Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	according_a	church_n	word_n	982	5	3.8217	3	false

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

A Case of Conscience propounded to a great Bishop in Ireland Vizt 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 Quaeries 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 of Dublin He that justifieth the Wicked and he that condemneth the Iust even they both are an abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 17.15 Printed for the Author in March 1661. To the Reader Christian friends YOu may understand by what followes that I propounded a Case of Conscience to a great Bishop in Ireland by way of petition but had a very slight Answer whereupon I went to my Chamber and writ to h●m a large Letter wherein I did hint to h●m that I had not written and printed three Books against Anabaptists and Quakers to be put off with such an Answer as he had given me and 〈◊〉 urge him from that Text 1 Peter 3.15 that I did conceive he was bound in conscience and duty to God to answer to the Question which I desired might be in writing which after he had read he gave order I should come to his house and he would answer it which I d●d and drew up the substance of my Petition and Letter into certain Questions and Arguments which hereafter followe●h together wi●h hi● Answer and my Reply to h●s Answer And seeing I could have no further satisfaction I thought good to put all in Print to publike view that he understanding Reader may consider and judge That if I should take ano●her Wife as I do intend for any thing I yet know to h●nder me whether there be not sufficient ground of Scr●pture for me so to do besides the example and practice of o●her Churches Reasons and Arguments shewed to prove the lawfullnesse thereof And if one or more be otherwise minded I may say as Peter and Iohn said in another case Acts 4.19 Whether it is right in the light of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye so I say whe●her should I be concluded by one or some few Mens opinions contrary to the Word of God and the pr●ctice of Pro●estant Churches and so be lyable to continuall temptations all my life long or take that liberty which the Word of God and former Pro●estant Churche● hath allowed that I maye escape Satans snares and have a remedy against my owne Corruption Iudge ye Thus I leave ●ll to your charitable constructions and am according to that measure I have received A lover of the Truth George Pressicke A Case of Conscience propounded c. vizt whether a Man whose wife hath forsaken him seven years and five months without any just cause and will not be reconciled and he having satisfied the Law so far that by his Majesties Reference to two Bishops in London he hath a Divorce under the Bishops hands whether he may not lawfully Marry Mr. Pressicke to the Byshop Right reverend Father in God I Have accord●ng to my weak ability drawne up the chief Heads of my petition and Letter into a more orderly Forme than before that your Lordship may with lesse trouble con●●der of it and God Almighty direct you therein And first If the Law of God say 1 Cor. 7.15 If the unbelieving will depart let him depart a brother or a sister is not under Bondage in such cases but if in such a Case the innocent party have not liberty to marry he must needs be in bondage still 2. If the Law of the Land allow that if a Husband or Wife forsake one another seven years and be not heard off the innocent party may marry then why may not I much more have l●berty to marry whose Wife hath forsaken me seven years and five months for what more benefit have I of her than if I did not he●r whethe● she were de●d or l●ving yea more I have a D●vorce under two Bishops Hands by a reference from his Majesty and though it be not in Forme according to the Canon-Law fo● that had been many years silenced but having his Majesties Royall Assent from whom the Canon-Law receives it's vigo● and strength doth supply that defect as if it had been done by the Canon-Law 3. If both the Law of God as 1 Cor. 7.15 and secondly if the Law of the Land according to the practice of the Church of England as above the benefit of which cannot in equity be denied me there being no Law as your Lordship said to compell a wife to perform the duty of a wife and thirdly which is more I having a B●ll of D●vorce And fou●thly the example and practice of the Church in Germany in the like case who allowed Galeatius to marry because his wife refused to co-habit with him as mine hath refused to co-habit with me then why should I be h●ndered of my lawfull liberty more than o●hers 4. If there be no Law to compel a wife to her duty as your Lordship said there is not and if there be a Law to restrain the husband from his lawfull l●berty which the Word of God allowes h●m and according to the practice of other Churches as above then whether is that Law that restrains him if any such Law there be whether is it a just Law according to the wo●d of God or whether is it not rather against the word of God and is not that Law if there be any such a setting of their thresholds agai●st Gods thresholds and their Posts by Gods Posts Ezek. 43.8 compared with Isa. 29.13 ●heir fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men Fo● such a law would destroy an Ordinance of God that is Marriage and P●ocre●tion and one end fo● which man was c●eated that is That the wife should be in subjection to her hu●band as the Church is to Christ. Ephes. 5.24 But if this l●berty be denied him then must the husband be in subjection to h●s w●fes humour though she be a who●e o● an Infidell and of never so perverse a spirit he must be kept in bondage and laid open to all temptations if not a necessity of sinning 1 Cor. 7.4.5 If it be objected that nothi●g but whoredome can divorce as some have ignorantly said 5. To that I say that though there are other lawfull causes of divorce besides whoredome yet except the Bishops made that divorce between me and my wife upon the account of my wifes being a whore in Scripture-sence as I writ to them before they made that divorce the Bishops must needs fall under the breach of that Scripture Math. 19.6 Those whom God hath joyned together let no man put asunder for there can be no divorce from bed and board as some call it but it is absolutely against that Text Except it be with consent for a time 1 Cor. 7.5 to give themselves unto prayer and come together again lest Satan tempt

