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	husband_n	wife_n	1,526	5	7.7220	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45443	A practicall catechisme	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1645 (1645)	Wing H581; ESTC R19257	184,627	362

common to the wife against her husband because I say those family inconveniences doe not follow the falsenesse of the husband as they doe that of the wife to which may be also added one other because the wife hath by promise of obedience made her selfe a kinde of subject and own'd him a Lord and so hath none of that authority over him an act of which putting away seemeth to be which he by being Lord hath over her S. Is there no other cause of Divorce now legall among Christians but that in case of fornication C. I cannot define any because Christ hath named no other S. But me thinkes there is a place in Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7. 12. from whence I might conclude that Christ hath named some other For when Saint Paul saith that the brother i. e. beleever having an unbeleiving wife if she be willing to live with him he must not put her away he prefaceth it in this manner To the rest speake I not the Lord. Whence I inferre that in Saint Paul ' s opinion Christ had not then said that unbeleife was not a lawfull cause of Divorce and consequently I conclude that Christ had left place for some other cause beside fornication and therefore I should ghesse that the naming of fornication here was not exclusive to all other causes but onely to those that were inferiour to it and that would make it contrary enough to what was by Moses permitted to wit for every cause Mat. 19. 13. and that if there should be found any other cause as great as that it might be conceived comprehended under that example named of fornication and then I shall be bold to interpose my opinion that sure if the wife should attempt to poison or otherwise to take away the life of the husband this would be as unsupportable an injury as adultery and so as fit a cause of a Divorce as that C. You have proposed an objection of some difficulty I must apply answer to it by dividing it into parts and making my returnes severally 1. That in that place 1 Cor. 7. if the words speake I not the Lord did belong to the words immediately following to wit those which you name your collection from thence would be reasonable But I conceive they belong rather to the 15 verse precisely That in case the unbeleiver will not live with the beleiver then upon her or his departure the beleiver man or woman shall not be in bondage i. e. constreined to live unmarried but may freely marry in this case and of this it may truly be said That Christ had said nothing and so This speake I not the Lord. Now that this stands so farre from that preface falls out because when the Apostle had resolved to say this that he might say it seasonably it was necessary for him to premise those other cases v. 12 13. and give a reason for them v. 14. and then this v. 15. would come in intelligibly If this interpretation be acknowledged then the ground of the whole objection is taken away And if it be objected againe that by that liberty of Saint Pauls the woman beleiver being put away by the infidell husband is permitted to marry againe which seemes contrary to Christs saying That he that putteth her away except in case of fornication causeth her to commit adultery and whosoever shall marry her committeth adultery For if in any case but fornication she be caused to commit adultery and he that marries her commit adultery how in this other case of unbeleife is she free to marry To this I answer also 1. That if all this be granted 't will yet be nothing to the present purpose for it concludes onely against Saint Pauls judgment that he did contrary to Christs in giving this liberty not that Christ had said this which Saint Paul saith he had not said which is the onely thing that this objection is built on But then 2. Though that which Saint Paul here saith be somewhat which Christ hath not said before and so an example of I not the Lord yet 't is not opposite or contrary to what Christ had said for though Christ say that he that divorces not for fornication causeth his wife to commit adultery yet sure his meaning is onely that as much as in him lyes he causeth her by putting her to some ill exigents which may perhaps tempt her to harlotry but not that he forceth her to this infallibly or irresistibly for sure 't is possible one who is so divorced may live chast yea and though she have leave to marry live single ever after And that is the meaning of that phrase causeth her to commit adultery You may be assured by this that Christ mentions it onely as an aggravation of the mans fault who by this puts her on that hazard of which he is no whit lesse guilty though she resist that temptation and escape that danger And for that part of our Saviours speech he that marries her that is divorced commits adultery it belongs not to the matter for that her there is not her that is divorced for some other cause for she having merited nothing no reason that she should be punished by that bondage or consequently that he that marries her being now free should be thought to offend but the her is she that is divorc't for fornication and of such an one it is very reasonable on both sides though the truth is Christ had affirmed nothing of it Thus you see the place to the Corinthians cleared I shall onely by the way adde that v. 12. those words to the rest seeming to be opposed to the the married v. 10. as though he spake now to the rest i. e. those that are unmarried is a mistake caused by the English Translation for those that v. 12. he speakes to are married also The word would better be rendred for the rest or to the rest referring not to persons but things concerning the rest Having answered now your first part of the objection I proceed to the second and answer that there were againe some reason in the inference if first Saint Paul had thus affirmed which we have shewed he did not And 2. There could be produced any cause so justifiable for Divorce as Adultery is But of this I am perswaded that there can nonebe produced because in all considerations none is so great and so irreparable an injury as this none that repentance can so little set right againe the possibility of which is one great reason why other injuries are not thought fit by Christ to be matter of Divorce For though it be possible some other sins may be as great or greater then adultery as idolatry heathenisme for example yet because this is not so contrary to and destructive of the conjugall state therefore 't is not thought fit to cause Divorce by Saint Paul nor as appeares by Christ neither though to cause damnation which is farre greater punishment then Divorce