Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	child_n	husband_n	parent_n	3,987	5	7.8229	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45158	Cases of conscience practically resolved containing a decision of the principall cases of conscience of daily concernment and continual use amongst men : very necessary for their information and direction in these evil times / by Jos. Hall.	Hall, Joseph, 1574-1656.	1654 (1654)	Wing H371; ESTC R30721	128,918	464

formerly insisted on For though his words on the mount were in a way of doctrinall assertion yet afterwards the same words were used by him in way of a satisfactory answer to the Pharises question concerning causes of divorce professedly resolving that there could be no allowable ground of such separation except fornication What words can be more plain It is but a shift to say as the Cardinall doth that our Saviour here meant only to expresse the proper cause of the separation of married persons which is the breach of marriage faith as having no occasion to speak of those generall grounds which reach to the just sundring of all humane societies such as Heresie and Infidelitie which are enough to unglew all naturall and civill relations betwixt father and son master and servant husband and wife For it is clear that neither question nor answer were bounded with any particularities The Pharisee asks Whether for every cause Our Saviour answers For no cause but fornication And it is spoken beside the book that child or servant should or may forsake parent or master in case of heresie or infidelity S. Paul teacheth other Doctrine Let as many servants as are under the yoke of bondage count their infidell masters worthy of all honor 1 Tim. 6. 5. not worthy therefore of desertion and disclamation And if the servants may not shake off the bonds of duty much lesse may the son brake or file off the bonds of nature and as for the matrimoniall knot how too sure it is to be loosed by infidelity it self let the Apostle speak If any brother hath a wife that beleeveth not and she be pleased to dwell with him let him not put her away 1 Cor. 7. 12. And the woman which hath an husband that beleeveth not and if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him ver 13. And if even Infidelity have not power to dis-oblige the wife or husband much less Heresie In this pretended case therefore to separate from board and bed is no better then a presumptuous insolence It is the peremptory charge of Christ What God hath joyned together let not man put asunder Mat. 19. 6. In all lawfull marriages it is God that joyns the hands and hearts of the Married How dare man then undoe the work of God upon devises of his own Had the Lord ever said If thy wife be a wilfull mis-beleever rid thy hands of her this separation were just but now that his charge is clean contrary what an impious sauciness is it to dis-joyn those whom God hath united As therefore it is not in the power of any third person upon any whatsoever pretence violently to break the sacred bond of Marriage so neither may the husband or wife enthral each other by a wilfull desertion whether upon pretext of religion or any secular occasion In which cause what is to be don must come under a further disquisition Certainly it was never the intention of the holy and wise God by vertue of that which was ordained for mans comfort and remedy of sin to binde him to a remedilesse misery which must necessarily fall out if upon the departure of an unbeleeving or hereticall yoke-fellow the relict party must be tyed up to a perpetuall necessity of either containing if he can or if he can not of burning The wise Doctor of the Gentiles well fore-saw the dangerous inconvenience that must needs hereupon ensue and hath given order for prevention accordingly But if the unbeleeving depart let him depart A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases but God hath called us to peace 1 Cor. 7. 15. Not that it is free for a man or woman so forsaken to carve him or her self of redresse what an infinite confusion would follow upon such licentiousness but that after long and patient expectation and all probable means used for the reduction of the party deserting recourse be had as to the last refuge to publique ecclesiastical authority which is the fittest to manage these matrimoniall affairs in whose power it may be either by grave admonitions and just censures to bring back the offendor to his duty or upon his continuing contempt to set a day for the publication of the just freedom of the forsaken wherein they shall doe no other then execute that Apostolike sentence for exemption from an unjust bondage and providing for a just peace CASE III. Whether after a lawfull Divorce for Adultery the innocent party may marry again ALthough Matrimony be not according to the Romish tenet one of those Sacraments which imprint an indeleble Character in the receiver yet it hath as they hold such a secret influence upon the soul as that it leaves a perpetuall bond behind it never to be dissolved till death So as those offenders which by just censure are separated from the board and the bed cannot yet be freed from the bond of marriage upon this ground it is that they bar the innocent party from the benefit of a second marriage as supposing the obligation of the former still in force In the ordinary Bills of the Jewish divorce the repudiated wife had full-scope given her of a second choice as the words ran She was to be free and to have power over her own soul to goe away to be married to any man whom she would They were not more liberall then our Romish divorcers are niggardly The Jewish divorce being upon unwarrantable cause made their liberality so much more sinfull as their divorce was more unjust for the divorced woman was still in right the lawfull wife of that unrighteous husband that dismissed her the Romish doctrine makes their strait-handednesse so much more injurious as the cause of separation is more just Even this question also is expresly determined by our Saviour in his answer to the Pharisee Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and marrieth another committeth adultery Mat. 19. Lo then he that for so just a cause as fornication putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth not adultery the exception manifestly implies so much both in reason and common use neither indeed are the words capable of any other probable sense That which Bellarmine would fasten upon it referring the exception to the former clause of dismission only so as it might be lawfull to divorce only for fornication but not to marry after divorce cannot stand without a supply of words of his own which God never alow'd him to intersert and besides utterly destroies the sense casting such a doctrine upon our Saviour as he would hate to own for except that restraint be refered to the marrying again the sense would run thus whosoever puts away his wife commits adultery which stands not with truth or reason sith it is not the dismission that is adulterous but the marryage of another It is therefore the plain drift of our Saviour to teach the Pharisee that the marriage of a second wife