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	marry_v	put_v	2,224	5	6.4839	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55740	A case of conscience propounded to a great Bishop in Ireland viz., 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 quæries, 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.	Pressick, George.	1661 (1661)	Wing P3296; ESTC R24474	28,523	38

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 again●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 who●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 descr●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 w●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 wh●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 ●eclaime her and in that respect she is wo●se then most who●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 Scriptu●e acco●ding to the●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 f●om themselves To the first objection I acknowledge the words of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.15 If the unbelieving depart let h●m depart a brother or a sister is not ●n bondage in such cases But there is a difference b●tween the marriage of Infidels and the marrige of Christians the marriage of Infidels being only a civil Contract and may be d●ssolved by consent the marriage of Christians is mo●eover a ●●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 hu●band be known to ●e living seventeen years absence w●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 fo●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 Lan● but both the law of God and the law of the Land are ex●resly aga●nst you he● 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. W●osoever pu●teth away his wife and marrye●h another committeth adul●ery aed whosoever marryeth her that is put away committeth adultery ●here is no restrict●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 commi●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 ●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

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 coven●nt and all both humane and christian bonds as my wife hath done and will not be admonished neither by Ministers no● 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 wer● 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 fo● to the third Objection you g●rnt that a wife may be divorced fo● fornication and I thinke I shall by Scripture make it appear that be●ng divorced for fornication the innocent party may lawfully marry To prove th●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 marrie●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 w●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 h●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 ●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 w●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 wom●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 ab●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 subject●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 fo●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 b●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