Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n woman_n word_n work_n 81 3 4.9223 4 false
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
A49602 Conformity of the ecclesiastical discipline of the Reformed churches of France with that of the primitive Christians written by M. La Rocque ... ; render'd into English by Jos. Walker.; Conformité de la discipline ecclésiastique des Protestans de France avec celle des anciennes Chrêtiens. English Larroque, Matthieu de, 1619-1684.; Walker, Joseph. 1691 (1691) Wing L453; ESTC R2267 211,783 388

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

that here is to be an intire Separation both from Bed and as to Obligation The Second is in the 19th chap. of the same Gospel verse 3 c. The Pharisees also came unto him tempting him and saying unto him Is it lawful for a man to put away his Wife for every cause and he answered and said unto them Have you not read that he which made them made them at the beginning Male and Female and said For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his Wife and they twain shall be one flesh wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh What therefore God has joyned together let no man put asunder They say unto him Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away He saith unto them Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffer'd you to put away your Wifes but from the beginning it was not so And I say unto you whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth Adultery And whosoever marryeth her which is put away doth commit Adultery As the Pharisees in their demand understood a total Separation it must not also be doubted but Jesus Christ meant it so also in the Answer he made them In effect amongst the Jews the term to repudiate comprehends an intire rupture with power to re-marry again Therefore in the Antient formulary of Divorces amongst the Jews the Husband spake thus to the Wife which he put away I send thee going and repudiate thee to the end thou mayest be at liberty to marry whom thou wilt Let us now see what the Witnesses do depose which I have ingaged to produce for establishing the matter in dispute I 'le begin by Chromatius Bishop of Aquilea one of the Holiest and most Learned Prelates of his time that is to say of the Fourth Century and the beginning of the Fifth This Learned Writer Interpreting the two verses of the Fifth chap. of St. Matthew above transcrib'd speaks in this manner Let them know how great the crime of condemnation is which those do incur in the sight of God Tom. 2. Biol Sal. p. 168. who being overcome with the unbridled pleasure of Lust and without cause of Adultery cast off their Wifes to pass on to another Marriage It appears by the reasoning of Chromatius that if they cast them off for Adultery they were permitted to re-marry and having shewn that though the Laws of Men suffer'd to repudiate ones Wife for other cause than Adultery those which did it were nevertheless inexcusable but their sins was so much the greater that they preferred the Laws of Men before the Law of God After this I say he adds As it is not permitted to cast off a woman that lives chastly and honestly so also 't is permitted to repudiate an Adulteress because such a one renders her self unworthy of her Husbands Company which in sinning against her own Body had the boldness to defile the Temple of God The Deacon Hillary a Writer of the Fourth Century in his Commentaries on St. Pauls Epistles in the Third Volume of St. Ambrose his Works Hillary Expounding these words of the 11th verse of the 7th chap. of the ● Ep. to the Cor. pag. 365. Neither let the Woman forsake her Husband he thus explains himself it must be understood except it be for the cause of Adultery because it is permitted for the Husband to marry after having repudiated his Wife for cause of Adultery St. Epiphanius is full in the case seeing he expresses himself in this manner Him who could not be content with one Wife whether she dyed or that he put her away for Adultery Fornication or some other Crime if he joyn himself to another Wife or if a Woman for the same cause takes a second Husband the Word of God condemns them not neither deprives them of the Communion of the Church nor of Eternal Life but it bears with them for infirmity sake not that he should have two Wifes at once the one being yet alive and in being but to the end that after having left one he may if he will take another lawfully The Jesuit Petau in his Notes on the words of St. Tom. 2. p. 255. Epiphanius does acknowledge this was the Opinion of this Antient Doctor but he adds That if at that time it was suffer'd to have it because the Church had not yet determin'd any thing in this matter it is not permitted at this time after the decision of the Council of Trent Sess 24. cap. 7. nevertheless he owns this Decree of Trent is not agreeable to some of those cited by Gratian causa 32. quaest 7. and also that Cardinal Cajetan and some other Doctors of his Communion have followed an Opinion contrary to the definition of the Fathers of Trent that is to say That they believed that 't is permitted to a Christian to put away his Wife for Adultery and to marry another in effect not only Cajetan on the 19th chap. of St. Matth. but also Ambrose Catharine in the Fifth Book of his Annotations and Erasmus on the 7th chap. of the 1 Ep. to the Corinth have been of this Judgment Auitus Bishop of Vienna at the end of the Fifth Century and beginning of the Sixth sufficiently manifests that in his time Divorcement was made for Adultery with liberty to re-marry Ep. 49. p. 110. observing in one of his Letters That 't is for that cause alone God permits a man to separate from his wife Upon which Father Sirmond who has Published the Works of Auilus makes this observation It from hence appears that in that time it was believed in France that the Husband might by the permission of Jesus Christ leave his Wife in case of Adultery and marry another Which he confirms by a Cannon of a Synod of Vannes which I will cite anon Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gattinois was in the Ninth Century of the same Opinion with Auitus Ep. 29. pag. 54. for he says as well as him that 't is only Fornication can dissolve Marriage to which Monsieur Baluze who compleated the last Edition with Learned Notes applyes also the Jesuit Sirmond's Observation which I but now mention'd Isaac Bishop of Langres in the Third Title of his Cannons which treat of Adulterys saith plainly chap. 1. That the Husband whose Wife is an Adulteress has power to take another if he please This Prelate wrote and liv'd in the Ninth Century I now come to the Councils whose Authority may contribute to the Establishment of the matter I examin and I begin with the First Council of Arles which the Emperour Constantine assembled in the Year 314 a Council famous for the Decrees there made and for the number of Bishops which were there present for there was 600 if several Writers may be credited In effect there is in the Collection of Letters of Ireland by Bishop
