not is want of proofe for it is a hard matter to prove one a whore though she were never so guilty but there is as strong presumptions to perswade she is so as possible may be As first before she left me when I told her she did not respect me as a wife ought to do a husband she said that she looked upon me but as she did upon other men and no otherwise which is suspicion enough to put no difference between her husband and other men Secondly it hath been taken notice of by severall that told me that when she was not imployed in her calling as Midwife she did frequent the company of those that were reputed for whoâ—edome the vilest persons in the Citie and they would sit and drinke Sacke and jeare her husband 3ly She hath been observed to goe in evenings to places suspected for uncleanesse and those that did observe it teld me Fourthly it is reported by many in this Citie that about the beginning of June last when she was carried in a Horse-litter into the County of Armagh where she stil remains for any thing I know she had a French disease upon her these things added to the former reasons and arguments of Scripture I thinke what I plead for cannot in reason be denyed me but it is just and equall in the sight of God and Man that I should have a Lycense to marry To return to the second Objection the law of the Land you say I mistake for if the husband be known to be living if it were seventeeen years the wife may not marry and you instance Mr. Mole was absent 20 years in the Inquisition Reply I say that in equity the benefit of the Law of the land should be allowed me for what difference is there between being absent 7 years and not heard off and to be absent 7 years if there be no law as your Lordship said to require the Delinquent party to her duty or what benefit hath the one innocent party of their husband or wife more than the other therefore there is as much equity the one should have liberty as the other As for Mr. Mole his condition and this we speake of are much different for Mr. Mole would have come home if he might and she that was my wife might have come home and was much sought to for to come and she would not therein the case alters And Galleatius being in the same condition that I am as to the absence of his wife yet not altogether in the same manner for he left his wife and my wife left me and I have a Divorce and he had none yet the Divines in Germany allowed him to marry anotheâ— and therefoâ—e I still affirme till better reasons be shewed to the contrary that both the Law of God and the example of the Church in Germany and the practice of Dr. Usher and Dr. Martin towards Mr. Lingart here in Ireland are all for me that I may lawfully marry and if there be no law to require a wâ—fe to performe the duty of a wife nor to punish her for her disobedience I see not how there can be any Law in equity against me to hindeâ— me from marriage To come again to the 3 Objectâ—on you bring Rom 7.2 3. verses The woman which hath a husband is bound by the Law to her husband as long as he liveth but if the husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband so then if while her husband liveth she be married to another she shall be called an adulteress and 1 Cor 7.39 The wife is bound by the Law as long as the husband liveth Reply I humbly conceive under favour this Argument will not hold out weâ—ght in the ballance of the Sanctuary for if she were put away justly for fornication then the marriage is dissolved as I shewed before out of the 3 Evangelists that which I thinke will carry it though you say marriage cannot be dissolved Well she being justly put away for fornication he that marrieth her committeth uncleannesse with her because she was an Haâ—lot What know ye not that he that is joyned to an hurlot is one body for two saith he shall be oâ—e flesh 1 Cor 6.15 16. and shall I take the members of Christ and make them the members of an Harlot God forbid If she were put away unjustly for every cause as it seems then they used to make private divorces without Lycense from either Magistrate or Minister and herein though she were innocent as to the cause of divorce yet she was blame-worthy and guilty of sin in not appealing to the Governours of the Church or Commonwealth or to both for justice and they ought to have relieved her and required the husband to performeth duty of a husband to her and not have suffered the Land by such unlawfull separation to be polluted and her neglect of this and submitting her selfe to an unlawfull private Divorce makes her him that marrieth her both guilty of uncleannesse But this is not my condition it is farr different from such proceedings for I have to my hazard both of life and lâ—berty used all possible means to reclaim her since she left me but to no purpose and I have been restrained of my liberty for 25 dayes together for contending against such private separations and I have appealed both to Magistrates and Ministers when the times and persons were so corrupt that I could not have justice untill the Lord brought home his Majesty to whom I made my plaint and case known who upon the reading of my petition gave His Royall Assent that two Bishops should order the matter according to justice and they considering her long absence and that the man hath no power over his own body but the woman and that she had broke the bond of wedlocke in departing so long and defrauding her husband of due benevolence which by the bond of marriage she was ingaged to 1 Cor 3.3.4.5 and that at that present before them she refused to be reconciled whereupon the two Bishops gave me a bill of Divorce according to 1 Cor 7.15 If the unbeliever will depart let her depart a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases and Marke 10.12 If a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery which doth imply as the Text above doth that he is not in bondage so that if he upon that account marry another he doth not commit adultery because she denies the duty of a wife and God did ordain that man should not live alone but should have a helpe meet for him and therefore if a wife that should be a helpe to him to keep his vessell in holinesse and honour to God if she break her Covenant with God and with her husband shall I be kept in bondage after all this and the Scriptures say in such cases a man is not in bondage I pray you is it not
