Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A46350
|
[The] Judgment of the reformed churches that a man may lawfully not only put away his vvife for her adultery, but also marry another.
|
|
1652
(1652)
|
Wing J1184; ESTC R217458
|
96,238
|
80
|
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 divorcement â— 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 loaseth 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 â—orce of a generall so by fraude and faulshood to beare away the poynt in question Of both the which to treat in ordre his proposition he presumeth of as most certayne because in his iudgment Paule would not have sayde of her who departed without some such cause Let her ramayne vnmarried or bee reconciled vnto her husbaÌ„d 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 divorcement 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 sake and for a tyme except it bee with consent How should hee permitt the wife to remayne seperated from her husband agaynst his will without any case of iust divorcement In deede if it had â—yen in S. Pauls power to stay refraine the wife from remayning soo no doubt hee nâ—ither would not might have permitted which himself sufficiently shewed in forbidding her to depart at all much more to coÌ„tinue parted from her husband But d if not withstanding this charge and prohibition she did leave hâ—r husband vpon some lighter cause or perhaps weightyer though weighty enough for a iust divorcemeÌ„t theÌ„Paul in duty ought and might I hope with reason requier and exhorte her to remayne vnmarried and not to ioyne her self in wedlok with another a thing that e Greekes and f Romayns whose of-spring the g CorinthiaÌ„s were vsed to doe As to make it playne by the like examples S. Pau neither might neither wold have allowed a maÌ„ to be rashly angry with his brother for h Christ forbiddeth it But if one were suddenly surprised with rashe anger S. Paul wold advise him i not to let the sunne goe downe vpon his angry wrath neithe 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 k willeth men not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh whereas l Christ coÌ„mandeth theÌ„ not to lust at alâ— For S. Paul m condemneth all lusting of the flesh as sinne But seing that the flesh will lust agaynst the Spirit as loÌ„g as wee are in this mortality he stirreth vp the faythfull that they o 〈◊〉 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 froÌ„ her husband Yet in considration 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 he had affirmed that they who have not the gift of coutinence should marry and what if she have it not hee adioyneth farther p or let her be reconciled vnto her husband So that although the words may seeme to be 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 and there in downe evill forbeare to marry another for that were farre worse yea though shee can not contain in respect whereof or of any thinge else if shee mislike to livâ—â— vnmaried shee may not use the liberty that single folke may who reather ought to marrie then burne but shee â— must reconcile her self vnto her husband whose wife shee is by duty still And I may say likewise doubtles vnto Bellarmin that he his pamphletter should not have mayntâ—yned their error in writting but sith they have done it let theÌ„ write no more in defence of it or let them aâ—knowledg that in this poynt they were deceived For whereas q they gather of the disjuctive particle Let her remayne vnmarried or bee reconciled that S. Paul hath put it in the womans choyse lâ—ft her at libâ—aty either to live seperated still from her husband or to be reconcilâ—d vnto him they might as well ground vpoÌ„Christs words to the angell of the church of the Laâ—diaÌ„s I would thou werest cold or â—hat that hee hath put it in our choise left vs at libertie either to bee colde in faith and love as flesh is or to bee fervent in the spirit 4 Yet Christ had no such meaning For he commaundeth vs to bee ferveÌ„t in that verie angell he saith to everi faithfull maÌ„ Be hot ZealoÌ„s But because the partye was luke warme a wordling who had recyved the 〈◊〉 of the word but bare not fruite who t knew his maisters will but did it not and there by sinned most grievously Christ wisheth that hee 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 and did by all likelyhood of circumstances of the text wiâ—hee simply and cheifly 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 sâ—ntence 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 wether shee listed And thus it appeareth how certaine and vndoubted that principle is which vpon this proofe Bellarmin avoucheth to bee most certaine and vndoubted that S. Pauls words touching the wise If shee depart are ment of her onely which parteth from her husband vpon a iust cause of divorcement How be it if they had bene meant of her onely yet must they have touched suâ—h wives as leave their husbands for any other just cause and not for whoredom An other and greater oversight of Bellarmin that in exemplifing the causes of divorcement to which in his opinion the words should be restrayned hee nameth whoredom first as principally comprised in S. Pauls precept where as S. Paul meant that it and it alone should be excluded and
