Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
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
|
conclusion of your discourse you plead for liberty to marry and urge 4 reasons for your selfe which if they were all true signify nothing as to that purpose for which you urge them Suppose she have been so long absent suppose she cut you in the face suppose she were an occasion that you were imprisoned 25 dayes suppose you have a Divorce under two Bishops hands upon a reference from his Majestie yet there is a great difference between a temporary divorce and a perpetuall dissolution of marriage What you plead for your selfe I have seen what your wife hath to plead for her selfe I do not know but if every thing be as your selfe say I cannot give way to your second marriage whiles your old wife lives without contradicting the Commands of our Saviour delivered by three Evangelists and one Apostle and therefore I must commend you to your proper remedy that is prayer hoping that you will never thinke more of wedding whilst your old wife lives but bear your Crosse with patience which Christ hath laid upon you November 16 th 1661. Mr. Pressicke's Reply to the Bishop's Answer Right reverend Father in God I Beseech you once more to hear me with patience what I have further to say I have received your Lordships Answer to my paper and I do humbly conceive it will admit of some Exceptâ—ons as followeth In the first place you say and that truly that they who expound Scripture according to their own private fancies do often change but they say you who expound it in the same sence which was deliverd to the Catholique Church with the Scriptures can hardly vary from themselves To this I humbly reply that you do not declare who you mean by the Catholique Church that we should seek the sence of Scripture from whether the Church of Rome or the Protestant Church joyntly or severally or who else we must take for the Church and therefore I will deliver my opinion which I think is not a private fancy By Catholique Church I understand all the true Beleivers that hath been from the begining of the world is now and shall be to the end of the world of which Catholique Church I am one and to this Church the Scriptures was given and none can understand the sence and mind of God in the Scriptures but such as God doth reveale it unto by his spirit 1 Cor 1.9 As it is written eye hath not seen nor ear heard neither hath it eâ—tred into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him But he hath revealed them to us by his spirit and we hâ—ve not received the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know observe the words that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God But the naturallman receiveâ—h not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnes unto hâ—m neiâ—her can he know them because they are spirituâ—lly discerned and Mat 10.27 No man knowes the Father save the Son and â—e to whom the Son will reveal him I do with all my heart and soul reverence learning because I find the want of learning in my selfe and we are debtors to those that have translated the Scriptures into our Mother-tongue yet such as have naturall learning and understand the originall Tongues may be in a naturall estate and in that respect the Apostle saith they cannot know the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnes unto him because they must be spiritually discerned But I say he is a good Scholer that hath learn't his Lesson of Christ and it matters not who is the scholer so that Christ be the Schoolmaster I have never read that Christ doth speak to his Children or Scholers only in Hebrew Greeke or Lattine but he hath and doth declare his mind and will to them in English and other Languages as well as in the originall Tongues I hope thâ—s is no expounding of Scripture according to private fancy for it is plain Scripture if the Scripture be right translated if it be not the fault is not mine To the first objection you own the words of St. Paul 1 Cor 7.15 If the unbeliever depart let him depâ—rt a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such Cases and you say there is a great difference between the marriage of Infidells and the marriage of Christians the marriage of Infidells being only a civill contract and may be dissolved by consent the marriage of Christians is a signe of the mysticall union between Christ and his Church and theâ—efore you say undissolvable To this I reply by plain Scripture and agree with you that the marriage of Infidells is dissolvable if but the one party be an Infidell and refuse to co-habit with the husband or wife as 1 Cor 7.15 and at verses 12 13. If a husband have an unbelieving wife or a wife an unbelieving husband if the unbeliever be pleased to dwell with the believer the believer ought not to put the unbeliever away and though my wife be an unbeliever and is departed yet I have waited 6 years c. for her returning before I got a Bill of divorce and the Text saith if the unbeliever depart a brother or a siter is not in bondage in such cases and you have granted that the marriage of Infidells is dissolvable by consent and she gave her consent to the divorce therefore by your own words the bone of marriage is dissolved between her and me for this is my case my wife is an Infidell or unbeliever and hath departed from me above 7 years and 5 months I did not put her away but she put her selfe away and by her departing she put me away from her as Marke 10.12 But St Paul saith If she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her huâ—band 1 Cor 7.11 the reason is because she is the nocent party therefore she must remain unmarried or be reconciled but St. Paul doth not say let him remain unmarried oâ— let hâ—m wait 7 years as I have done or 17 years to see whether she will be reconciled to her husband or not but he saiah expresly ver 15. if she depart he is not in bondage in such cases this is plain Scripture But what greater outward bondage can there be if he have need of a wâ—fe than to be restrained from marriage or in what sence can any man take that Scripture a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases I humbly conceive that to say as you do in another place that he is freed from all conjugall duties towards her it is neither the meaning of the Text nor is the plaister broad enough for the soare for if she desert him and will not come at hâ—m nor suffer him to come where she is what conjugall duties is he like to performe towards her it is impossible therefore the text must have another meaning which I conceive must
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