Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	body_n	dead_a	sin_n	7,124	5	5.2250	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10322	A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie not onelie put awaie his wife for her adulterie, but also marrie another. / Wherin both Robert Bellarmin the Iesuites Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a namelesse author mainteyning the contrarie are co[n]futed by Iohn Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Churche with errour..	Rainolds, John, 1549-1607.	1609 (1609)	STC 20607; ESTC S115561	101,833	102

man did ever hurt his owne body because Every husband ought to loue his owne wife as Christ loved the Church and likewise that no souldier hath ever entangled him-self with the assayres of life because Tymothee should bee still about those actions whereto the Lord who choose him to hee a souldier did call him Nay to goe no farther then the drift it self of the samilytude which Bellarmin doth vrge if it requier absolutely that the band of Marriage may bee no way loosed but onely by the husbands or the wives death then neither is it loosed if the vnbeleever doe for sake the Christian neither if the husbād become a Monke or the wife a Nunne neither if the Pope see cause to dispence with either of them And will not this fansie of his about that drift drive him into greater inconvenience yet to weet that every woman whose husband is dead ought to marry another because the Iewes were bound to become Christiās after the death of the Lawe or of the other side that the Iewes are not bound vnder payne of damnation to become Christians because no widowe is bound vnder payne of death to take another husband or if these absurdities bee not great enough that dead men ought to marry because The Iewes by duty should bee vnto Christ when they were dead to the Lawe or that the men of Rome to whom S. Paul wrote should rather not beleeve in Christ because he wished widowes rather not to marry Of the which consequences if some bee esteemed erroneous by Papists some not esteemed onely but are so in deede the most have impious folly ioyned with vntruth Let Bellarmin acknowledg that similitudes must not bee sett vpon the racke nor the drift thereof bee stretched and pressed in such sorte as if they ought iust in length bredth and depth to match and fitt-that whereto they are resembled It sufficeth if in a generall analogy and proportion of the principall poynt wherein things are matched and compared together they bee eche like to other and both agree in one qualitie Which here is observed in S. Pauls comparisō of the state of Marriage with the state of man before and after regeneration because as a wife her husband being dead doth lawfully take another and is not an adulteresse in having his company to bring forth fruite of her body to him soe regenerate persons their naturall corruption provoked by the law to sinne and flesh being mortified are ioyned to the Spirit the force of Christ working in them as it were to a second husband that they should bring forth fruite the fruites of the Spirit vnto God And thus seing neither the drift of the similytude nor the iudgment of the Fathers nor the playnnesse of the wordes so oftentymes repeated doe disprove our answer and exposition of the place our answer proved by Scripture standeth firme and sure and therefore the third place vrged by our adversaries is sutable to the former So is the fourth last taken out of the first to the Corithians the seaventh Chaptera To them who are Married it is not I that give commandement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee depart too let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husband Wherein as Bellarmin reasoneth the words of S. Paul If shee depart and so forth are meant of a woman which parteth from her husband vpon a cause of iust divocement as namely for whordom haeresie and the rest whatsoever they be not of her which parteth without any such cause But concerning her of whom the words are meant S. Paul sayth most playnely shee may not marrie another Therefore even a cause of iust divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage neither is it lawfull for married folckes to marry others although they beesevered and put asunder by iust divorcemēt And of this argument Bellarmin doth say that it is altogether insoluble In saying whereof hee seemeth to confesse that none of the former arguments were so but might bee answered and confuted His confession touching them hath reason with it I must needs approve it But his vaunt of this is like that of Ben hadads that the dust of Samaria would not bee enough to all the people that followed him for every man an handfull To whom the King of Israel sayde Let not him that girdeth his harnies boast himself as hee that putteth it off Bellarmin hath skarcly girt his harneis yet that which hee hath girt is vnservisable bad harneis too For the formost parte thereof his proposition a vouching that the words If shee depart and so forth are meant of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divocement as namely for whordom heresie and