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 bâ—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 moâ—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 whâ—ch she mâ—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 mâ—nd and will of God to expound it in that sence that in observing thereof pesons may be preserved as much as may be fâ—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 â—heâ—r lawfull lâ—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 transgreâ—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 commiteâ— adultery and he whose wife departeth from him and denies the duty of a wife as mine hath done thâ—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 Lâ—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 maâ— put asunder Mat 19.6 and that I say there is no other â—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
my other paper and I say in this that an unbelieving wife departing from her Husband and denying the duty of a wife and will not be reconsiled to her husband it is cause of divorce as well as fornication if the Scripture may be believed before private fancy 1 Cor 7.3 4 5 11 15. If the unbeliever depart a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases Nay I thinke it is no false Exposiaâ—on to say further that whether she be a believer or unbeliever if she depart and persist in it and will not be reconciled it is cause of divorce otherwise the Apostle would have said a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case in the singular number in case of the unbelievers deparring but he saith A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases speaking of more cases than one which may well be understood not only of an unbelieâ—ers departing but in the like case of a believers departing if she continue obstinate and unreconcilable a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases Further you say that Text Mat 19 6. is understood properly of dissolving the bond of marriage for ever as you say I would have it and not of lesser separations made out of prudence or piety for a time I said before and I say still that except the Bishops made that Divorce between me and my wife upon the account of my wifes being a whore in Scripture-sence oâ— else upon account of her departing and not performing the duty of a wife one or both as I writ to them of the lawfulnes of such a Divorce and of the Germane Divines allowing the like to Galeatius before they made thâ—s Divorce I shewed these reasons why I desired it or else to have my wife to lâ—ve with me which she before them did refuse I say exceâ—t they made this Divorce upon this account whâ—ch you say dâ—ssolves marriage for ever the Bishops must needs fall under the breach of that precept Those whom God hath joyâ—ed together let noâ— man put asunder foâ— this divorce cannot be undeâ—â—tood as youâ— Loâ—dship speaks of lesser separations for a time but of a perpetuall Divorce for the Bishops bound us in five hundred pound Bonds apeece that we should not owne one the other not one the others estate and bâ—d us to take leave of one anoâ—her as if one of us were going to the grave therefore it cannot be understood of a lesser Divorce for a time but of a perpetuall dissolution of marriage for ever or else the Bishops stand guilty of the breach of that precept Mat 19 6. Thus both according to the Word of God and the Lawes of men I mean the Bishops and His Majesties Royall assent the bond of marriage is dissolved what hinders then but I may have Lycence to marry and whereas I say there can be no divorce from bed and board as some call it except it be with consent for a time and come together again least Satan tempt them to incontineâ—cy 1 Cor 7.5 but it is absolutely againâ—t this and that precept Mat 19.6 and 1 Cor 7.3 4 5. I beseech you let not this be condemned for an error which is justified by Scripture For your distinctions of temporary Divorces and lesser seperations divorces of prudence and piety I find no such distinctions of Divorces in Scripture and I dare not pinne my faith upon any mans opinion without Scripture-proofe I pray you bear with my plainnesse for I have read in an ancient Author that one Lay-man bringing Scripture to prove his assertion was to be preferred before a whole Counsell that decreed things without warrant from Scripture and I read of no such Divorces in Scripture except it be for every cause Mat 19.3 and that Christ himselfe condemns as unlawful And if any married persons should be so desperately wicked as to endeavour to kill or poison or intice to Heresie or Blasphemy or the like the Magestrates by Law may take order and secure the innocent party without making Divorces not warrantable by Scripture and which oftentimes proves a bane to the innocent party and binds him to more bondage then the Nocent To the 6 7 Arguments where I prove my wife to be a whore in Scripture-sence you say I mistake for it is probable the Levites wife did more then depart and