further as in all the rest referring my selfe to the determination of our Church and the iudgement of our learned brethren Beza 1. Corinth 7. vers 15. Amand. Polan Hemingius T●leman Heshus THE SECOND PART WHETHER IT BE LAWfull to marrie after diuorsement for adulterie The Papists FOr adulterie one may dismisse another but neither partie can marrie again error 31 for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. sect 4. no not the innocent partie may marrie againe for the mariage knotte is not dissolued because of adulterie Concil Trident. sess 24. can 7. Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2 The woman