Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n marry_v put_v wife_n 2,872 5 8.0395 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
B02399 Bishop Cozens's argument, proving, that adultery works a dissolution of the marriage. Being the substance of several of Bishop Cozens his speeches in the House of Lords, upon the debate of Lord Ross's case. Taken from original papers writ in the Bishop's own hand. Cosin, John, 1594-1672. 1700 (1700) Wing C6351B; ESTC R175839 10,178 4

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Bishop COZENS's ARGUMENT PROVING THAT Adultery works a Dissolution of the Marriage Being the Substance of several of Bishop COZENS his Speeches in the House of Lords upon the Debate of the Lord ROSS'S Case Taken from Original Papers writ in the Bishop's own Hand THE Question is indefinitely to be spoken of Whether a Man being divorced from his Wife who hath committed Adultery and is convicted of it may Marry himself to another Wife or no during the Life of her which is divorced The place in St. Matthew the 5th repeated again St. Matthew the 19th has preat Perspecuity If it be not lawful for any Man to put away his Wife and Marry again except it be in the Case of Fornication for the displacing the Words by putting the Exception before the Marriage cannot alter the Sense then a contrario it must of necessity follow That if the VVife be put away for Fornication the Husband by the Tenor of Christ's VVords is left free to Marry again which Freedom is not allow'd the Adultress her self nor to any Man else that shall Marry her St. Mark and S. Luke have been opposed to S. Matthew and it has been said that Christ's words in S. Matthew did not properly belong to Christ's Disciples or the Christian Church as the words in S. Mark and S. Luke which are absolute do which is a saying that neither I nor I think no body else ever heard of before For Christ's Sermon in the Mount was spo'ken to his Disciples and especially belonged to Christians 'T is clear they are spoken to his Disciples for he says to them that they are the Salt of the Earth and the Light of the World and that they are blessed when they suffer persecution for his Name 's sake which no Man will say or apply to the Jews T is true that in the 19th Chapter of S. Matthew Christ answers the Scribes and Pharisees who came to tempt him with their Question Whether it was lawful for a man to put away his Wife for any cause as they said Moses had permitted them to do But the Answer that Christ gave them That it was not lawful but only in the case of Adultery for men to put away their Wives and to marry another was a Rule which concerned all Christians to observe for ever after and for that reason was recorded by S. Matthew The words in S. Mark and S. Luke are not to be taken absolutely but to be supplied and understood by his words in S. Matthew as in many other Cases is clear viz. the Thief upon the Cross Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. whereof many Instances may be brought as the destruction of Ninivol c. But for Christ's words the Exception confirms the Rule and infers a Concession that in the Case of Fornication the putting away one VVife and Marrying another is allowed It is alike with divers other his Exceptions which are sound in Scripture For brevity I will instance in this one viz. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish Upon which Text if I or any Bishop else were to Preach I believe we should not discharge our Duty unless we should tell the People That if by the Grace of God they did repent they should not perish The Exception here 〈◊〉 nisi unless is parallel with the 1 Kings 3.18 None were in the house except we twain they Two therefore were others were not Such Exceptions proceeding from natural Equity are tacitly implied in Laws tho pronounced in general Terms But as to the Exception here the VVords are not capable of any other Sense than as I have observed for except that Restraint be referred to Marrying again the Sense would run thus Whosoever puts away his Wife commits Adultery which stands not with Truth or Reason since it is not the Dismission that is Adulterous but the Marriage of another It is therefore the plain drift of our Saviour to teach the Pharisee that the Marriage of a Second VVife after a Dismission of a Former upon any other cause except for fornication is no less than Adultery thereby inferring That upon a Just Dismission for Fornication a second Marriage cannot be branded with Adultery Besides the Pharisee's Question Is it lawful for a man to put away his Wife for every cause was not without a plain implication of Liberty to Marry another which our Saviour well knowing gives a full Answer as well to what he meant as what he said which had not been perfectly satisfactory if he had only determined that one part concerning Dismission and not the other concerning Marriage which Clause if Two Evangelists express not yet it must be fetch●d necessarily from the Third since it is a sure and irrefragable Rule That all Four Evangelists make up one perfect Gospel The Rhemists and College of Doway urge for the Popish Doctrine Rom. 7.2 The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth But 1. This place is to be Expounded by Christ's VVords 2. St. Paul hath no occasion here to speak of Divorce but of Marriage whole and sound as it stands by God's Ordinance 3. He speaks of a VVoman who is under an Husband so is not she that is divorced from him 4. St. Paul useth this to his purpose of the Law being dead to which we are not bound Nor is their Doctrine more favoured by 1 Cor. 7.10 Let not the woman depart as being in her Choice 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 Bond of the Marriage is to be en●●ired into what improperly is Being a Conjugal Promise Solemnly made between a Man and his VVife That each of them will live together according to God's Holy Ordinance notwithstanding Poverty or Infirmity or such other things as may happen during their Lives Separation from Bed and Board which is part of their Promise so to live together doth plainly break that part of the Bond whereby they are tied to live together both as to Bed and Board The distinction betwixt Bed and Board and the Bond is new never mentioned in the Scripture and unknown in the Ancient Church devised only by ●he Canonists and the School-men in the Latin Church for the Greek Church knows it not to serve the Pope's turn the better till he got it established in the Council of Trent at which time and never before he laid his Anathema upon all them that were of another Mind forbidding all Men to Marry and not to make any use of Christ's Concession Bed and Board or Cohabitation belong to the Essence and Substance of Matrimony which made Erasmus and Bishop Hall say That the distinction of those two from the Bond is merely Chimerical and Fancy The promise of Constancy and mutual Forbearance if it hinders Divorce as to the B●nd hinders it also as to Bed and