though a Levite might not marry a known whore yet being married he might pardon or conceal or connive at her lewd courses Reply I conceive it not so much as probable that she did any more than depart without his consent that was enough for the Seripture mentions not that she did any more for which she was called a whore for if she had been an actuall whore she should by the Law have been stoned to death Levit 20.10 neither had it been lawfull for him to have taken her again Levit 21.7 and I say he could not pardon nor connive at her lewd courses so as to take her again 1 Cor 6.13 15 16. The body is not for fornication but for the Lord. What know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot God forbid What know ye not that he thâ—t is joyned to an harlot is one body for two saith he shall be called one flesh These Scriptures shews plainly that if a believers wife playes the Harlot he ought not nor cannot without grievous sin joyne himselfe to her again for in so doing he dishonours Christ and makes his members the members of an Harlot Now if such an innocent party have not liberty to marry then is he for his wifes sinne in perpetuall bondage all his life after except he will joyne with his wife again and so make the members of Christ the members of an Harlot but as for my wâ—fe if I would she would not owne me as a Husband I desire it may be better conâ—â—dered of for to say that neither for civill whoredome as you call a wifes deserting her Husband nor carnall whoredome doth free the husband no further then from conjugall duties is such a distinct on as I am assured is not suitable to Scripture Grace and Believers priviledges those that thus deal with men do as much as in them lyeth to provoke them to incontinency but as I said before Dr. Usher Dr Martin dealt not so with Mr. Lingart for without doubt if either the wife desert her Husband or play the harlot for they are both one in Scripture-sence the innocent party may lawfully marry rather than burne and those that hinder such must answer for their sinns if they transgresse and all men have not the gift of continencie Then you that to imagine that she who deserts her Husband and she who takes another into his bed are both alike guilty of the breach of wedlock and both to be punished with the same
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 hâ—m a large Letter wherein I did hint to hâ—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 dâ—d and drew up the substance of my Petition and Letter into certain Questions and Arguments which hereafter followeâ—h together wiâ—h hiâ— Answer and my Reply to hâ—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 anoâ—her Wife as I do intend for any thing I yet know to hâ—nder me whether there be not sufficient ground of Scrâ—pture for me so to do besides the example and practice of oâ—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 wheâ—her should I be concluded by one or some few Mens opinions contrary to the Word of God and the prâ—ctice of Proâ—estant Churches and so be lyable to continuall temptations all my life long or take that liberty which the Word of God and former Proâ—estant Churcheâ— hath allowed that I maye escape Satans snares and have a remedy against my owne Corruption Iudge ye Thus I leave â—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 accordâ—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 conâ—â—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 lâ—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 heâ—r whetheâ— she were deâ—d or lâ—ving yea more I have a Dâ—vorce under two Bishops Hands by a reference from his Majesty and though it be not in Forme according to the Canon-Law foâ— that had been many years silenced but having his Majesties Royall Assent from whom the Canon-Law receives it's vigoâ— 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 Bâ—ll of Dâ—vorce And fouâ—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 hâ—ndered of my lawfull liberty more than oâ—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 lâ—berty which the Word of God allowes hâ—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 woâ—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 agaiâ—st Gods thresholds and their Posts by Gods Posts Ezek. 43.8 compared with Isa. 29.13 â—heir fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men Foâ— such a law would destroy an Ordinance of God that is Marriage and Pâ—ocreâ—tion and one end foâ— which man was câ—eated that is That the wife should be in subjection to her huâ—band as the Church is to Christ. Ephes. 5.24 But if this lâ—berty be denied him then must the husband be in subjection to hâ—s wâ—fes humour though she be a whoâ—e oâ— 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 nothiâ—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
much as pretend that your wife hath committed adultery and therefore by the undoubted consent of the three Evangelists you cannot marry again To this of the three Evangelists adde likewise the testimony of St. Paul Rom. 7.2 3. The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth but if the husbaâ—d be dead she is loosed from the Law of her husband So then if while her husband liveth she be marryed to another she shall be called an Adulteresse St. Paul knew no way to dissolve marriage but by death the same he saith 1 Cor 7 39. The wife is bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be marryed to whom she will and if we weigh the force of St Pauls argument exactly we shall find it to be this That as the bond of the Law could no way be dissolved whiles the Law lived that is was not abrogated notwithstanding any prevarication interceding