A Case of Conscience propounded to a great Bishop in Ireland, Vizt. Whether after Divorce, the innocent Party may not lawfully Marry. With the Bishop's Answer to the QUESTION: AND A Reply to the Bishop's Answer. And also some Queries, Whether the Silencing of Godly Ministers be not near of kin to the kill of the two Prophets, Revelation the 11. chap:  
By George Pressicke of Dublin.  
He that justifieth the Wicked, and he that condemneth the Just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord.  Proverbs 17.15. 
Printed for the Author in March, 1661.   

To the Reader.  
Christian friends,  
YOu may understand by what follows that I propounded a Case of Conscience to a great Bishop in Ireland, by way of petition; but had a very slight Answer: whereupon I went to my Chamber, and writ to h●m a large Letter, wherein I did hint to h●m that I had not written and printed three Books against Anabaptists and Quakers to be put off with such an Answer as he had given me; and 〈◊〉 urge him from that Text 1 Peter 3.15. that I did conceive he was bound in conscience and duty to God, to answer to the Question, which I desired might be in writing: which after he had read, he gave order I should come to his house and he would answer it; which I d●d, and drew up the substance of my Petition and Letter into certain Questions and Arguments; which hereafter followeth, together wi●h hi● Answer, and my Reply to h●s Answer. And seeing I could have no further satisfaction, I thought good to put all in Print to public view, that he understanding Reader may consider and judge, That if I should take another Wife (as I do intend for any thing I yet know to h●nder me) whether there be not sufficient ground of Scripture for me so to do, besides the example and practice of o●her Churches, Reasons and Arguments showed to prove the lawfulness thereof. And if one or more be otherwise minded, I may say as Peter and john said in another case, Acts 4.19. Whether it is right in the light of God, to hearken unto you, more than unto God, judge ye▪ so I say, whether should I be concluded by one or some few men's opinions, contrary to the Word of God and the practise of Protestant Churches, and so be liable to continual temptations all my life long, or take that liberty which the Word of God and former Protestant Churche● hath allowed, that I may escape Satan's snares, and have a remedy against my own Corruption, judge ye. Thus I leave ●ll to your charitable constructions, and am according to that measure I have received,  
A lover of the Truth George Pressicke.   

A Case of Conscience propounded etc. vizt. whether a Man whose wife hath forsaken him seven years and five months without any just cause, and will not be reconciled; and he having satisfied the Law so far that by his Majesty's Reference to two Bishops in London) he hath a Divorce under the Bishop's hands, whether he may not lawfully Marry.  

Mr. Pressicke to the Bishop.  
Right reverend Father in God,  
I Have according to my weak ability drawn up the chief Heads of my petition and Letter into a more orderly Form than before, that your Lordship may with less trouble con●●der of it, and God Almighty direct you therein.  
And first, If the Law of God say, 1 Cor. 7.15. If the unbelieved will depart, let him depart a brother or a sister is not under Bondage in such cases: but if in such a Case the innocent party have not liberty to marry, he must needs be in bondage still.  
2. If the Law of the Land allow, that if a Husband or Wife forsake one another seven years, and be not heard off, the innocent party may marry; then why may not I much more have liberty to marry, whose Wife hath forsaken me seven years and five months: for what more benefit have I of her, than if I did not he●r whethe● she were de●d or l●ving▪ yea more, I have a D●vorce under two Bishop's Hands by a reference from his Majesty: and though it be not in Form according to the Canon-Law, (fo● that had been many years silenced) but having his Majesty's Royal Assent, (from whom the Canon-Law receives its vigour and strength) doth supply that defect, as if it had been done by the Canon-Law.  
3. If both the Law of God, as 1 Cor. 7.15. and secondly if the Law of the Land (according to the practice of the Church of England as above) the benefit of which cannot in equity be denied me, there being no Law as your Lordship said to compel a wife to perform the duty of a wife. and thirdly (which is more) I having a B●ll of D●vorce. And fourthly the example and practice of the Church in Germany in the like case, who allowed Galeatius to marry because his wife refused to cohabit with him, as mine hath refused to cohabit with me, then why should I be hindered of my lawful liberty more than o●hers.  
4. If there be no Law to compel a wife to her duty, as your Lordship said there is not, and if there be a Law to restrain the husband from his lawful liberty, which the Word of God allows h●m, and according to the practice of other Churches as above: then whether is that Law that restrains him (if any such Law there be) whether is it a just Law according to the wo●d of God, or whether is it not rather against the word of God; and is not that Law (if there be any such) a setting of their thresholds against God's thresholds, and their Posts by God's Posts; Ezek. 43.8. compared with Isa. 29.13. ●heir fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men. Fo● such a law would destroy an Ordinance of God, that is, Marriage and Procreation, and one end fo● which man was c●eated, that is, That the wife should be in subjection to her husband's, as the Church is to Christ. Ephes. 5.24. But if this liberty be denied him, then must the husband be in subjection to h●s w●fes humour, though she be a who●e o● an Infidel and of never so perverse a spirit, he must be kept in bondage, and laid open to all temptations, if not a necessity of sinning. 1 Cor. 7.4.5.  If it be objected that nothing but whoredom can divorce as some have ignorantly said. 
5. To that I say that though there are other lawful causes of divorce besides whoredom; yet except the Bishops made that divorce between me and my wife, upon the account of my wife's being a whore in Scripture-sence, as I writ to them before they made that divorce, the Bishops must needs fall under the breach of that Scripture, Math. 19.6. Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. for there can be no divorce from bed and board, (as some call it) but it is absolutely against that Text: Except it be with consent for a time, (1 Cor. 7.5.) to give themselves unto prayer; and come together again, lest Satan tempt them for their incontinency. But this divorce between me and my wife is not of this nature, and therefore contrary to the word of God; except it be upon the account of her whoredom in Scripture-sence: for neither the consent of the Parties, nor the consent of the Bishops can make that lawful, which the word of God saith is unlawful, Mat. 19.6. Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.  
6. Now that she is a whore in Scripture-sence I prove is thus, judges 19.2. the text saith, The Levits' wife played the whore against her husband, and departed from him four full months. but my wife hath departed from me seven years and five months; if the Levits' wife had actually played the who●e, she should by the Law have been stoned to death; Levit. 20.10. neither had it been lawful for him to have taken her again, Levit. 21.7. and 1 Cor. 6.16. He that is joined to an harlot is one flesh. therefore it is conceived that the Levites wife departing from him without his consent, it is in Scripture-sense whoredom; for she ought to have been in subject on to her husband, as the Church is to Christ. Ephes. 5.24. This truth is further confirmed by comparing this with Prov. 2. 17· where a harlot is described to be one that forsaketh her husband, and forgetteth the covenant of her God: some Margins say, she forgetteth the promise of the marriage covenant; Ier: 3.3. compared w●th the 20 verse, Thou hadst a Whore's forehead, as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband: these three Texts prove sufficiently that a wife forsaking her husband is a whore in Scripture-sence.  
