Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	according_a	law_n	parliament_n	2,488	5	6.5410	4	false

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

Board beause the same Bed and the same Table were promised in the Marriage Contract but the Promise does not extend even to Tolerating Adultery or Malicious Disertion which according to God's Ordinance Dissolves the Marriage Our Saviour speaks of Divorces Instituted by the Mosaical Law but they were no other than Divorces from the Bond. The Form of the Bill of Divorce among the Jews was this Be Expelled from me and free for any Body else To give the Bill of Divorce is from the Hebrew Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to break or cut off the Marriage With this agree the Ancient Canons Councils and Fathers of the Church Concil N●●caesar Elib forbid the retaining an Adulterous Wife Concil Eliber Aurelian Arelatens give Liberty in such Case to Marry again Clement's Constitution Tertullian St. Basil in his Canons approved by a General Council are for Marrying again Concil Venet. If they Marry in any other Case than Fornication they are to be Excommunicated and not otherwise Concil Wormat. gives Liberty to the Innocent Party to Marry after a Divorce Concil Lateran gives leave for the Innocent Party after a Year to Marry again Concil Lateran If any one take another Wife while a Suit is depending and afterwards there be a Divorce between him and the First he may remain with the Second Lacta●tius S. Hierom and Epiphanius are for allowance of Marriage after Divorce Chrysostom H●m 19. 1 Cor. 7. says That the Marriage is dissolved by Adultery and that the Husband after he hath put her away is no longer her Husband Theophylact on the 16th of St. Luke says That St. Luke must be interpreted by S. Matthew S. Hillary is for marrying again as Dr. Fulk saith upon S. Matthew the V. The Eastern Bishops in the Council of Florence are for marrying again Justin Martyr speaks of a Christian Woman's giving a bill of Divorce to a Dissolute Husband without finding any fault with it St. Ambrese says a Man may Marry again if he put away an Adulterous Wife Theodoret said of a Wife who violated the Laws of Marriage Therefore our Lord requires the Bond or Tye of Marriage to be dissolved All the Greek Church to this day allow it Erasmus Cajetan and other Papists The Civil Law and the Laws of the Emperor are clear for it And the Constitutions of our own Church of England in the time of H. 8. E. 6. and Queen Eliz. The Practice of the English Church In the Stat. 1 Jac. c. 11. against second Marriages Divorces are excepted and in Canon 107. 't is provided they shall not Marry again but it is not said such Marriages are void only the Caution is forfeited Neither doth the Canon speak of such Separations wherein the the Bond it self is broken as 't is by Fornication Even the Canon-Law allows Marrying again in case a Woman seek her Husband's Life and in case of a Bond-woman Gratian says in the Case of Adultery Lawful Marriages ought not to be denied In the Case of an Incurable Leprosie it was the Advice of S. Gregory to Austin the Monk That he that could not contain should rather Marry Bellermin owns that the Bond of the Marriage of Infidels is dissolvable but the Marriage of the Faithful and of Infidels is of the s●me nature And Justinian a Jesuit confesses that it is simply lawful for the Innocent Party to Marry again And the Roman Doctors allow a dissolution of the Bond of Marriage if the Parties should after consumation transfer themselves into a Friery or Nunnery The Canons which in the case of Adultery prohibit Marrying in the Life time of the guilty Person are contrary to Two Acts of Parliament made 25 H. 8. and 3 4 E. 6. wherein no Canons are allowed that be any way repugnant to the Laws of God Ref. Leg. Eccles Tir. de Adulteriis Divortiis or the Scripture the King's Prerogative Royal and the Statutes of this Land 32 Persons were to review the canon-Canon-Law in which Review drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer the Innocent Person i● permitted to Marry again according to Christ's Law and Concession We have Examples of such Marriages in H. 4. of France H. 8. of England Lord Mountjoy Lord Rich Bishop Thornborough and divers others And it is observable That in the Case of the Marquess of Northampton 5 E. 6. who had been divorced for his Lady's Adultery and Married another before any Act of Parliament made concerning it an Act which passed afterwards only two Spiritual and two Temporal Lords dissenting declares he had been at liberty by the Laws of God to Marry and did Lawfully Marry another Where the Act manifestly supposes that whatever had obtained for Law till that time was void as being contrary to God's Law The most considerable Men of the Reform'd Churches both at home and abroad are of this Opinion Grotius quotes Tertullian in whose time it was Lawful for the Innocent Party to Marry Lancelot Inst Jur. Can acknowledges that Divorce is a dissolution of the Marriage Selden who is not likely to contradict the Laws of this Kingdom maintaineth That Marriage after Divorce is to be allowed And in that particular Dr. Hammond doth not contradict him but is clearly for it The Opinion of Am●sius deserves to be set down at large Marriage says he cannot be dissolved by Men at their pleasure and for that reason as it is considered simply and absolutely it is rightly said to be indissolvable because Marriage is not only a Civil but a Divine Conjunction and is also of that nature that it cannot be dissolved without detriment to either Party Yet it is not so indissolvable but it may be dissolved for a Cause which God approves as just for the Indissolvability was not in s●●●●ted for a Punishment but for the Comfort of Innocent Persons and it admits an Exception wherein God ceases to conjoyn By Adultery two are made not to remain one Flesh hence it is that a Contagious Disease is not a Cause of dissolving Marriage By Adultery the very Essence of the Contract is directly violated but the Contract ceasing the Bond depending on the Contract necessarily ceases It is against all reason that all Matrimonial Duties should be for ever taken away yet the Bond or Obligation to those Duties should continue The words of our Lord Matth. 5.32 and 19.9 have no distinction or limitation of the putting away but simply and absolutely approve of putting away therefore they approve of a putting away not partial or to a particular purpose from Bed and Board but Total None are against the R●f●rmed Divines but Dr. Howson Mr. Bunny and Dr. Prideaux Dr. Howson was a professed Adversary to Dr. Raynolds who was a great Maintainer of the Church of England against all the Points of Popery and particularly in this Dr. Taylor Bishop Hell Dr. F●lk are for Second Marriages no Authors against them but the Council of Trent and those of the Church of Rome whose Credit