so the bond of marriage is indissolvable so long as life lasteth notwithstanding any interceding fornication To conclude this point he that marrieth her that is divorced or put away either justly for fornication or unjustly without fornication committeth adultery for if it was justly for fornication then she was the nocent person and could not marry agaâ—n and if it was unjustly without fornication then the divorce was void and she still continued wife to her former husband howsoever it was whether justly or unjustly it can be no adultery except the bond of the former marriage were dâ—ssolved Another place we have to the same purpose 1 Cor 7.10 21. Unto the married I command yet not I but the Lord let not the wife depart from her husband but if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband and let not the husband put away his wife Either St Paul speaks of such a woman who had no just cause of separation or of one who had but he cannot be understood to speak of one who had no just cause of separation for then he would not he could not have said let her remain unmarried or be reconciled at her choice but let her be reconsiled and returne to her husband St Paul did not could not permit any unjust Diâ—oâ—ces contrary to the expresse Word of God It is plain therefore that he speaks of one who had just cause to depart and yet St Paul commandeth in the name of the Lord that such an innocent person should remain unmarried To these plain testiminies of holy Scripture we may joyne the evidence of right reason If married persons could so easily unmarry themselves by the consent of boâ—h parties and much more by the â—â—nister practises of one party what a Doore would this open to perjuries and subordinations to the slanders and deflamations of innocent persons whilest men pursued their own lusts under the cloâ—ke of justice what division and what ruine would this bring upon families what a curse would it be to poore children who many times without their own faults must loose one of their naturall parents and get a step-Father or a step-Mother in their place This Conclusion Mr. Pressicke is evidenced to us by the woâ—d of God by the light of naturall reason that marriage ought to be kept sacred and undissolvable It hath been long observed as a Nationall sinne of this people to have been over easy dissolvers of true marriages upon slaunderous or pretended Prae-contracts wanting all ground but lust and perjury and therefore I do give you the same Counsaile which I take God to witnes I would take my selfe if I were in the same condition Seeke once more to be reconciled to your wife and forget not to pray God to change her heart if you cannot prevail then follow St Paul's command or rather God's command by St Paul to remain unmarried You complain of this as a grievous burthen but you consider not that many holy Saints and Servants of God have lived much longer under the same Crosse that you have done and altogetheâ— without their own faults Some have had their Spouses imprisoned for 30 or 40 years together for conscience sake as I told you formerly of Mr. Mole some again have had their husbands made slaves by the Turkes and detained from them as long as they lived some have been smitten with an incurable disease presently after Marriage inconsistent with the duties of the marriage-bed what must they doe in these cases and many more of the same nature Presently marry again God forbid This is a better remedy that is by fervent and frequent prayer to begge the guifte of continency of God if we prevail not it is because we pray amiss If it be not a crosse which we have pulled upon our selves but which God himselfe hath imposed upon us we have his promise that he will hear uâ— and help us let who will whisper to you other thoughts Mr. Pressicke this is your remedy In your fifth Paragraph you run into one or two errors more that every ordâ—nary divorce is forbidden as a breach of Gods command What God hath joyned together let no man put asunder Mat 19.6 and that there is no other cause of divorce but fornication For first that Text Mat 19.6 is understood properly of dissolving the bond of marriage as you would have it for eveâ— not of lesser separations made out of prudence or piety for a time Secondly there are other causes of divorces besides foâ—nication as when one married person shall seek to poyson or make away the other or to starve them it is very lawfull to seperate them out of prudence to prevent murther Judge whether this be not your case or no and when the one person is continually inticing the other to Heresy or blaspheming or soliciting him or her to sinne against God in such cases also such a temperary Divorce is lawfull as no man that understands himselfe will deny In the 6 and 7 paragraph you endeavour to prove your wife a whore in Scripture-sence because she is departed from you but you mistake every way For first in all pâ—obabâ—lity the Levites wife did more then depart from him and though a Levite might not marry a known whore yet being married he might pardon conceal or connive at her lewd courses But this is nothing to the purpose for this adultery or whoredome foâ— which a man may put away his wife is not the spirituall whoredome that is Idolatry nor civill whoredome that is desertion of her husband but carnall whoredome whereby the bond of Marriage is dissolved and the innocent party acquited for the future from all Conâ—ugall duties But to imagine that she who only deserts her husband and she who takes another into his bed are both alike guilty of the breach of wedlocke and both to be punished with the same punishment as you say in the 7 paragraph is ridiculous In the