Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	bishop_n	church_n	2,934	5	4.3576	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89141	Colasterion: a reply to a nameles ansvver against The doctrine and discipline of divorce. Wherein the trivial author of that answer is discover'd, the licencer conferr'd with, and the opinion which they traduce defended. / By the former author, J.M.	Milton, John, 1608-1674.	1645 (1645)	Wing M2099; Thomason E271_11; ESTC R212205	23,470	30

mariage void nor much more unfit but for the time if the offended party forgive but unfitnes and contrariety frustrates and nullifies for ever unless it bee a rare chance all the good and peace of wedded conversation and leaves nothing between them enjoyable but a prone and savage necessity not worth the name of mariage unaccompanied with love Thus much his own objection hath don against himself Argu. 7. Hee insists that man and wife are one flesh therfore must not separat But must bee sent to look again upon the 35. pag. of that book where hee might have read an answer which hee stirrs not Yet can hee not abstain but hee must doe us another pleasure ere hee goes Although I call the Common Pleas to witness I have not hir'd his tongue whatever men may think by his arguing For besides adultery hee excepts other causes which dissolv the union of beeing one flesh either directly or by consequence If only adultery bee excepted by our Saviour and hee voluntarily can adde other exceptions that dissolv that union both directly and by consequence these words of Christ the main obstacle of divorce are open to us by his own invitation to include what ever causes dissolv that union of flesh either directly or by consequence Which till hee name other causes more likely I affirm to bee don soonest by unfitness and contrariety of minde For that induces hatred which is the greatest dissolver both of spiritual and corporal union turning the minde and consequently the body to other objects Thus our doubty adversary either directly or by consequence yeilds us the question with his own mouth and the next thing hee does recants it again His eighth Argument shivers in the uttering and hee confesses to bee not over confident of it but of the rest it may bee sworn hee is St. Paul 1 Cor. 7. saith that the married have trouble in the flesh therfore wee must bear it though never so intolerable I Answer if this bee a true consequence why are not all troubles to bee born alike why are wee suffer'd to divorce adulteries desertions or frigidities Who knows not that trouble and affliction is the decree of God upon every state of life follows it therfore that though they grow excessive and insupportable wee must not avoid them if wee may in all other conditions and not in mariage the doom of our suffering ties us not by the trouble but by the bond of mariage and that must bee prov'd inseparable from other reasons not from this place And his own confession declares the weaknes of this Argument yet his ungovern'd arrogance could not bee disswaded from venting it His ninth Argument is That a husband must love his wife as himself therfore hee may not divorce for any disagreement no more then hee may separat his soul from his body I Answer if hee love his wife as himself hee must love her so farre as hee may preserv himself to her in a cherfull and comfortable manner and not so as to ruin himself by anguish and sorrow without any benefit to her Next if the husband must love his wife as himself shee must bee understood a wife in som reasonable measure willing and sufficient to perform cheif duties of her Covnant els by the hold of this argument it would bee his great sin to divorce either for adultery or desertion The rest of this will run circuit with the union of one flesh which was answer'd before And that to divorce a relative and Metaphorical union of two bodies into one flesh cannot bee likn'd in all things to the dividing of that natural union of soul and body into one person is apparent of it self His last Argument hee fetches from the inconveniences that would follow upon this freedom of divorce to the corrupting of mens mindes and the overturning of all human society But for mee let God and Moses answer this blasphemer who dares bring in such a soul endightment against the divine Law Why did God permit this to his people the Jewes but that the right and good which came directly therby was more in his esteem then the wrong and evil which came by accident And for those weak supposes of Infants that would be left in their mothers belly which must needs bee good news for Chamber-maids to hear a Serving-man grown so provident for great bellies and portions and joyntures likely to incurr imbezlement heerby the ancient civil Law instructs us plentifully how to award which our profound opposite knew not for it was not in his Tenures His Arguments are spun now follows the Chaplain with his Antiquities wiser if hee had refrain'd for his very touching ought that is lerned soiles it and lays him still more and more open a conspicuous gull There beeing both Fathers and Councels more ancient wherwith to have serv'd his purpos better then with what hee cites how may we doe to know the suttle drift that mov'd him to begin first with the twelfth Councel of Toledo I would not undervalue the depth of his notion but perhaps he had heard that the men of Toledo had store of good blade-mettle and were excellent at cuttling who can tell but it might bee the reach of his policy that these able men of decision would doe best to have the prime stroke among his testimonies in deciding this cause But all this craft avails him not for seeing they allow no cause of divorce but fornication what doe these keen Doctors heer but cut him over the finews with thir Toledo's for holding in the precedent page other causes of divorce besides both directly and by consequence As evil doth that Saxon Councel next quoted bestead him For if it allow divorce precisely for no cause but fornication it thwarts his own Exposition and if it understand fornication largely it sides with whom hee would confute However the autority of that Synod can bee but small beeing under Theodorus the Canterbury Bishop a Grecian Monk of Tarsus revolted from his own Church to the Pope What have wee next The Civil Law stufft in between two Councels as if the Code had bin som Synod for that hee understood himself in this quotation is incredible where the Law Cod. l. 3. tit 38. leg 11. speaks not of divorce but against the dividing of possessions to divers heires wherby the maried servants of a great family were divided perhaps into distant Countries and Colonies Father from Son Wife from Husband fore against thir will Somwhat lower hee confesses that the Civill Law allows many reasons of divorce but the Cannon Law decrees otherwise A fair credit to his Cause and I amaze me though the fancy of this doult bee as obtuse and sad as any mallet how the Licencer could sleep out all this and suffer him to uphold his opinion by Canons Gregorian decretals a Law which not only his adversary but the whole reformation of this Church and state hath branded and rejected As ignorantly and too ignorantly

