The case of divorce and re-marriage thereupon discussed by a reverend prelate of the Church of England and a private of the Church of England and a private gentleman ; occasioned by the late act of Parliament for the divorce of the Lord Rosse.
About this Item
Title
The case of divorce and re-marriage thereupon discussed by a reverend prelate of the Church of England and a private of the Church of England and a private gentleman ; occasioned by the late act of Parliament for the divorce of the Lord Rosse.
Author
Wolseley, Charles, Sir, 1630?-1714.
Publication
London :: Printed for Nevill Simmons ...,
1673.
Rights/Permissions
To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms
Divorce -- Great Britain -- Biblical teaching.
Remarriage -- Religious aspects -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A66870.0001.001
Cite this Item
"The case of divorce and re-marriage thereupon discussed by a reverend prelate of the Church of England and a private of the Church of England and a private gentleman ; occasioned by the late act of Parliament for the divorce of the Lord Rosse." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A66870.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 3, 2024.
Pages
descriptionPage 78
Animadversion.
UNchastity to be punished
wth death, if proved by
two witnesses, if but one
Divorce, if only strong
suspicion the water of Jea∣lousie.
Answer.
The first is evident, that
unchastity when punished
with death was to be proved
by two witnesses, not by rea∣son
of any particular dire∣ction
about the proof in
That case, but because God
established That as a general
descriptionPage 79
rule for all Judicial pro∣ceedings,
that by the testi∣mony
of two or three wit∣nesses
every sentence should
be established, Deut. 19. 15.
One witness shall not rise up
against any man for any
iniquity, at the mouth of
two witnesses or three shall
the matter be established.
The second, that if un∣chastity
were proved but by
one witness, it was Then
matter of Divorce, I crave
leave to dissent from; Un∣chastity,
if proved, could
never be ground for Di∣vorce,
for death was to en∣sue,
so that if one witness
in case of unchastity were
sufficient proof, it produced
descriptionPage 80
death, if it were not, it
amounted to no more than
suspicion; Nor do I find
any direction for any proof
at all to be made as Neces∣sary
in case of Divorce, nor
in any case, where proof
was Judicially required was
one witness sufficient, Nei∣ther
by the first allowance
of Divorce, Deut. 24. Nor
in the subsequent practice
of it amongst the Jews was
there any proof required in
case of Divorce, nor any
Judgement to be passed by
the Magistrate about it, far∣ther
than that there should
be libellum repudii given to
the Woman; It seems to
me that the judgement in
descriptionPage 81
case of Divorce rested in
every mans own breast,
though every man was in
his own private conscience
obliged by rules in his act∣ings
therein, and sinned if
he transgressed them; For
as one saith, God would by
that expression in Deut. quae
probrum, aut ut 72 Interpr.
verterunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nificat,
admonere Hebraeos ne
temerè uxores dimitterent,
and sayes the same Author,
Notum est quosvis Judices
quorum summae & liberrimae
potestati res aliqua permit∣titur,
insontes non esse, si ab¦aequi
bonique regula disce∣dant,
jus ergo fuit, ut qua∣vis
de causa uxorem mari∣tus
descriptionPage 82
possit expellere, sed ea
notione qua Praetor jus red∣dere
dicitur, etiam cum in∣justè
discernit, ut Paulus
Jurisconsultus loquitur, qui
& alibi dixit, non omne
quod licet honestum esse,
licere enim in Communi usu
aliquid dicitur, quod extra
poenam est, & quominus
fiat a nemine impediri potest;
The words of the Text cast
it that way (And it come
to pass, that she find no fa∣vour
in his eyes) of which
himself could only be the
proper Judge; In the 19th.
of Matthew, where the Pha∣risees
urged upon our Savi∣our,
that Moses required no
more in the matter of Di∣vorce,
descriptionPage 83
but to give a writing
of Divorcement, our Savi∣our
does not deny it, but
seems to admit it, only
tells them, Moses did it for
the hardness of their hearts,
but from the beginning it
was not so; The antient
form of their Divorces im∣ports
thus much. (Mea sponte
nullius coactu te uxo∣rem
hactenus meam dimit∣tere,
à me deserere ac repu∣diari
decrevi, Jamque adeo
te dimitto desero ac repudio
atque à me ejicio, ut tuae sis
potestatis, tuoque arbitratu
ac lubitu, quò licet discedas,
neque id quisquam ••llo tem∣pore
prohibessit, atque itae
dimissa esto, ut cuivis viro
descriptionPage 84
nubere tibi liceat.
Crotius Seems upon good
grounds to be positive in this
case, his words are, Errare
autem eos, qui putant Ju∣daeis
non licuisse uxorem di∣mittere,
nisi causa apud Ju∣dicem
probata, satis ex hoc
loco apparet, Dictum enim
esse, ait Christus, qui uxo∣rem
dimissam vult, libel∣lum
det repudii; Dubitatio∣nem
omnem nobis Josephus
eximit, qui de se agens ita ait,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Verum tamen est
hunc actum, non minus
quam haereditatis Cessionem,
atque alios solenniores solitos
coram Judicibus peragi, quod
descriptionPage 85
nos Digesta Talmudica do∣cent,
sed erat hoc jurisdicti∣onis
voluntariae non conten∣tiosae,
quomodo manumissio
apud Praetorem Jure Ro∣mano;
Cognitionem igitur
suam judex non interpone∣bat,
nisi de dote aut donatione
propter nuptias controversia
inciderat, planè ut & apud
Romanos.
And he adds after, Caete∣rum
ut graviora mala evi∣tarentur,
& veritatem &
gravitatem causae noluit ad
alienum arbitrium referri,
sed ipsius mariti animo id
aestimandum permisit; Quod
mirum non est, cum vete∣rum
Gallorum, aliarumque
Gentium leges jus vitae &
descriptionPage 86
necis in Vxores Maritis con∣cesserint.
For the third, If strong
suspicion, the water of Jea∣lousie,
I assent to it, he that
doubted his Wives chasti∣ty,
and in case he could be
assured of her chastity, re∣solved
not to part with her,
and if she were found un∣chaste,
desired the executi∣on
of the Law upon her,
obtained his end by the Wa∣ter
of Jealousie; But I much
question whether That, be∣ing
of an extraordinary na∣ture,
were enjoyed by the
Jews till our Saviours time:
I rather suppose they never
had the benefit of it after
the Captivity, but that the
descriptionPage 87
use of it ceased, as it did of
the Vrim and Thummim,
That Church being to de∣termine,
God removed the
Pillars of it by degrees; I
believe in our Saviours time
in fact things stood Thus;
The Law against Adultery
was not executed, nor in∣deed
was it in their power
to have it executed, for the
Romans had reserved mat∣ters
of life to their own Ju∣dicatories,
(though some∣times
the people would vi∣olently
stone some persons
as they did Stephen) and upon
that account amongst others
they thought to insnare our
Saviour in the 8th. of John,
when they brought to him
descriptionPage 88
the woman taken in Adul∣tery;
The water of Jealou∣sie,
they had not the use of,
and so nothing was done
in these cases, but only they
made use of the liberty Mo∣ses
allowed for Divorces.
email
Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem?
Please contact us.