Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	lord_n	parliament_n	4,338	5	6.4183	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66870	The case of divorce and re-marriage thereupon discussed by a reverend prelate of the Church of England and a private of the Church of England and a private gentleman ; occasioned by the late act of Parliament for the divorce of the Lord Rosse.	Wolseley, Charles, Sir, 1630?-1714.	1673 (1673)	Wing W3307; ESTC R9734	27,389	164

The CASE OF DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE thereupon Discussed By a Reverend Prelate of the Church of England and a private Gentleman Occasioned by the late Act of Parliament for the Divorce of the Lord ROSSE I know that Messias cometh which is called Christ when he is come he will tell us all things Joh. 4. 25. LONDON Printed for Nevill Simmons at the Prince's Armes in St. Pauls Church-yard 1673. READER THese Papers were drawn up when the Business of the Lord Rosse was debated in Parliament and had their rise from That transaction The first part of them was Written by a private hand and was occasioned by a Discourse with a learned Bishop now with God upon that Subject and being presented to him he returned the following Animadversions upon it to which the Answer Here set down was Then given by the same hand The whole is now made publick for thy information and satisfaction about this matter Touching Divorce and Remarriage thereupon AN incapacity for the ends of marriage previous to it makes a Nullity of the marriage upon a subsequent discovery of it This needs no determination by any positive Law For the Law of Nature and the reason of the thing it self gives an universal determination of it every where By the Law of Moses unchastity before Marriage or contraction if concealed and all unchastity after Contraction or Marriage was to be punished with death and no mention made in the Law of any such thing as Divorce in that Case Moses in the 24th of Deuteronomy gave This allowance for Divorce vers 1 2. When a man hath taken a Wife and Marryed her and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her Then let him write her a Bill of Divorcement and give it in her hand and send her out of his house And when she is departed out of his house she may go and be another mans wife which was but an allowance in some Cases and in those too did rather liberare Ã Poena than a Vitio We need not inquire farther why this was done our Saviour has given us a perfect account of it such a permission was granted to them because of the hardness of their hearts and the unruly stubborn behaviour of the Jews towards their Wives in that particular Moses who we are to consider as a Legislator to a State as well as a Church suffered it to be as the most tolerable remedy that That people were capable of and in favour chiefly of the Women This permission of Moses came in the practice of it to be so far extended amongst them that whoever desired to put away his Wife was allowed to do it without giving any reason at all besides his own pleasure why he did it This we may see in Mr. Selden ' s Vxor Haebraica and Grotius tells us Quod Consuetudo legis interpres Nullam Ã marito causam dirempti Matrimonii exegerit and adds Alioqui enim nou potuisset Josephus Maria clam dimittere Potuit igitur Maritus dicere quod Romae dixit Paulus Emilius sibi optimÃ¨ notum quÃ calceus urgeret This custome was in it self greatly inconvenient and as one sayes of it For a man Nulla aut levissima de causa uxorem dimittere ut Jam de primaeva dei institutione nihil dicam vel sola charitatis lex prohibebat sive uxorem respicias quae veluti supplex ad Mariti Tutelam confugit sive communes etiam liberos Heathen Nations rarely practised any such thing the Romans in particular of whom an antient Author sayes Romani cum nulla lex repudium vetaret annos tamen quingentos viginti sine exemplo repudii â—gerunt Nec quisquam fermÃ¨ scriptorum est qui non gravitÃ¨r reprehendat Marcum Tullium Ciceronem quod levibus de causis Terentiam dimiserit Our Saviour in the Gospel before the Pharisees asked him any Question about this matter which they did and their Question and his answer is set down in the 19th of Matthew and the 10th of Mark determines it in the 5th of Matthew in his Sermon upon the Mount there being indeed nothing wherein That people needed more Reformation than in That particular His words are verse the 31 It hath been said whosoever shall put away his Wife let him give her a Writing of Divorcement And verse the 32. But I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his Wife saving for the cause of Fornication causeth her to commit Adultery and whosoever shall marry her that is Divorced committeth Adultery By this it is plain that whatsoever toleration they had from Moses about putting away their Wives and whatsoever farther liberty they took to themselves in That matter it is totally repealed and condemned and no cause of divorce and putting away allowed to be good but in case of Fornication and Unchastity There ariseth this difficulty from the consideration of our Saviour's words whether he he did thereby intend to institute a new Law in the Case or whether he only spake Interpretatively with reference to the Law of God Then in being Those who are inclined to think he did institute a New Law urge it from hence That our Saviour speaks of Fornication and Unchastity as a ground and the only ground of Divorce which by the Law had another punishment appointed for it and such a one as made Divorce impossible and impracticable for they were to be put to death that were so found guilty and of That Law our Saviour takes no notice say they the punishment the Law appointed to be inflicted for Fornication and Adultery and the direction our Saviour gives about it cannot consist together the one directs Divorce the other appoints death I suppose our Saviour in what he Here determines about this matter as in many other of his determinations about other things speaks so as that he gives a full satisfaction to men according to the present state of things then in being and also establisheth a Divine Law upon such grounds that shall last for ever in the Church For the first That he spake with reference to the Law Then in being and to settle the Consciences of men who desired to perform their duty as things Then stood I gather from hence First because he spake to such who were then all of them under an obligation to the whole Mosaical Law for so were the Jews and Christ's own Disciples to whom he Preached Secondly He plainly seems all along that Chapter to comment upon the Law of Moses and Evangelize it and to give the true and genuine meaning of it against the corrupt and perverse interpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees And when he sayes But I say unto you he does not so much oppose himself and what he said Then to Moses and what Moses had said Before as to what the Scribes and Pharisees had falsly said in Moses name and so rather vindicates the true sense and