such like is faulty sundry wayes seing they are neither meant of her onely which parteth for a iust cause and though they bee also meant of her which parteth for any other iust cause yet not of her which for whoredom Moreover the conclusion knitting vpp his argument with Therefore even a iust cause of divorcement looseth not the band of Marriage is guilfully sett downe being vttered in the forme of a particular and true so taking divorcement as hee doth but intended to carry the force of a generall so by fraude and faulshood to beare away the poynt in questiō Of both the which to treat in ordre his proposition hee presumeth of as most certayne because in his iudgment Paule would not have sayde of her who departed without some such cause Let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husband but hee would have sayde Let her remayne vnmarried till shee bee reconciled vnto her husband let her come agayne vnto her husband in any case And why doth Bellarmin thynke so His reasons follow For Paul could not permitt an vniust divorcemnt agaynst the expresse commandement of the Lord. And if in the same Chapter Paul permitteth not the man and wife to refrayne from carnall company for prayers fake and for a tyme except it bee with consent How should bee permitt the wife to remayne seperated from her husband agaynst his will without any cause of iust divorcement In deede if it had lyen in S. Pauls power to stay refraine the wife from remayning so no doubt hee neither would nor might have permitted it which himself sufficiently shewed in forbidding her to depart at all much more to continue parted from her husband But if notwithstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave her husband vpon some lighter cause or perhaps weightyer though not weighty enough for a iust divorcement then Paul in duty ought and might I hope with reason requier and exhorte her to remayne vnmarried and not to ioyne her selfe in wedlocke with another a thing that Greekes and Romayns whose of-spring the Corinthians were vsed to doe as to make it playner by the like examples S. Paul neither

Iesuits dealing how falsly and absurdly he speaketh against truth reasō For sith in Christs speach touching Divorcement for whoredome the proposition is affirmative Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrie another doth commit adulterie it foloweth that the exception which denieth him to commit adulterie who putting away his wife for whoredome marrieth another is an exception negative But Bellarmin sayth that this were an exception affirmative Yea which is more straunge in a man learned knowing rules of logique But what can artes helpe when men are given over by Gods iust iudgment to their owne lusts and errors he ētiteleth it an exceptiō affirmative even then and in the same place when where himselfe having set it downe in the words going immediarly next before had given it the marke ōf a negative thus It is not adulterie to marrie another And as no absurditie doth lightly come alone he addeth fault to fault saying that this is an exceptiō negative When no thing is presently determined touching the cause whether it be sufficient to excuse adulterie or no. So first to denie with him was to affirme and next to say nothing now is to deny Yet there is a rule in Law that he who saith nothing denieth not Belike as they coyned vs new Divinity at Rome so they will new Lawe and new Lodgique too Howbeit if these principles bee allowed therein by the Iesuits authoritie that negative is affirmative to say nought is negative I see not but al heretickes vngodly persons may as well as Iesuits mainteyne what they list impudently face it out with like distinctions For if an adversarie of the H. Ghost should be controuled by that we reade to the Corinthiās The things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God His answer after Bellarmins patterne were readie that this proveth not the spirit of God to know those things because it might be a negative exception importing that S. Paul woulde determine nothing presently thereof If one who dispaired of the mercie of God through conscience of his sines trespasses should be put in minde of Christs speach to sinners Yee shall all perish except yee repent He might replie thereto that the exceptiō is negative and this though not in the former poynt yet here were true but to make it serve his humour he must expounde it with Bellarmin that Christ doth not determin what shall become of the repentant If a vsurer should be tolde that he is forbidden to Give forth vpon Vsurie or to take encrease a theefe that he is commanded To labour woorke so to eate his owne breade they might if they had learned to imitate Bellarmin defend their trades both the one by affirming that to forbidd a thing is to say nothing of it the other that to commande be tokeneth to forbid In a worde whatsoever opinion were reproved as false or action as wicked out of the scriptures denouncing death eternall and paynes of hell thereto the seduced and disobedient might shift the scriptures of by glosing thus vpon them that false is true and wicked holy life ment by death and