and Marry another if she cannot contain This last Cannon of the Synod of Verbery in the 5th Ubi supra 42 43 44 of that of Compeign where we Read these words If a free man has taken in Marriage a woman whom he thought to be free and afterwards he found she was not let him put her away if he will and let him Marry another The 4th of the same Council of Compeign makes this ordinance If a man has marri'd his Wises Daughter being of a free state to a free man or to a slave or to a Church-man and that he married her against her will and against the will of her Mother and her relations if she will not have him for a Husband and that she leave him her Relations may give her another or if she herself has Married another after having left the first let them not be separated In the 13th we Read this if any one has left his wife and in consideration of Piety and Religion he has given her liberty to enter into a Monastery or that for the Love of God he has suffer'd her to take the vail out of a Monastery let this Man take a lawful wife and let the Woman do the same on the like occasion The 16th is contained in these words if a Leprous man has a Wife that is clean and sound and that he will suffer her to marry another let the woman marry another if she please Ib. can 2.9 and let the Husband do the same Pope Stephen the second prescribed near hand the same thing three years before from whence may be gathered that according to all appearance he would have made no difficulty to approve the re-marrying of those whom Adultery had separated Nevertheless I could produce several other proofs for Establishing the matter I Examine if I feared not to be to tedious I will therefore end this enquiry by two remarks the first concerns Ecclesiastical Writers which teach that it is lawful to separate for Adultery as Tertullian who thus explains himself Contr. Marc. l. 4. c. 34. If God has prohibited under such condition to put away ones Wife he has not absolutely forbidden it and what he has not absolutely forbidden be his permitted Lactantius saith That he is an Adulterer that forsakes his Wife Lib. 6. Divin Instit orat 31. p. 501 to marry another if he leaves her for any other cause then for the Sin of Adultery The Law saith Gregory Nazianzen gives the Bill of Divorce for all things but as for Jesus Christ he gives it not for all things but he only permits to separate from the shameless and adulterous woman This separation if we follow the Explication of Father Sirmond on the 46th Letter of Auctus imports the Power of Marrying another to which amounts also what is said by Theophilact on the 5th chap. of St. Matth That he that put away his Wife for just cause That is to say for Adultery is not subject to any condemnation I say the same of all those which have explained themselves near hand in the same manner as St. Basil in his first Cannonical Epistle to Amphilochius Can. 9th and some other In my second Remark I produce the Testimonies of two famous Doctors of the Greek Church which testifie Marriage is entirely dissolved by Adultery and that the band is quite broke the first is of St. Hom. 19. pag. 484 485. Chrysostome who in his Homilies on the 7th chap. of the first Epistle to the Cor. teaches positively That the Husband which puts away an Adulterous Wife is not culpable And if you ask him the Reason he 'll tell you it is The Marriage is already dissolved and that after the fornication the the Husband is no longer a Husband The other Witness is Theodoret who Treating of this business in his Therapeutique or manner of healing the affections of the Greeks makes this Reflection Serm. 9. Legib. l. 4 pag. 619. worthy himself The Authour of Nature in Creating human Nature made at first one Man and one Woman and forbid to dissolve Marriage having not suffer'd to dissolve it but for one only cause which indeed doth break the band And having instanced the Words of the Gospel where Jesus Christ suffers to separate for Adultery and to Marry again He adds Ib. p. 620. By these Words Jesus Christ commands to bear all other faults in a Woman her prating Drunkenness Evil speaking but if she violates the Lawes of Marriage then He commands to dissolve and break the Bands Nothing can be desir'd more positive nor more clear for proving the matter I treat of therefore I conclude in observing that St. Chrysostom and Theodoret's Depositions do no less favour the Article of our Deposition than the Testimonies I produced at first as well of Ecclesiastical Writers as of Councils by all which I have made clearly appear that in the Ancient Church they were perswaded as they are at this present amongst the Greeks and amongst the Protestants that Jesus Christ suffers Christians to separate from their Wifes for the reason of Adultery and to marry others XXX If it should happen that after Contracts and Promises made and before the accomplishing of Marriage the Bride is found to have committed fornication before or after the said promises and that 't was unknown to him that had promised her Marriage after definitive sentence as abovesaid the Consistory may proceed to a new Marriage the Bride shall have the same liberty if it be found that the Bridegroom has been guilty of fornication before the said promises CONFORMITY There is in the third Volume of the Councils of France a Letter of Pope John the 8th to Walenus Bishop of Metz An. 879. pag. 491. by which he lets him understand that he is to blame against the Authority of the Cannons to go about to constrain a Man to Marry his Sweet-heart although she be found with child by some body else before consummation of the Marriage XXXI The Wifes whose Husbands shall be absent a long while in Voyages for Merchants or otherwise shall have recourse to the Magistrate if they desire to be re-marry'd CONFORMITY St. Can. 31.36.4.3 pag. 32. Basil in his 2 Canonical Epistle puts in the Number of Adulterous Women those which re-marry before they are certain of the death of their absent Husbands yet in such a way as that he will have the Wifes of those that are in the Wars treated something more favourably than others because a long absence makes it more be believ'd they are dead than others which are absent for some other Subject Pope Leo the first Writing to Nicetas Bishop of Aquilea touching Women that have re-marry'd after a long absence of their Husbands who had been carry'd away Captives he Orders that at their return Ep. 79. c. 1 2 3 4. pag 148 149. they may be permitted to reassume their Wifes who to this purpose are to separate from their second