their infirmities But you would have God lay more burden upon them because of their perverse hearts which is not Gods method but to whom much is given of him much will be required 20. Fifth Reason soon satisfied whoever said that Christs precept about Divorce was injoyned Then to the Jews and only at That times It was in force from the beginning without indulgence but in force with that indulgence from Deut. 24. aâ—â— no time so opportune as when Christ was on the earth and spake with his own mouth to his Disciples to let them know they were not priviledged like the Jews if their Wife were an Adulteress but to take up their cross and bear it 21. Divorce admitted in the Christian Church for Fornication but superinduction of another Wife is another thing There were great mistakes in the Imperial Laws Did not Valentinian make a Law for marrying within degrees prohibited Others for Bigamy I have not leasure to search the Books I lay St. Austine against St. Jerome who did not write transcursorily but two studied Books upon the Argument 22. Why should not the orders of the Canon-Law be as rational as the Laws of Theodosius and Justinian Separatio Ã toro mensa is for peace sake till opportunity of attoning Must all directions to keep them aloof that are imbittered one against the other and to prove them for a time how they will piece again be grounded upon Scripture Shall humane Prudence have no hand in such things These are no fictions of the Canon Law for they falsifie no Text but make tryal of such ways as may conduce to the good of both parties What if Ã toro mensa have no divine warrant is there any divine warrant against it They that look for divine warrant express in all frames of Government in all circumstances of Gods worship have been told sufficiently how much they mistake the purpose and use of Holy Scripture 23. You say 'T is not reasonable that the obligation of marriage should remain and the helps and advantages of it be taken away why what if a maâ— or a woman be taken Captive Incur an irremediable diseass or the Wife though chaste will not render due benevolence or her Joynture she brought be consumed by fire Here are helps and advantages substracted yet no wedlock broken 24. By Divorce Ã toro mensa they are not shut from all converse with one another they may return to mutual embraces again though the bond of marriage be not broken the use and comfort may be suspended 25. Far more Bishops by thousands have disliked it than that have allowed it I reverence the Councils yet they were but Provincial Had I leisure to peruse them I should know to interpret them 26. Grotius lived in the Netherlands and wrote after their practice and doctrine It hath been the practice of the Church of England but once in Parliament Edw. 6. and once in this late Session of Parliament I take no pick at any man that is of a contrary judgement to me But the first instance of Parre Marquess of Northampton who had two Children in secret before the Act of Parliament passed on his side makes his case far worse than the Lord Rosse's but the Marquess and his posterity sunk quite away and let survivors behold the end of this last Instance For an Appendix I will ingeniously add the unreasonableness of the Church of Rome who generally deny him that puts away his Wife for Adultery to marry again yet they consent to the sentence of Pope Gregory the first who resolves this upon a question moved Questio est quidam parentes mulieres presertim proprios filios susceperunt in lavacro An illiviri mulieres ad suum proprium redire possint usum Imo separent se mulieres vero cum separata fuerint pro hac illicita re Ã propriis viris totam precipimus recipere dotem post expletum annum recipiant alium virum similiter viri uxorem which is easily thus refuted by their own doctrine Si proprios filios in casu necessitatis baptizare non solvit matrimonium quanto minus eosdem Ã¨ Baptismo suscipere 27. To end such as hold to my opinion lay it the more to Conscience foreseeing that the contrary may stir up some wicked Husbands to suborn false witnesses upon Oath to convince innocent Wives that They being divorced it may admit them to marry where they like better Moreover it may fall out not seldom that a wicked Woman will confess her self an Adulteress upon assurance of some ample compensation More might be added The Answer to the Animadversions Animadversion 1. UNchastity before marriage in a Virgin not in a Widow Answer The direction in the 22. of Deut. for conviction of unchastity before marriage relates peculiarly to a Virgin and cannot be applyed to a Widow yet should a Widow by other evident proofs be convicted of unchastity after the death of a First Husband before marriage to a second the equity and reason of the Law seems to reach her 'T is a firm Maxim in the Civil Law ut ubi eadem est ratio jus idem valet I find no exception any where made in that case nor any particular direction given about a Widows previous unchastity to a second marriage to punish it any other way Animadversion UNchastity to be punished wth death if proved by two witnesses if but one Divorce if only strong suspicion the water of Jealousie Answer The first is evident that unchastity when punished with death was to be proved by two witnesses not by reason of any particular direction about the proof in That case but because God established That as a general rule for all Judicial proceedings that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every sentence should be established Deut. 19. 15. One witness shall not rise up against any man for any iniquity at the mouth of two witnesses or three shall the matter be established The second that if unchastity were proved but by one witness it was Then matter of Divorce I crave leave to dissent from Unchastity if proved could never be ground for Divorce for death was to ensue so that if one witness in case of unchastity were sufficient proof it produced death if it were not it amounted to no more than suspicion Nor do I find any direction for any proof at all to be made as Necessary in case of Divorce nor in any case where proof was Judicially required was one witness sufficient Neither by the first allowance of Divorce Deut. 24. Nor in the subsequent practice of it amongst the Jews was there any proof required in case of Divorce nor any Judgement to be passed by the Magistrate about it farther than that there should be libellum repudii given to the Woman It seems to me that the judgement in case of Divorce rested in every mans own breast though every man was in his own private conscience obliged

Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Text snippets containing the quad