heaven by hell Or if the papists them-selves would condemne this kinde of distinguishing and expounding places as senselesse and shamelesse then let them give the same sentence of Bellarmins that negative is afirmative and to say nothing is to denie Whi●h whether they doe or no I will with the cōsent liking I do●bt not of all indifferent iudges and Godly minded men who love the truth and not contention conclude that these lying gloses of the Iesuits doe not become a Christian. And seeing it is proved that an exception negative is not a pr●terition or passing over a thing in silence which if Christ had ment hee could have done with fitt words as wise men are wont but a flat denying of that in on case which the proposition affirmeth in all others it remayneth that Christ having excepted out of his generall speech them who for whore dome put away their wives denieth that in them which in all others he affirmeth and thereby teacheth vs that the man who putting away his wife for that cause marrieth another doth not commit adulterie The next trick of Sophistrie whereto as to a shelter our adversaries betake them is that the exception ought to be restreined to the former branche of putting away the wife onely To the which intent they say that there are some words wanting in the text which must be supplied and perfected thus Whosoever shall put away his wife which is not lawfull except it be for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie This devise doth Bellarmin allowe of as probable though not like the foresayd two of negation and negative exception But our English Pamphletter preferreth it before all And surely if it were lawfull to foist in these words which is not lawfull the Pamphletter might seeme to have shewed greater skill herein then Bellarmin But men of vnderstanding and iudgmēt doe knowe that this were a ready way to make the scripture a nose of waxe and leaden rule as Pighuis doth blasphemously tearme it if every one may adde not what the circūstances matter of the text sheweth to bee wanting but what himself listeth to frame such sense thereof as pleaseth his conceit and fansie The sundrie interlasings of words by sundry authors into this very place and the wrestings of it thereby to sundry senses may to go noe further sufficiently discover the fault and incōvenience of that kinde of dealing For the Bishop of Auila supplieth it in this manner who so putteth away his wife except it bee for whordome though he marrie not another committeth adulterie and whoso putteth her away in whatsoever sorte if he marrie another doth commit adulterie Freier Alphōsus checketh and controlleth this interpretation partly as too violent for thrusting in so many words partly as vntrue for the former braunch of it sith hee who putteth away his wife not for whoredome although he cause her to commit adulterie yet doth not himselfe commit it vnlesse hee marrie another Wherevpon the Frier would have it thus supplied rather Whose putteth away his wife not for other cause but for whoredome and marrieth another doth commit adulterie But this though it have not soe many words added as the Bishop of Auilas yet in truth it is more violently forced against the naturall meaning and drift of the text For by adding these words Not for other cause his purpose is to say that whoso putteth away his wife for noe cause but for whoredome yet committeth adulterie if he marrie another much more if hēe marrie having put away his wise for any other cause And so is Christs speech made in effect cleane contrarie to that which his owne words doe geve hee saying Whosoever shall put away his wife except it bee for whoredome and the frier forcing him to saie Whosoever shall put

might neither would have allowed a man to bee rashly angry with his brother for Christ forbiddeth it But if one were suddenly surprised with rashe anger S. Paul would advise him not to let the sunne goe downe vpon his angry wrath neither might hee therevpon bee iustly charged with permitting wrath vntill the sunne sett agaynst Christs commandement No more might hee with graunting liberty to lust because he willeth men not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh whereas Christ commandeth them not to lust at all For S. Paul also condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sinne But seing that the flesh will lust agaynst the Spirit as long as wee are in this mortality he sturreth vp the faythfull that they let not sinne raigne in their mortall bodyes nor doe fulfill the lust of the flesh In the same sort therefore hee giveth charge with Christ that the wife departe not from her husbād Yet in consideratiō of humaine infirmity he addeth But if shee departe too let her bee vnmarried And to meete with a doubt which herevpon might rise sith in the next words before hee had affirmed that they who haue not the gift of continence should marry and what if shee have it not hee adioyneth farther or let her be reconciled vnto her husband So that although the words may seeme to bee vttered in the same sorte as if they did imply and import a permission yet are they not permissive but imperative in truth