So that from the union that is between Christ and his Church, Eph. 5.32. we may gather that as forsaking the Lord is called harlotry, Isa. 1.4. compared with the 20, 21. They have forsaken the Lord, how is the faithful City become an harlot. even so a wife forsaking her husband is in Scripture-sence whoredom: and God threatens to punish both with one and the same punishment, Ezekiel 16.38. I will judge thee as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged. and breaking wedlock and shedding blood are both the sins of her that was my wife.  
To conclude as Christ himself said, Therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. I beseech you consider it as if it were your case, what you would have others do unto you; and trouble not yourself to answer, but grant me a Licence to marry, wh●ch if you do, yet it can be no Precedent to others to follow, for no man's condition doth parallel mine.  
First, in regard of my wife's obstinacy these seven years and five months, notwithstanding all lawful means that hath been used to ●eclaime her, and in that respect she is wo●se then most whore's are; for few whores do altogether deny their husbands, though they company with other men as with their husbands.  
Secondly, in her endeavouring to murder me, by stabbing at me with a knife, and cutting me in the face.  
Thirdly, I have suffered twenty five days imprisonment by Charles Fleetwood, for taking hold of my wife, and desiring to talk with her but one quarter of an hour, to know if she could show any reason why she dealt so with me: besides she procured my imprisonment in London for 1700 pound, when I owed not one penny.  
Fourthly, I have a Bill of divorce by virtue of his Majesty's reference to two Bishops, and under the two Bishop's hands: all which considered, granting me a Licence to marry can be no precedent for others to follow.  
Novem: 12 th'. 1661. Your Lordship's most humble and unworthy servant George Pressicke.   

The Bishop's Answer.  
Mr. Pressicke;  
I Have perused your Paper and I am still of the same judgement I was; they who expound Scriptu●e according to the●r own private fancies do often change, but they who expound it in the same sense which was delivered to the Catholic Church with the Scripture, can hardly vary f●om themselves.  
To the first objection I acknowledge the words of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 7.15. If the unbelieving depart, let h●m depart; a brother or a sister is not ●n bondage in such cases. But there is a difference between the marriage of Infidels and the marriage of Christians▪ the marriage of Infidels being only a civil Contract and may be dissolved by consent, the marriage of Christians is moreover a ●●gne of the Mystical union between Christ and his Church, and therefore indissolvable.  
secondly, You plead the law of the Land which allows a woman to marry after her husband hath been seven years absent: but you mistake the Law, for if the husband's be known to ●e living, seventeen years' absence w●ll not make it lawful for the wife to marry again; take an instance Mr. Mole was absent above twenty years in the inquisition, for his religion, yet his wife did not, she could not marry again. The reason of your mistake is this that if a man be not heard off in seven years, the Law presumeth that he is dead, and death dissolves the bond of marriage; yet if it appear that the fo●mer husband was not dead, he ought to be restored to his wife notwithstanding her second marriage.  
thirdly, You prove nothing but presume that since you have the law of God and the law of the Land for you, the precepts of Men cannot control the law of God, but you err every way, for you have neither the law of God for you nor the law of the Lan●, but both the law of God and the law of the Land are expressly against you: he● saint Mark chap. 10. verse 11. Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. the words are general and admit no evasion: hear saint Luke chap. 16. v. 18. Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrye●h another, committeth adultery; aed whosoever marryeth her that is put away committeth adultery. ●here is no restriction nor exception, indeed saint Matthew seemeth to have an exception Mat. 5.32. Whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery. and Mat. 19.9. Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: which two places have both the same sense. The exception, if it be an exception, and not rather a pure negation, extendeth itself only to the divorce, not at all to the second marriage: he that ●utteth away his wife without the cause of fornication, maketh her commit adultery: but if he put her away for fornication, she is the culpable cause of her own adultery, not he that puts her away justly: but having put her away, whether he may lawfully marry again without sin, saint Matthew saith nothing, but saint Mark and saint Luke speak expressly that he cannot: yet even this place of saint Matthew (howsoever understood) speaks directly against your second marriage, for you do not so much as pretend that your wife hath committed adultery▪ and therefore by the undoubted consent of the three Evangelists you cannot marry again.  
To this of the three Evangelists, add likewise the testimony of St. Paul, Rom. 7.2, 3. The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth, but if the husband's be dead, she is loosed from the Law of her husband. So than if while her husband liveth she be married to another, she shall be called an Adulteress. St. Paul knew no way to dissolve marriage but by death: the same he saith, 1 Cor: 7: 39 The wife is bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will. and if we weigh the force of St Paul's argument exactly, we shall find it to be this, That as the bond of the Law could no way be dissolved whiles the Law lived, that is, was not abrogated, notwithstanding any prevarication interceding; so the bond of marriage is indissolvable so long as life lasteth, notwithstanding any interceding fornication. To conclude this point, he that marrieth her that is divorced or put away either justly for fornication, or unjustly without fornication, committeth adultery: for if it was justly for fornication; then she was the nocent person, and could not marry again; and if it was unjustly without fornication, than the divorce was void, and she still continued wife to her former husband: howsoever it was, whether justly or unjustly, it can be no adultery, except the bond of the former marriage were dissolved.  
Another place we have to the same purpose, 1 Cor: 7.10, 21. Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband; but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife. Either Saint Paul speaks of such a woman who had no just cause of separation, or of one who had: but he cannot be understood to speak of one who had no just cause of separation, for than he would not, he could not have said, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled at her choice, but let her be reconciled and return to her husband. St Paul did not, could not permit any unjust Divorces, contrary to the express Word of God. It is plain therefore that he speaks of one who had just cause to depart; and yet St Paul commandeth in the name of the Lord, that such an innocent person should remain unmarried.  
To these plain testiminies of holy Scripture, we may join the evidence of right reason. If married persons could so easily unmarry themselves by the consent of bo●h parties, and much more by the ●●nister practices of one party? what a Door would this open to perjuries and subordinations, to the slanders and deflamations of innocent persons, whilst men pursued their own lusts under the clock of justice? what division and what ruin would this bring upon families? what a curse would it be to poor children, who (many times without their own faults) must lose one of their natural parents, and get a stepfather or a stepmother in their place?  
This Conclusion (Mr. Pressicke) is evidenced to us by the wo●d of God, by the light of natural reason, that marriage ought to be kept sacred and undissolvable. It hath been long observed as a national sin of this people, to have been over easy dissolvers of true marriages, upon slanderous, or pretended Prae-contracts wanting all ground but lust and perjury: and therefore I do give you the same Counsel which I take God to witness I would take myself if I were in the same condition. Seek once more to be reconciled to your wife, and forget not to pray God to change her heart: if you cannot prevail, then follow St Paul's command or rather God's command by St Paul, to remain unmarried. You complain of this as a grievous burden, but you consider not that many holy Saints and Servants of God have lived much longer under the same Cross that you have done, and altogether without their own faults. Some have had their Spouses imprisoned for 30 or 40 years together for conscience sake, as I told you formerly of Mr. Mole: some again have had their husbands made slaves by the Turks, and detained from them as long as they lived: some have been smitten with an incurable disease (presently after Marriage) inconsistent with the duties of the marriagebed: what must they do in these cases and many more of the same nature? Presently marry again, God forbid! This is a better remedy, that is, by fervent and frequent prayer to beg the safety of continency of God: if we prevail not, it is because we pray amiss. If it be not a cross which we have pulled upon ourselves, but which God himself hath imposed upon us we have his promise, that he will hear u●, and help us: let who will whisper to you other thoughts, Mr. Pressicke this is your remedy.  