Hath repated inculcated these things so often as Bellarmin so often telleth us when the thinge is mentioned in the former of them by way of a similitude wherein it hath been founde beside the purpose to speake of any exceptioÌ„ and for the later S. Paul hath omitted the same exception c twise where the Scripture sheweth plainely and Bell. coÌ„fesseth it should have beene added or tospeake more properly where al though it needed not to be added yet must it needs bee understoode Now to that Bellarmin doth next alledg the Fathers g Ambrose Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius Primasius Anselmus and others over and besides h Austin i Origen and k Ierom all as bearing witnesse that wee expound the places falsly I could reply that some of these whatsoever they witnesse have small credit with Bellarmin as Ambrose specially some namely Chrysostome Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius and Primasius doe not witnesse that no more then Paul himself doth Nay they all save one are coÌ„trary minded rather as shall appeare in l due place But that which I have sayde already touching Austin may serve for answer to the rest chiefly sith the Papists in whose behalf they are aleaged will rather yeald that all the Fathers might erre then any of their Popes m who yet must have erred in more then one Canon if this were true which Bell fathereth on the Fathers Finally concerning that for the vpshoote hee vrgeth Pauls similytude as if it he drift of it did absoiutely require that the man and wife can not bee made free from the band of Marriage by any seperatioÌ„ but by death onely because while the law had life as it were and stoode in force till Christe the Iewes could never shake off the Yoke thereof from theÌ„ although they endevored to seperate them-selves from it by committing whoredoÌ„ with sundry lawes of salfe Gods the rest of S. Pauls similytudes which I meÌ„cioned doe bewary the lamenesse and halting of this inference seing that the drift of them requireth absolutely by the same reason that no man went to warfare at his owne cost or planted Vynes or fedd sheepe without relief thereby because o all they p Who preach the Gospel are allowed to live of the Gospel And likewise that no man did ever hurt his owne body because q Every husbaÌ„d ought to love his owne wife r as Christ loved the Church and likewise that no souldier hath ever entangled him-self with the affayres of life because Timothee should bee stil about those actions s whereto the Lord t who choose him to be a souldier did call him Nay to goe no farther then the drift it self or the similytude 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 vnbele ever doe for sake the Christian neither if the husband 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 in to greater inconvenieence yet to weet that every woman whose husband is dead ought to marry another because the Iewes were bound to become ChristiaÌ„s after the death of the Lawe or of the other side that the Iewes are not bound vnder payne of damnatioÌ„ 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 be vnto Christ wheÌ„ they were dead to the Lawe or that the men of Rome to whom S. Paul wrote should rather not beleeve in Christ because x he wished widowes rather not to marry Of the wich consequences if some bee esteemed erroneous by Papists some not esteemed onely but are so in deede the most have impious folly ioyned with vnttuth Let Bellarmin acknowledg that similitndes must not be 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 fitt that where to they are resembled It sufficeth if in a generall analogy and proportion of the principall poynt wherein things matched and compared together they bee eche like to other and both agree in one qualitie Which here is observed in S. Pauls comparison of the state of Marriage with the state of man before and after regeneration because y as a wife her husband and 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 prouoked 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 iudgement of the Fathers nor the playnesse of the wordes so oftentymes repeated doe disprove our answer and exposition of the place our answer proved by Scripture standeth firme and sure therefore the third place by our adversaries is sutable to the former So is the fourth last taken out of the first to the Corinthians the seaventh Chapter a To them who are Married it is not I that givs commaudement but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband but if she depart too let her remayne vnmarried or bee recconciled vnto her husband Who rein as Bellarmin reasoneth the words of S. Paul If she depart so forth are meant of a woman which parteth from her husband vpon a cause of iust divorcement as namely for whoredom haeresie and the rest whatsoever they bee not of her which parteth without any such cause But concerning her of whom the word are meant S. Paul sayth most playne ly 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 al though they be severed put a sunder by iust divorcement And of this argument Bellarmin doth say that it is altogether insolnble In saying whereof he seemeth to confesse that none of the former arguments were so but might bee answered and confuted His confessioÌ„ touching them hath reason with it I must needs approve it But his vaunt of this is like that of b â—enhadads 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 harmes boast him self as bee that putteth it off Bellamin hath skarâ—ly girt his harneis yet that which hee hath girt is vnservisable â—ad harneis too For the formost parte there of his