and an expresse precept that the wife having forsaken her husband therein done evill forbeare to marry another for that were farre worse yea though shee can not containe in respect where of or of any thing els if shee mislike to live vnmarried shee may not vse the libertye that single folke may who rather ought to marrie then burne but shee must reconcile her self vnto her husband whose wife shee is by duty still And I may say likewise doubtles vnto Bellarmin that hee and his pamphletter should not have mayntained their error in writing but sith they have done it let thē write no more in defence of it or let them acknowledg that in this poynt they were deceived For whereas they gather of the disjunctive particle Let hor remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled that S. Paul hath put it in the womans choyse left her at liberty either to live seperated still from her husband or to be reconciled vnto him they might as well ground vpon Christs words to the angell of the church of the Laodiceans I would thou werest colde or hot that hee hath put it in our choise and left vs at libertie either to bee colde in faith and love as flesh is or to bee fervent in the spirit Yet Christ had no such meaning For he commaundeth vs to bee servent and that verie angell hee saith to everie faith full men Be hot Zealous But because the partie was luke warme a wordling who had receyved the seede of the word but bare not fruite who knew his maisters will but did it not there by sinned most grievously Christ wisheth that he were colde and sinned lesse sith hee did sinne or that hee were hot and free from both these faults the later wishe made simply the former in comparison After the which manner seing Paul might well did by all likelyhood of circumstāces of the text wishe simply and chiefly that the wife estranged were reconciled to her husband next that shee continued rather parted from him then married to another as a lesse evill in comparison the vttering of his sentēce with a disjunctive particle Let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled doth not prove hee put it in the womans choyse and left her at liberty to doe whether shee listed And thus it appeareth how certaine and vndoubted that principle is which vpon this proofe Bellarmin avoucheth to bee most certaine vndoubted that S. Pauls words touching the wife If shee depart are ment of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divorcement Howbeit if they had bene meant of her onely yet must they have touched such wives as leave their husbands for any other just cause not for whoredom An other and greater oversight of Bellarmin that in exemplising the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should bee restrayned hee nameth whoredom first as prncipally comprised in S. Pauls precept whereas S. Paule meant that it and it alone should bee excluded and excepted For these are his words To them who are married it is not I that geve commandement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if shee departe too let her remaine vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husband and let not the husband put away his wife Where in the last braunch Let not the husband put away his wife must needes bee vnderstood except it bee for whoredom because S. Paule saith it is the Lords commandement and the Lord gave it with that expresse exception This Bellarmyn doth graunt Well Then as the last braunche so the first too Let not the wife depart from her husband For the analogie is all one and yeche having interest in the others bodie shee may as lawfully depart from an adulterer as hee from an adulteresse And this doth Bellarmin graunt also But the middle braunche is to be vnderstood of the same departing and likewise qualified as the first Therefore If shee depart too is meant except it be for whoredome Nay not so quoth Bellarmin for the same departing is not meant in both but a farre different in the first an uniust departing in the next a just and this must be the sense of the Apostles wordes Not I but the Lord geve commandement let not the wife depart from her husbād to weet without a just cause but if shee goe away to weet having a just cause let her remaine vnmarried so forth In the refutation of which wrong violence done vnto the sacred text what should I stand whē the onely reason whereby out of scripture hee assayeth to prove it is the disiunctive particle which as I have shewed alreadie hath no ioynt or sinew of proofe to that effect And the onely father whose testimony hee citeth for it doth ground it on that disiunctive particle of Scripture So that his reason being overthrow●n his ●reditt and authoritie by his owne approved rule may beare no sway And on the contrarie parte many other fathers doe expound the second braunche as having referēce to the same departing that is forbidden in the first And which is the chief point the naturall drift and meaning of S. Paules words doth enforce the same For the tearmes But if too importe that doing also of that which in the sentence before he had affirmed ought not to be done As the like examples in the same discourse to