In your fifth Paragraph you run into one or two errors more, that every ordinary divorce is forbidden as a breach of God's command: What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, Mat: 19.6. and that there is no other cause of divorce but fornication.  
For first, that Text (Mat: 19.6.) is understood properly of dissolving the bond of marriage, (as you would have it) for eve●, & not of lesser separations made out of prudence or piety for a time.  
Secondly, there are other causes of divorces, besides fornication, as when one married person shall seek to poison or make away the other, or to starve them, it is very lawful to separate them out of prudence to prevent murder. Judge whether this be not your case or no? and when the one person is continually enticing the other to Heresy or blaspheming; or soliciting him or her to sin against God: in such cases also such a temperary Divorce is lawful, as no man that understands himself will deny.  
In the 6 and 7 paragraph, you endeavour to prove your wife a whore in Scripture-sence, because she is departed from you, but you mistake every way. For first, in all probability the Levites wife did more than depart from him; and though a Levite might not marry a known whore, yet being married, he might pardon, conceal, or connive at her lewd courses. But this is nothing to the purpose, for this adultery or whoredom fo● which a man may put away his wife, is not the spiritual whoredom, that is, Idolatry; nor civil whoredom, that is, desertion of her husband: but carnal whoredom, whereby the bond of Marriage is dissolved, and the innocent party acquitted for the future from all Con●ugall duties. But to imagine that she who only deserts her husband, and she who takes another into his bed, are both alike guilty of the breach of wedlock, and both to be punished with the same punishment, as you say in the 7 paragraph, is ridiculous.  
In the conclusion of your discourse you plead for liberty to marry, and urge 4 reasons for yourself, which if they were all true, signify nothing, as to that purpose for which you urge them. Suppose she have been so long absent; suppose she cut you in the face; suppose she were an occasion that you were imprisoned 25 days; suppose you have a Divorce under two Bishop's hands, upon a reference from his Majesty; yet there is a great difference between a temporary divorce, and a perpetual dissolution of marriage. What you plead for yourself I have seen, what your wife hath to plead for herself I do not know; but if every thing be as yourself say, I cannot give way to your second marriage, whiles your old wife lives, without contradicting the Commands of our Saviour delivered by three Evangelists, and one Apostle: and therefore I must commend you to your proper remedy, that is, prayer, hoping that you will never think more of wedding, whilst your old wife lives, but bear your Cross with patience which Christ hath laid upon you.  
November 16 th'. 1661.   

Mr. Pressicke's Reply to the Bishop's Answer.  
Right reverend Father in God,  
I Beseech you once more to hear me with patience, what I have further to say: I have received your Lordship's Answer to my paper, and I do humbly conceive it will admit of some Exceptions as followeth,  
In the first place, you say (and that truly) that they who expound Scripture according to their own private fancies, do often change: but they (say you) who expound it in the same sense which was delivered to the Catholic Church, with the Scriptures, can hardly vary from themselves.  
To this I humbly reply, that you do not declare who you mean by the Catholic Church that we should seek the sense of Scripture from: whether the Church of Rome, or the Protestant Church, jointly or severally, or who else we must take for the Church: and therefore I will deliver my opinion which I think is not a private fancy. By Catholic Church I understand all the true Beleivers that hath been from the beginning of the world, is now, and shall be to the end of the world, of which Catholic Church I am one: and to this Church the Scriptures was given, and none can understand the sense and mind of God in the Scriptures, but such as God doth reveal it unto by his spirit, 1 Cor: 1.9. As it is written, eye hath not seen nor e'er heard, neither hath it entred into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But he hath revealed them to us by his spirit: and we h●ve not received the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know (observe the words) that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. But the naturallman receives not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto h●m: nei●her can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. and Mat: 10.27. No man knows the Father, save the Son, and ●e to whom the Son will reveal him. I do with all my heart and soul reverence learning, because I find the want of learning in myself: and we are debtors to those that have translated the Scriptures into our Mother-tongue: yet such as have natural learning, and understand the original Tongues may be in a natural estate, and in that respect the Apostle saith, they cannot know the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; because they must be spiritually discerned. But I say he is a good Scholar that hath learned his Lesson of Christ: and it matters not who is the scholar so that Christ be the Schoolmaster: I have never read that Christ doth speak to his Children or Scholars only in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, but he hath and doth declare his mind and will to them in English, and other Languages as well as in the original Tongues. I hope th●s is no expounding of Scripture according to private fancy: for it is plain Scripture, if the Scripture be right translated: if it be not, the fault is not mine.  
To the first objection you own the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor: 7.15. If the unbeliever depart, let him dep●rt: a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such Cases: and you say there is a great difference between the marriage of Infidels, and the marriage of Christians: the marriage of Infidels being only a civil contract, and may be dissolved by consent: the marriage of Christians is a sign of the mystical union between Christ and his Church, and therefore (you say) undissolvable.  
To this I reply by plain Scripture, and agree with you that the marriage of Infidels is dissolvable, if but the one party be an Infidel, and refuse to cohabit with the husband or wife, as 1 Cor: 7.15. and at verses 12, 13. If a husband have an unbelieving wife, or a wife an unbelieving husband: if the unbeliever be pleased to dwell with the believer, the believer ought not to put the unbeliever away. and though my wife be an unbeliever, and is departed, yet I have waited 6 years, etc. for her returning, before I got a Bill of divorce: and the Text saith▪ if the unbeliever depart, a brother or a siter is not in bondage in such cases: and you have granted that the marriage of Infidels is dissolvable by consent, and she gave her consent to the divorce: therefore by your own words the bone of marriage is dissolved between her and me: for this is my case, my wife is an Infidel or unbeliever, and hath departed from me above 7 years and 5 months: I did not put her away, but she put herself away, and by her departing she put me away from her as. Mark 10.12. But St Paul saith, If she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband's. 1 Cor: 7.11. the reason is because she is the nocent party, therefore she must remain unmarried or be reconciled: but St. Paul doth not say let him remain unmarried, o● let h●m wait 7 years, as I have done, or 17 years to see whether she will be reconciled to her husband or not; but he saiah expressly, ver: 15. if she depart, he is not in bondage in such cases: this is plain Scripture. But what greater outward bondage can there be (if he have need of a w●fe) than to be restrained from marriage, or in what sense can any man take that Scripture, a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases. I humbly conceive that to say as you do in another place, that he is freed from all conjugal duties towards her, it is neither the meaning of the Text, nor is the plaster broad enough for the sore: for if she desert him, and will not come at h●m, nor suffer him to come where she is, what conjugal duties is he like to perform towards her? it is impossible: therefore the text must have another meaning, which I conceive must be this; she breaking the bond and covenant of marriage, and will not be reconciled in so many years, she being an Infidel and giving her consent to that divorce, it doth dissolve the marriage, as yourself said before, and sets me free to marry as St. Paul saith, a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases: if you say she is not an infidel, she hath been baptised and is a Christian, I say no, she is no Christian that walks in practice as my wife hath done. Indeed I must say that so long as persons do outwardly hold and embrace the Christian faith, in Charity we are bound to esteem them Christians, until they manifest something to the contrary in their conversations: but when they break their faith and covenant, and all both humane and christian bonds, as my wife hath done, and will not be admonished neither by Minister's no● christian friends, but all Scripture and counsel hath been rejected by her, and she wittingly and maliciously acting against the light of her own conscience, it is no breach of charity to esteem such an one an Infidel or unbeliever while they so walk: for such an one cannot be said to be a believer in any other sense then the Devil is said to believe and tremble: for if she did believe in any other sense, she durst not act so contrary to the rule of Scripture in breaking faith and covenant with God and her husband; she cannot be said to be a christian, for believers were first called christians at Antioch: they wer● first believers, and then called christians: but some Ministers have said she is worse than an infidel, for Infidels act ignorantly, and she acts against knowledge.  