contrary both to the Law of God and man and naturall reason that I should suffer for my wives trangression if she commit murther must I be hanged for her murther or if she commit adultery must I do pennance all my life after to live out of a married condition for her adultery or separating her selfe from me though I have never so much need of a wife this were a sad pennance indeed for her whoredome But perhaps you will say she is not a whore I say she is in Scripture-sence if she be not otherwise and Scripture-sence is the best sence and best proofe to prove a whore by for it is very well knowne that according to the Lawes of Men it is a very hard taske to prove a woman to be a whore but I have shewed you enough before to perswade reasonable men that she is no lesse I hope the Scriptures shall not be streched like Cloth upon tenter-hookes to keep men in such cases still in bondage God is more gracious than men to b●nd such heavy burthens and lay them upon mens shoulders which themselves will not touch with one of their fingers You say further from the 1 Cor 7.10 11. that St Paul cannot be understood to speak of one who had no just cause of seperation for then he could not have said Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband Reply I humbly conceive these words will bear another construction mo●e agreeable to other Scriptures for you speak of just cause of separation for which she should remain unmarried or be reconciled but do not tell us what that just cause might be if you mean her Husbands fornication or adultery then the Scripture tells us plainly in the 3 Evangelists explained by Mat 19.3 that upon a lawfull divorce she needed not to remain unmarried for being divorced for her Husbands fornication she might marry because she could not upon that account return again and be reconciled to him but in so doing she should sin by making the members of Christ the members of an Harlot 1 Cor 6.15 16. therefore it must be some inferiour cause of separation as some rash or unadvised act for wh●ch she m●ght depart for a time and remain unmarried untill her husbands rage or anger were past and they reconciled again And I do humbly conceive that where a Text will bear a double construction it is most agreeable to the m●nd and will of God to expound it in that sence that in observing thereof pesons may be preserved as much as may be f●om temptations to sin rather than to expound it in such a sence as by observing thereof persons shall be laid open to most horrid temptations to sin and I do verely believe that the late Lord Primate and Dr. Martin did seperate Mr. Lingart and his wife upon this account which Mr. Lingart about 3 or 4 months after married another wife while the first was living which if it had not been lawfull to have been done I presume those precious servants of Jesus Christ Dr. Usher and Dr. Martin would not have suffered it to have been done In the next place you say it is evidenced by right reason that if persons could so easily unmarry themselves what a doore it would open to perjuries subordinations and slaundees of innocent persons c. Reply This is as if Children should not have bread because sometimes Doggs snatch it from them Shall the Children of God be debarred ●he●r lawfull l●berty for fear the Children of Beliall should draw false Conclusions from sound Principles or shall innocents be punished with transgressors for company If my case were weighed in the ballance of right reason I could not be denied my desire how have I pursued all lawfull means that could be invented and procured Doctors of Divinity and Ministers and Christian friends to perswade my wife to own me as a Husband and she would not nor shew any reason but her own will and I have shewed your Lordship in my other paper four severall reasons that if I have a Lycence to marry yet no wicked person can make my condition a president for them to follow I grant as you say it is evidenced by the Word of God and the light of naturall reason that Marriage ought to be kept sacred and undissolvable it ought so but if one party break the Bond it is against the Word of God and the light of naturall reason that the innocent party should be punished all his life long for the Nocents transgre●sion What you say of Mr. Mole or others comes not near my case for as I said before they would have come home if they might and my wife might have come if she would and has been as much solicited to come as might be and this was Galleatius case his wife would not come at him for which the Divines in Germany suffered him to marry while the first wife was living To my fourth Objection you are silent which was to this effect that seing it doth appear for any thing that is yet said against it that according to the Word of God that he whose wife commite● adultery and he whose wife departeth from him and denies the duty of a wife as mine hath done th●s 7 years and 5 months may lawfully marry and I have shewed you that Dr. Usher and Dr. Martin did allow it and the Church in Germany and New England hath allowed marriage in such cases then I say if there be no law to compell a wife deserting her husband to her duty nor to punish her for her disobedience and if there be any law of men to restrain the Husband in such a case from marriage then whether is that Law that restrains him a just law according to the Word of God or whether is it not rather against the Word of God and the practice of other Churches and a binding of mens Consciences to insupportable burthens and whether is not such a Law if any such there be a setting of their thresholds against God's thresholds and their posts by his posts Ezek 43.8 compared with Isa 29.13 Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men Indeed I know not of any such L●w my study hath been more in Divinitie neither did I ever know where to get a Booke of Canons to acquaint my selfe with that Law but it seems strange to me if amongst all the Canons there be none to punish a Husband or wife that refuseth to performe the duty of a Husband or wife To my 5 Argument you say I run into one or two errors more viz That every ordinary Divorce is forbidden as a breach of Gods command What God hath joyned together let not ma● put asunder Mat 19.6 and that I say there is no other ●ause of Divorce but only fornication Reply This heavy charge of one or two errors I shall easily wipe off for I do not say there is no other cause of Divorce but fornication for I said in