by the Law of God or man a just cause of divorce To this position I answer that it lays no battery against mine no nor so much as faces it but tacks about long ere it come neer like a harmles and respectfull confutement For I confess that disagreement of minde or disposition though in much sharpnes is not alwaies a just cause of divorce for much may bee endur'd But what if the sharpnes bee much more then his much To that point it is our mis-hap wee have not heer his grave decision Hee that will contradict the positive which I alleg'd must hold that no disagreement of minde or disposition can divorce though shewn in most sharpnes otherwise hee leaves a place for equity to appoint limits and so his following arguments will either not prove his own position or not disprove mine His first Argument all but what hobbles to no purpos is this Wher the Scripture commands a thing to bee don it appoints when how and for what as in the case of death or excommunication But the Scripture directs not what measure of disagreement or contrariety may divorce Therfore the Scripture allows not any divorce for disagreement Answer First I deny your major the Scripture appoints many things and yet leaves the circumstance to mans discretion particularly in your own examples Excommunication is not taught when and for what to bee but left to the Church How could the Licencer let pass this childish ignorance and call it good Next in matter of death the Laws of England wherof you have intruded to bee an opiniastrous Sub advocate and are bound to defend them conceave it not enjoyn'd in Scripture when or for what cause they shall put to death as in adultery theft and the like your minor also is fals for the Scripture plainly sets down for what measure of disagreement a man may divorce Deut. 24. 1. learn better what that phrase means if shee finde no favour in his eyes Your second Argument without more tedious fumbling is breifly thus If diversity in Religion which breeds a greater dislike then any natural disagreement may not cause a divorce then may not the lesser disagreement but diversity of Religion may not Ergo. Answer First I deny in the major that diversity of Religion breeds a greater dislike to mariage duties then natural disagreement For between Israelite or Christian and Infidel more often hath bin seen too much love but between them who perpetually clash in natural contrarieties it is repugnant that ther should bee ever any maried love or concord Next I deny your minor that it is commanded not to divorce in diversity of Religion if the Infidel will stay for that place in St. Paul commands nothing as that book at large affirm'd though you over-skipt it Secondly if it doe command it is but with condition that the Infidel bee content and well pleas'd to stay which cuts off the supposal of any great hatred or disquiet between them seeing the Infidel had liberty to depart at pleasure and so this comparison avails nothing Your third Argument is from Deut. 22. If a man hate his wife and raise an ill report that hee found her no virgin if this were fals he might not put her away though hated never so much Answer This was a malicious hatred bent against her life or to send her out of dores without her portion Such a hater looses by due punishment that privilege Deut. 24. 1. to divorce for a natural dislike which though it could not love conjugally yet sent away civilly and with just ●●nditions But doubtles the Wife in that former case had liberty to depart from her fals accuser lest his hatred should prove mortal els that Law peculiarly made to right the woman had turn'd to her greatest mischeif Your fourth Argument One Christian ought to bear the infirmities of another but cheifly of his Wife Answer I grant infirmities but not outrages not perpetual defraudments of truest conjugal society not injuries and vexations as importunat as fire Yet to endure very much might doe well an exhortation but not a compulsive Law For the Spirit of God himself by Solomon declares that such a consort the earth cannot bear and better dwell in a corner on the house top or in the Wildernes Burdens may bee born but still with consideration to the strength of an honest man complaining Charity indeed bids us forgive our enemies yet doth not force us to continue freindship and familiarity with those freinds who have bin fals or unworthy toward us but is contented in our peace with them at a fair distance Charity commands not the husband to receav again into his bosom the adulterous Wife but thinks it anough if hee dismiss her with a beneficent and peacefull dismission No more doth Charity command nor can her rule compell to retain in neerest union of wedloc one whos 's other grossest faults or disabilities to perform what was covnanted are the just causes of as much greevance and dissention in a Family as the private act of adultery Let not therfore under the name of fulfilling Charity such an unmercifull and more then legal yoke bee padlockt upon the neek of any Christian Your fifth Argument If the husband ought love his Wife as Christ his Church then ought shee not to bee put away for contrariety of minde Answer This similitude turnes against him For if the husband must bee as Christ to the Wife then must the wife bee as the Church to her husband If ther bee a perpetual contrariety of minde in the Church toward Christ Christ himselfe threat●ns to divorce such a Spouse and hath often don it If they urge this was no true Church Purge again that was no true Wife His sixth Argument is from the 5 of Matthew 32. which hee expounds after the old fashion and never takes notice of what I brought against that exposition Let him therfore seek his answer there Yet can hee not leav this Argument but hee must needs first shew us a curve●t of his madnes holding out an objection and running himself upon the point For ●aith hee ●f Christ 〈…〉 cause but adultery then all other causes as frigidity in●●●●●ous mariage c. are no causes of divorce and answers that the speech of Christ holds universally at hee intended it namely to condemn such divorce 〈◊〉 was groundl●sly practiz'd among the Jews for every cause which they thought sufficient not checking the law of consanguinities or a●●inities or forbidding other cause which makes mariage void Ipso facto Answ Look to it now you be not found taking fees on both sides for if you once bring limitations to the universal words of Christ another will doe as much with as good autority and affirm that neither did hee check the Law Deut. 24. 1. nor forbid the causes that make mariage void actually which if any thing in the world doth unfitnes doth and contrariety of minde yea more then adultery for that makes not the