I grant also that the marriage of Christians is a sign of the mystical union between Christ and his Church; but that such a marriage is undissolvable, I think by what you have said it doth not appear: fo● to the third Objection you g●rnt that a wife may be divorced fo● fornication, and I think I shall by Scripture make it appear, that being divorced for fornication, the innocent party may lawfully marry. To prove th●s, the best way to expound Scripture is to compare Scripture with Scripture: now Mark 10.11. it is said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. and Luke Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. these Texts you say admit of no evasion, exception; nor restriction: but compare them with Mat: 19.3. and they w●ll yield another sense. The pharisees came unto Christ tempting him, and saying unto him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. Christ's answer seems to include, as if he should say no, it is not lawful for a man to put away h●s wife for every cause: for if you do, both he that puts her away for every eause, and marrieth another, and he that marrieth her that is put away for every cause, both of them committeth adultery: this I conceive to be the true meaning of both these Texts, the putting away for every cause, and marrying another is to commit adultery: and Moses (saith he) verses 8, and 9 Because of ●he hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives for every cause: but I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery. but without all peradventure, these Texts thus compared together, holds forth to us, that if the divorce be for fornication, and not for every cause, if he marry another, he doth not commit adultery: for likewise Mat: 5.32. whosoever shall put away his wife except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: If he put her away for every cause, but if she be put away for fornication, she is the cause of her own adultery, and he is no adulterer if he marry another, is included in these words, except for fornication, in all the three Evangelists: for there cannot be a contradiction between one of them and another, speaking all by one spirit: therefore one Text must be compared with another to find out the true sense, and I think it is very clear as above, being thus explained by Mat: 19: 3.  
I conceive it very clear that being put away for fornication, and not for every cause, the innocent party may lawfully marry without sin: and I do humbly conceive that it was upon this account that the old Lord Primate Doctor Usher and Doctor Martin did separate Mr. Richard Lingart and his w●fe after they had 2 or 3 children, and presently after while the old wife was living he married the Organists widow of St. Patrick's, and was after Archdeacon of Meath: all this I can make good.  
And I humbly conceive from Mark 10.12. compared with the 1 Cor: 7.15. that it is as clear that a wife putting away her husband, and departing from him, and will not be reconciled, the husband may as lawfully marry, as if he had put her away for fornication, and ought not to be kept in bondage. Mark 10.12. If a wom●n put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery: but the Evangelist doth not say that if he marry another, after she is departed and hath put him away, that he committeth adultery, and St. Paul saith absolutely that he is not in bondage in such cases: the reason I conceive is because the wife ought to be in subjection to her husband and not he in subjection to her: and therefore the putting him away, and will not be reconciled doth alter the case so as to set the husband free: a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases. For God knowing man's weakness, and requiring that man should be holy in body and mind, and God knowing Satan's sleights and continual temptations, seeking whom he may devour, it cannot in reason be imagiened that God would have a man left in such a forlorn condition without a Remedy, through the perverseness of a whore or unbeliever: it doth not stand with the bounty and goodness of God to man: it is also against natural reason, and contrary to Scripture, (Ephes: 5.24.) that saith, As the Church is in subjection to Christ, so let the Wives be to their own Husbands in every thing: but if in such cases the Husband be not set free to marry, then must some Husbands be in subjection and bondage to the humours of whores, and some to infidels and unbelievers: and she that was my wife is both in Scripture-sence, and I think sins in Scripture-sence are of the deepest dye: add also to this that I have a b●ll of Divorce, which all considered together, I see not but for all that is yet said against it, I may lawfully marry.  
You say, and that truly, I have not hitherto so much as pretended that my wife hath committed actual adultery.  
I reply, the reason why I have not, is want of proof: for it is a hard matter to prove one a whore though she were never so guilty, but there is as strong presumptions to persuade she is so as possible may be: As first, before she left me, when I told her she did not respect me as a wife ought to do a husband, she said that she looked upon me but as she did upon other men, and no otherwise: which is suspicion enough, to put no difference between her husband and other men. Secondly, it hath been taken notice of by several that told me, that when she was not employed in her calling as Midwife, she did frequent the company of those that were reputed for whoredom, the vilest persons in the City; and they would sit and drink Sack, and jeer her husband. 3ly. She hath been observed to go in evenings to places suspected for uncleanness, and those that did observe it teld me. Fourthly, it is reported by many in this City that about the beginning of June last, when she was carried in a Horselitter into the County of Armagh (where she still remains for any thing I know) she had a French disease upon her: these things added to the former reasons and arguments of Scripture, I think what I plead for cannot in reason be denied me; but it is just and equal in the sight of God and Man that I should have a Licence to marry.  
To return to the second Objection, the law of the Land (you say) I mistake: for if the husband be known to be living, if it were seventeeen years, the wife may not marry; and you instance Mr. Mole was absent 20 years in the Inquisition.  
Reply, I say that in equity the benefit of the Law of the land should be allowed me, for what difference is there between being absent 7 years, and not heard off: and to be absent 7 years, if there be no law (as your Lordship said) to require the Delinquent party to her duty, or what benefit hath the one innocent party of their husband or wife more than the other: therefore there is as much equity the one should have liberty as the other. As for Mr. Mole his condition and this we speak of, are much different; for Mr. Mole would have come home if he might, and she that was my wife might have come home, and was much sought to for to come, and she would not; therein the case altars. And Galleatius being in the same condition that I am, as to the absence of his wife, yet not altogether in the same manner, for he left his wife, and my wife left me, and I have a Divorce and he had none, yet the Divines in Germany allowed him to marry another: and therefore I still affirm (till better reasons be showed to the contrary) that both the Law of God, and the example of the Church in Germany, and the practice of Dr. Ʋsher and Dr. Martin towards Mr. Lingart here in Ireland, are all for me that I may lawfully marry: and if there be no law to require a w●fe to perform the duty of a wife, nor to punish her for her disobedience, I see not how there can be any Law [in equity] against me, to hinde● me from marriage.  
