Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
kingdom_n king_n law_n time_n 8,716 5 3.7871 3 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A34605 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 C6351; ESTC R39397 6,457 6

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

and those of the Church of Rome whose Credit is only saved by those of our Church who agree with them Upon the difference of Explication between St. Ambrose Origen and St. Austin a new kind of Divorce has been thought of from Bed and Board but this Divorce or Name of a Divorce was unknown to the Iews and Ancient Christians I said so much before at the First and Second reading of this Bill that I was in good hopes to have had no further occasion given me of answering any Objections against it now but seeing divers new Arguments have been studied and framed against it since that time I shall now endeavour to satisfie and clear them all 1. The First Argument against it is That the Separation from Bed and Board doth not dissolve the Bond of Marriage To which I must Reply as I did before That this is a distinction without a difference newly invented by the Canonists and Schoolmen and never heard of either in the Old or New Test●ment nor in the times of the Antient Fathers who accounted the Separation from Bed and Board to be the Dissolution of the Bond it self 2. That first Institution of Marriage that they may be one Flesh is by Adultery dissolved when the Adultress makes her selfe one Flesh with another Man and thereby dissolves the first Bond of her Marriage 3. The Objection that if the Bond be dissolved and afterwards if the Man or Woman be reconciled they must be Married over again is no necessary Consequence no more than 't is in a Person baptized who may break his Covenant and renounce his Baptism and yet upon true Repentance be received into God's Favour by virtue of the first Covenant without any new Baptism Suppose a Witch who they say makes a Compact with the Devil to renounce her Baptism should afterwards by the Grace of God seriously and truly Repent her self of the Wickedness I do not believe that any body would take upon him to Baptize her again and if a Priest should renounce his Orders and turn Turk and yet afterwards repent him and return into the Church he need not be Re-ordained a second time The Case will be the same in Marriage 4. I said heretofore That the Roman Doctors allowed this Dissolution of the Bond when the Man and Wife even after the Consummation of Marriage would transfer themselves into a Friary or a Nunnery but because it hath been since doubted that no Authority can be shewed for this particular I shall here shew it out of the old Constitutions of the Church of England And in the Case of Religion Prov. Will. Lindewode five Const. Ang. fol. 94. Ver. nul latenus Separentur that is the true understanding that to wit either of them betaking themselves to Religion before Carnal Knowledge the Bond of the Marriage be dissolved but if both enter into Religion and make solemn Profession then such Marriage is dissolved even as to the Bond. 5 It hath also been said that if the Bill pass it will pass against the Church of England which I confess I do not understand For the Church of England is within the Kingdom of England and if the Laws of this Kingdom be for the Bill and have declared it by the Assent of the King Lords and Commons as in the Case of the Marquis of Northampton was heretofore declared in the time of King Edward the 6th That by the Laws of God the Innocent Party was at liberty to Marry again Certainly the Spiritual Lords as well as the Temporal and Commons are bound to admit it and I know not why they should be called the Church England that joyn with the Council of Trent and plead so much to uphold it rather than others that joyn with all the Reformed Churches and plead against that Canon of the Church of Rome which hath laid an Anaethema upon us if we do not agree with them As to the supposed Inconveniences that will follow upon Marrying again 1. More Inconveniences will follow if they be forbidden to Marry again 2. The Father would be in an uncertainty of the Children if he should retain the Adulteress 3. There would be danger of poysoning or killing one another if no Second Marriage were allowed 4. Where the Parties should consent to new Marriages for their own Lusts the Magistrates have Power to over-rule such Practices 5. If they be kept altogether by Divorce from Marrying it would occasion the Innocent Party to Sin FINIS