To come again to the 3 Objection: you bring Rome 7.2, & 3. verses. The woman which hath a husband, is bound by the Law to her husband as long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband: so then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another, she shall be called an adulteress. and 1 Cor: 7.39. The wife is bound by the Law as long as the husband liveth.  
Reply, I humbly conceive [under favour] this Argument will not hold out weight in the balance of the Sanctuary: for if she were put away justly for fornication, than the marriage is dissolved, as I showed before out of the 3 Evangelists, that which I think will carry it though you say marriage cannot be dissolved. Well, she being justly put away for fornication, he that marrieth her committeth uncleanness with her, because she was an Harlot: What know ye not, that he that is joined to an hurlot is one body, for two saith he shall be o●e flesh: [1 Cor: 6.15, 16.] and shall I take the members of Christ and make them the members of an Harlot, God forbid! If she were put away unjustly for every cause, as it seems than they used to make private divorces without Licence from either Magistrate or Minister; and herein though she were innocent as to the cause of divorce, yet she was blame-worthy and guilty of sin, in not appealing to the Governors of the Church or Commonwealth, or to both for justice, and they ought to have relieved her, and required the husband to performeth duty of a husband to her, and not have suffered the Land (by such unlawful separation) to be polluted: and her neglect of this, and submitting herself to an unlawful private Divorce, makes her & him that marrieth her, both guilty of uncleanness.  
But this is not my condition, it is far different from such proceedings: for I have to my hazard both of life and liberty used all possible means to reclaim her since she left me, but to no purpose, and I have been restrained of my liberty for 25 days together, for contending against such private separations: and I have appealed both to Magistrates and Ministers, when the times and persons were so corrupt that I could not have justice, until the Lord brought home his Majesty, to whom I made my plaint and case known, who upon the reading of my petition gave His Royal Assent that two Bishops should order the matter according to justice: and they considering her long absence, and that the man hath no power over his own body but the woman, and that she had broke the bond of wedlock in departing so long, and defrauding her husband of due benevolence, which by the bond of marriage she was engaged to, 1 Cor: 3.3.4.5. and that at that present before them she refused to be reconciled; whereupon the two Bishops gave me a bill of Divorce according to 1 Cor: 7.15. If the unbeliever will depart let her depart, a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases: and Mark 10.12. If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery: which doth imply, as the Text above doth, that he is not in bondage: so that if he upon that account marry another, he doth not commit adultery, because she denies the duty of a wife: and God did ordain that man should not live alone, but should have a help meet for him: and therefore if a wife that should be a help to him, to keep his vessel in holiness and honour to God, if she break her Covenant with God and with her husband, shall I be kept in bondage after all this, and the Scriptures say in such cases a man is not in bondage. I pray you is it not contrary both to the Law of God and man, and natural reason that I should suffer for my wife's trangression; if she commit murder, must I be hanged for her murder: or if she commit adultery, must I do penance all my life after, to live out of a married condition for her adultery or separating herself from me, though I have never so much need of a wife; this were a sad penance indeed for her whoredom. But perhaps you will say she is not a whore, I say she is in Scripture-sence, if she be not otherwise; and Scripture-sence is the best sense, and best proof to prove a whore by: for it is very well known that according to the Laws of Men, it is a very hard task to prove a woman to be a whore: but I have showed you enough before to persuade reasonable men that she is no less. I hope the Scriptures shall not be stretched like Cloth upon tenterhooks to keep men in such cases still in bondage: God is more gracious than men, to b●nd such heavy burdens, and lay them upon men's shoulders, which themselves will not touch with one of their fingers.  
You say further from the 1 Cor: 7.10, 11. that St Paul cannot be understood to speak of one who had no just cause of separation; for than he could not have said, Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.  
Reply. I humbly conceive these words will bear another construction, mo●e agreeable to other Scriptures: for you speak of just cause of separation, for which she should remain unmarried, or be reconciled; but do not tell us what that just cause might be: if you mean her Husband's fornication or adultery, than the Scripture tells us plainly in the 3 Evangelists explained by Mat: 19.3. that upon a lawful divorce, she needed not to remain unmarried: for being divorced for her Husband's fornication, she might marry; because she could not (upon that account) return again and be reconciled to him, but in so doing she should sin, by making the members of Christ the members of an Harlot: 1 Cor: 6.15, & 16. therefore it must be some inferior cause of separation, as some rash or unadvised act, for wh●ch she m●ght depart for a time, and remain unmarried until her husband's rage or anger were passed, and they reconciled again. And I do humbly conceive, that where a Text will bear a double construction, it is most agreeable to the m●nd and will of God to expound it in that sense, that in observing thereof pesons may be preserved as much as may be f●om temptations to sin▪ rather than to expound it in such a sense as by observing thereof persons shall be laid open to most horrid temptations to sin: and I do verily believe that the late Lord Primate and Dr. Martin did separate Mr. Lingart and his wife upon this account; which Mr. Lingart about 3 or 4 months after married another wife, while the first was living; which if it had not been lawful to have been done, I presume those precious servants of Jesus Christ Dr. Usher and Dr. Martin would not have suffered it to have been done.  
In the next place you say it is evidenced by right reason that if persons could so easily unmarry themselves, what a door it would open to perjuries, subordinations, and slaundees of innocent persons, etc.  
Reply. This is as if Children should not have bread because sometimes Dogs snatch it from them. Shall the Children of God be debarred ●he●r lawful liberty for fear the Children of belial should draw false Conclusions from sound Principles: or shall innocents' be punished with transgressors for company. If my case were weighed in the balance of right reason, I could not be denied my desire: how have I pursued all lawful means that could be invented and procured (Doctors of Divinity, and Ministers, and Christian friends) to persuade my wife to own me as a Husband, and she would not, nor show any reason but her own will: and I have showed your Lordship (in my other paper) four several reasons, that if I have a Licence to marry, yet no wicked person can make my condition a precedent for them to follow.  
I grant as you say it is evidenced by the Word of God and the light of natural reason, that Marriage ought to be kept sacred and undissolvable; it ought so: but if one party break the Bond, it is against the Word of God and the light of natural reason, that the innocent party should be punished all his life long for the Nocents transgression. What you say of Mr. Mole or others comes not near my case: for as I said before they would have come home, if they might; and my wife might have come if she would, and has been as much solicited to come as might be, and this was Galleatius case, his wife would not come at him, for which the Divines in Germany suffered him to marry while the first wife was living.  
To my fourth Objection you are silent, which was to this effect that seeing it doth appear for any thing that is yet said against it that according to the Word of God, that he whose wife commite● adultery, and he whose wife departeth from him and denies the duty of a wife, as mine hath done th●s 7 years and 5 months, may lawfully marry: and I have showed you that Dr. Usher and Dr. Martin did allow it, and the Church in Germany and New- England hath allowed marriage in such cases: then I say if there be no law to compel a wife (deserting her husband) to her duty, nor to punish her for her disobedience, and if there be any law of men to restrain the Husband in such a case from marriage, then whether is that Law that restrains him a just law, according to the Word of God? or whether is it not rather against the Word of God, and the practice of other Churches: and a binding of men's Consciences to insupportable burdens? and whether is not such a Law (if any such there be) a setting of their thresholds against God's thresholds, and their posts by his posts Ezek: 43.8. compared with Isa: 29.13. Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men. Indeed I know not of any such L●w, my study hath been more in Divinity, neither did I ever know where to get a Book of Canons to acquaint myself with that Law: but it seems strange to me if amongst all the Canons there be none to punish a Husband or wife that refuseth to perform the duty of a Husband or wife.  
To my 5 Argument, you say I run into one or two errors more, viz: That every ordinary Divorce is forbidden as a breach of God's command, What God hath joined together, let not ma● put asunder: Mat: 19.6. and that I say there is no other ●ause of Divorce but only fornication.  
Reply. This heavy charge of one or two errors, I shall easily wipe off; for I do not say there is no other cause of Divorce but fornication; for I said in my other paper, and I say in this, that an unbelieving wife departing from her Husband, and denying the duty of a wife, and will not be reconciled to her husband, it is cause of divorce as well as fornication, if the Scripture may be believed before private fancy. 1 Cor: 7.3, 4, 5, 11, 15. If the unbeliever depart, a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases. Nay I think it is no false Exposia●on to say further, that whether she be a believer or unbeliever, if she depart, and persist in it, and will not be reconciled, it is cause of divorce; otherwise the Apostle would have said a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case, in the singular number, in case of the unbelievers deparring: but he saith A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases; speaking of more cases than one: which may well be understood not only of an unbelievers departing, but in the like case of a believers departing, if she continue obstinate and unreconcilable, a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases.  
Further you say that Text Mat: 19: 6. is understood properly of dissolving the bond of marriage for ever, (as you say I would have it) and not of lesser separations made out of prudence or piety for a time. I said before and I say still that except the Bishops made that Divorce between me and my wife, upon the account of my wife's being a whore in Scripture-sence, o● else upon account of her departing and not performing the duty of a wife, one or both, as I writ to them of the lawfulness of such a Divorce, and of the German Divines allowing the like to Galeatius, before they made th●s Divorce: I showed these reasons why I desired it, or else to have my wife to l●ve with me, which she before them did refuse. I say except they made this Divorce upon this account, wh●ch you say dissolves marriage for ever, the Bishops must needs fall under the breach of that precept, Those whom God hath joined together, let no● man put asunder: fo● this divorce cannot be understood (as you● Lordship speaks) of lesser separations for a time, but of a perpetual Divorce: for the Bishops bound us in five hundred pound Bonds apiece, that we should not own one the other, not one the others estate; and b●d us to take leave of one another as if one of us were going to the grave: therefore it cannot be understood of a lesser Divorce for a time, but of a perpetual dissolution of marriage for ever, or else the Bishops stand guilty of the breach of that precept, Mat: 19▪ 6. Thus, both according to the Word of God, and the Laws of men, I mean the Bishops and His Majesty's Royal assent, the bond of marriage is dissolved; what hinders then but I may have Licence to marry: and whereas I say there can be no divorce from bed and board (as some call it) except it be with consent for a time, and come together again, lest Satan tempt them to incontinency. 1 Cor: 7.5. but it is absolutely against this and that precept Mat: 19.6. and 1 Cor: 7.3, 4, 5. I beseech you let not this be condemned for an error which is justified by Scripture. For your distinctions of temporary Divorces and lesser separations & divorces of prudence and piety, I find no such distinctions of Divorces in Scripture; and I dare not pin my faith upon any man's opinion without Scripture-proofe: I pray you bear with my plainness, for I have read in an ancient Author, that one Layman bringing Scripture to prove his assertion, was to be preferred before a whole Counsel that decreed things without warrant from Scripture: and I read of no such Divorces in Scripture, except it be for every cause, Mat: 19.3. and that Christ himself condemns as unlawful. And if any married persons should be so desperately wicked as to endeavour to kill, or poison or entice to Heresy or Blasphemy, or the like, the Magistrates by Law may take order and secure the innocent party, without making Divorces not warrantable by Scripture, and which oftentimes proves a bane to the innocent party, and binds him to more bondage than the Nocent.  
To the 6 & 7 Arguments where I prove my wife to be a whore in Scripture-sence, you say I mistake: for it is probable the Levites wife did more than depart, and though a Levite might not marry a known whore; yet being married, he might pardon, or conceal, or connive at her lewd courses.  
Reply. I conceive it not so much as probable that she did any more than depart without his consent, that was enough: for the Scripture mentions not that she did any more, for which she was called a whore: for if she had been an actual whore she should by the Law have been stoned to death, Levit: 20.10. neither had it been lawful for him to have taken her again, Levit: 21.7. and I say he could not pardon nor connive at her lewd courses so as to take her again: 1 Cor: 6.13, 15, 16. The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord. What, know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot, God forbid! What, know ye not that he th●t is joined to an harlot is one body, for two (saith he) shall be called one flesh. These Scriptures shows plainly, that if a believers wife plays the Harlot, he ought not, nor cannot (without grievous sin) join himself to her again: for in so doing he dishonours Christ and makes his members the members of an Harlot. Now if such an innocent party have not liberty to marry, then is he (for his wife's sin) in perpetual bondage all his life after, except he will join with his wife again, and so make the members of Christ the members of an Harlot: but as for my w●fe, if I would, she would not own me as a Husband: I desire it may be better considered of for to say, that neither for civil whoredom [as you call a wife's deserting her Husband] nor carnal whoredom doth free the husband no further then from conjugal duties, is such a distinct on as I am assured is not suitable to Scripture, Grace, and Believers privileges: those that thus deal with men, do as much as in them lieth to provoke them to incontinency: but as I said before Dr. Ʋsher & Dr Martin dealt not so with Mr. Lingart, for without doubt if either the wife desert her Husband, or play the harlot, for they are both one in Scripture-sence, the innocent party may lawfully marry rather than burn; and those that hinder such, must answer for their sins, if they transgress; and all men have not the gift of continency.  
Then you that to imagine that she who deserts her Husband, and she who takes another into his bed, are both alike guilty of the breach of wedlock, and both to be punished with the same punishment, as you charge me to say, it is you say ridiculous.  
Reply. My Lo●d, if you look back upon my paper again, you will find it is your mistake and not mine: for I do not name carnal whoredom, of a woman's taking another into her Husband's bed; but this I ●aid, that spiritual whoredom, forsaking the Lord, and that which you call civil whoredom, a wife deserting her Husband, God threatens to punish both with one and the same punishment, Ezek: 16.38. and if this be ridiculous to speak in Scripture language, I know not how to please men; but the Apostle hath taught me, that if I yet seek to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ: Galat: 1.10. But now being put to it I will say something to the Charge: I do conceive that Blasphemy and spiritual whoredom [which is forsaking the Lord] being sins committed immediately against God, are as great sins, if not greater than those sins committed against men, suppose it to be carnal whoredom or other: and if so that spiritual whoredom be as great a sin as carnal whoredom, and a wife deserting her Husband to be punished with the same punishment, that spiritual whoredom is to be punished with; then a wife deserting her Husband ought to be punished with the same punishment that carnal whoredom is punished with, be it Divorce, or what else, except you will make carnal whoredom a greater sin than spiritual whoredom, and I think this is not ridiculous: for a w●fe departing, and w●ll not be reconciled, it is a breach of wedlock, because the Husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife: and she ought to render him due benevolence: yea, it is such a sin as God will punish with the same punishment as he doth spiritual whoredom, Ezek: 16.38. I will judge thee as women that break wedlock, and shed blood, are judged.  
You grant that the marriage of Christians is a sign of the mystical union between Christ and his Church: then I say from this union (Ephes: 5.32.) we may draw this Conclusion, that a wife forsaking her Husband, and will not be reconciled, it is in Scripture-sence Harlotry or whoredom, as forsaking the Lord is called spiritual whoredom: Isa: 1.4. compared with the 21. They have forsaken the Lord, How is the faithful City become an Harlot. so a wife forsaking her husband, and forgetting the Covenant of her God, or promise of Marriage, Prov: 2.17. is there called a Harlot: and jerem: 3.3. compared with 20. Thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to return, as a wife treacherously departeth from her Husband. Now thus to depart (as mine hath done this 7 years and 5 months) is a breach of wedlock, Cor: 7.3, 4, 5. for she ought to be in subjection to her Husband as the Church is to Christ, Ephes: 5.24. by the mystical union that is between Christ and his Church, which marriage is a sign of: but here I shall forbear to proceed any further, for I think I have made it clear enough to any indifferent man that may read it, both by Scripture and sound Arguments, that I ought to be set free and have Licence to marry, which I hope your Lordship will gr●nt me; otherwise I shall humbly beg your Lordship's Rejoinder, to know what further reasons can be alleged against me, I remain  
Novem: 27 1661. your Lordship● most humble and unworthy servant George Pressicke.  
Having proceeded thus far, and sent him my Reply, about a week or ten days after I went to him, to know if I should expect any further satisfaction to the Question, but received none: for with a frowning countenance he said. What do you think that you have received the Spirit to expound the Scripture more than other men? Do you think you have a Cloven-head upon yours? (what he meant by Cloven-head, I leave o●hers to judge:) I do protest (saith he) the Paper I have given you already, is my Judgement; which I will live and die in. But how unlikely that Paper is to satisfy a scrupulous Conscience, let them that read it, and the Reply to it, judge. As for me I cannot live by an implicit faith; for I am like the Bereans, Acts 17.11. One that can believe nothing (though delivered by an Apostle) without searching the Scriptures daily whether those things be so: and if I be mistaken I would be thankful to any, that in the spirit of meekness would by Scripture-arguments and reason show me my mistake, for as yet it is not done: and there are both Bishops and Ministers of very eminent Gifts & learning, of the same Judgement with me in this point, that it is lawful for me to marry.  
Suppose the Church of Rome, and some few Protestants are of opinion that divorced persons may not marry; I do conceive I am not bound to submit to their Judgement, because I find both the Word of God, and the practice of Protestant Churches hath allowed the innocent party to marry: and as Peter & john said Acts 4.19. Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto them more than unto God, judge ye.  
To what I have said, I shall add this, I have been credibly informed that about the beginning of the Rebellion in Ireland, Lieutenant Coll: Hewson sued out a Divorce before Archdeacon Buckley in Dublin, and after he was divorced, while the first wife was living, the Archdeacon himself did join the said Liev: Colonel and another woman together in marriage: and was this lawful then, and is it not lawful now: and was it thought lawful by the late Reverend Lord Primate Dr. Usher (whom all Europe reverenced for piety & learning) and Dr. Martin to separate Mr. Lingart and his wife, and presently after Mr. Lingart married another while the first wife was living, and is it not lawful for me now, being divorced by His Majesty's Royal Assent: and was it thought lawful by the Protestant Church in Germany to suffer Gaelleatiu to marry another, because his wife would not live with him, though he had no Divorce; and is it not lawful fo● me now to marry that hath a Divorce, and my w●fe hath forsaken me 7 years and 5 months. What an Iron-age is this that we live in? I could instance some such like passages as these above, that hath been allowed of in England; but I forbear, I think here is enough to satisfy reasonable men that reads it.  
Thus much I thought I was bound in Conscience to declare to the world, to clear myself from scandal, before I would take another w●fe, to prove the lawfulness thereof as you see I have done both by Scripture, and reason, and the practice of Protestant Churches, lest any through ignorance should say, I practise that myself I condemn in others; because I have set forth in a Book, the practice of Anabaptists in Germany, who had many wives at once: but I have had none almost this eight years, but only the name of one until I got a Divorce. And those that can procure Zanty's Book, and read him upon Divorce both for Adultery & Desertion, may be further informed of the innocent party's liberty to marry in such cases: and I may justly say I have had the advice of twenty Bishops, Doctors and Ministers, and none but this Bishop spoke against it, but all concluded that it was lawful for me to marry.  
George Pressicke.   

Certain Queries touching the silencing of Godly Ministers, etc.  john 3.3. 
Verily, verliy, I say uneo thee, except a man be borne again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  
I Observe from this Text, first, that no man living and dying in that natural condition in which he is bo●n, except he die in Infancy, for to such there may be by the free grace of God, a secret imputation of the merits & righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed unto them for salvation: but those that live to years, and are capable to understand when they are taught, except they be regenerated and borne again, they cannot see the Kingdom of God: that is, they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  
Secondly, I observe out of john 10. and Romans 10. that the ordinary means that God hath ordained to work faith and conversion in such as shall be saved, is the Ministry of the Word; that is the Word of God preached. Ro: 10.14, 15. How shall they hear without a preacher; and how shall they preach except they be sent. that is such as God sends, and furnisheth with Gifts rightly to divide the word, and to bring out of God's treasure things new & old, and to give every one their portions in due season: that is, comfort to whom comfort belongs, to edify and build them up in their most holy faith: and reproof and reprehension to whom it belongs, to tell Israel his transgressions, and the house of jacob their sins, that at the day of Judgement when the Books of men's Consciences shall be opened, their condemnation may appear to be just; that they were instructed in the truth which they rejected and dehorted from: and were reproved for their sinful ways, they walked into their own destruction. Such faithful Pastors may say as Isaiah, Isa: 8.18. Behold here an I and the children that thou hast given me: or that thou hast made me instrumental by my Ministry to them in the work of their Conversion: when idle Drones, and dumb Dogs, and covetous Cormorants that seek the fleece mo●e than the flock, and to please men more than God, which run before they are sent, for filthy-Lucres-sake, these will have nothing to say for themselves, but wish the Mountains and Rocks to fall upon them, and cover them, from the face of him that sits upon the Throne, etc.  
Thirdly, I have observed with grief of heart, and I humbly desire it may be seriously considered off by all whom it doth or may concern, that many godly and faithful Ministers, such as no man can deny but they have been instrumental by their Ministry to the conversion of many souls, but they are now silenced, and not suffered to preach, for refusing subscription to that which they say is part of it the Ordinances of men, and not agreeing with the Ordinances of God, and they are forbidden to plow with an Ox and an Ass together: and they say it is very rare, if ever there were any soul converted by the reading of that Form of Prayer only; but they can make it appear that many hundreds have been converted by the preaching of the Word only, which they are hindered from the exercising of their gifts in; though many of them would be glad they might be suffered to preach in Places that are vacant, though they had nothing for their pains: and they say that Preaching being an Ordinance of Divine institution: and those things they refuse to subscribe (they say) is but part of Divine and part of Humane institution: and therefore they think they have not equal dealing that they are silenced from preaching for not reading such a Form of Common-Prayer, etc. and so many preferred as hath been, that many of them could scarce ever preach, but read only: and they desire it may be considered of, whether the profit that comes by the latter will countervail the damage of prohibiting the former from preaching in these sinful gloomy days, and places of ignorance; and which might be the most probable and powerful means the most to advance God's glory, and to convince sinners and turn them from their sins: is it because they cannot see with other men's eyes, that they may not be allowed to worship God in his own instituted Ordinances, without subscribing to the Ordinances of Men? as to read Apo●ripha instead of Canonical Scripture, of which Apocrypha they say some part of it, seems to be untrue; as to instance one place, Tobit 12 chap: appointed to be read for the first Lesson at evening Prayer the fourth of October. In the 5 chap: & 4 verse, Tobias went to seek a man to go with him to Media, and he found Raphaell (saith that verse) that was an Angel: and verse the 12. he calls himself Azarias the son of Ananias the great, and of thy Brethren, saith he to Tobit: and verse the 13. Tobit saith, he knew his father Ananias, when they went together to jerusalem to worship: and chap: 12. verse 15. He calls himself again Raphaell, one of the seven Angels which presents the prayers of the saints. Now this is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, and all our Protestant Churches, that Angels should present the Saints Prayers, and so become their Mediator or Intercessor; we leave that to Papists, for we own no Mediator or Intercessor between God & Man, but the Man Christ jesus, Thus you see he calls himself Azarias the son of Ananias, and of Tobit's Brethren; and in another place he calls himself Raphaell one of the seven Angels. Now they say, that the imposing of this and such like, instead of Canonical Scripture, makes them that they cannot subscribe; for God is not worshipped with men's hands, nor with men's tongues, except it be in a way of his own institution: He will be sanctified in all that draw near un●o h●m. I could say much more, but I forbear, for a word to the wi●e is sufficient.  
For my own particular, I conceive a Litturgy in the Church is very useful, that ignorant persons that cannot pray, may by often reading and hearing it read, learn to pray in a form of Prayer: yet I think it should be such as both the Prayers and Lessons to be read, should be suitable to Canonical Scripture; and not such as is mentioned before: and so composed for matter and manner, as other parts of God's worship be not hindered.  
But from what hath been said, this Question may arise, vizt.  
Whether the silencing of Godly Ministers be not very near of k●n to the kill of the two Witnesses? spoken of Revelation 11. chapter, and 3 & 7 verses.  
For with submission to better Judgements, it is humbly conceived, that by the two Witnesses is signified, all the faithful Preachers and Professors of the Truth which in all Ages have opposed Popery, and all other Heresies. They are called Witnesses, because they bear witness to the Truth, and they are said to be but two, because two is the least number in bearing witness, In the mouth of two or three Witness, shall every word stand. And this Prophecy did foretell, that popery and Herefy should so generally prevail, that few in comparison of the adverse party should oppose them. These Witnesses are said to prophecy in sackcloth, signifying the mournful condition they should be in, by the prevailing power of their adversaries, that they should lead a sorrowful life in this wo●ld, they spend not their time in jollity, nor worldly Pomp, and bravery: and verse the 4▪ they are compared to two Olive trees; for by the preaching of God's Word the oil of the Spirit is dropped into tender penitent hearts: and they are compared to two Candlesticks, that as the Candlestick bears the Candle to give light to others, so faithful Preachers holds forth the light of Gods Wo●d in time of greatest darkness. And whereas it is said that these two Witnesses were killed by their adversaries, we must take notice that there are several sorts of killing, besides the kill with the sword: there is a kill with the tongue as well as with the Hand, calling Men, Schismatic, Obstinate, Turbulent, and Pestilent persons, which cannot be proved that they are such: and St. john tell us, 1 john 3.15. That. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in h●m, and verse 14. He that loveth ●ot his brother, abideth in death. and saith our Saviour, He that saith to his brother, thou fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire. But if there were love amongst Brethren, there would be more bearing and forbearing of for infirmities, and scruples of Conscience, for which they dare not subscribe, etc.  
A second Quaerie my be ●his, vizt.  
Whether the making of the Image of the Beast that had the wound of a sword, and did live. Revel: 13.14. be not meant of the erecting of an external Form of Ecclesiastical Government, like some Government that had been before: and what Government this making 〈…〉 Image of the Beast is, I desire to know: For the beast himsel●●●s said in the 6 verse, to blaspheme God, and his Tabernacle; that is his Church and People: and in the 7 verse, He is said to make war with the Saints, and overcome them; that is, with the temporal sword, though they overcome him w●th the spiritual sword, and it is said in the 8 ve●se, that the power of the Beast should be so great, that all that dwell upon the Earth should worship him. that is, by submitting to his Edicts & Government, even all under his jurisdiction or Dominion, whose Names are not written in the Book of Life. It is said after, that such as would not submit to his Government, must neither buy no● sell, they must not enjoy those privileges that others do that do submit.  
Some say that by the Beast mentioned in the first verse of this Chapter) that rise out of the Sea, which had 7 Heads and ten Horns is meant the Roman Empire: and by the second beast, that rise out of the Earth, that had two Horns like the Lamb, but spoke like the Dragon: (verse the 11.) is meant, the Pope in his height. Again others think that by both these Beasts, is meant the Pope; whose one and the same Person is described under a double resemblance of two Beasts: for Anti-christ alone is a double Head; in respect of his Civil power, he is the first beast; and in respect of his Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power he is the second beast. Or if you will, He is the first beast in regard of the wound he received by the Goths, Vandals, and Huns: and he is the second Beast, as he was exalted in his height, when his deadly wound was healed, and ●he Goths, etc. destroyed, and the Pope rise to have great possessions of Cities and Lands: for he exercised all the power of the first Beast. Take it in what sense you will. For by his two Horns is meant both Civil & Ecclesiastical power; for by the sword which the Pope doth exercise, he commands obedience to his Ecclesiastical Decrees as verse 16.17. He caused all both small and great, rich and poor, bond and free to receive a Mark in their right hand, or in their forehead. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the Mark, or the Name of the beast, or the number of his Name. Now by the Mark of the beast in the forehead, or right hand some think is meant to profess and practise the Laws, Religion, and Decrees that are commanded; and those that will not submit thereunto, must not buy nor sell. Now this second Beast exercising all the power of the first beast, and commanding an Image of the B●ast to be made, which Image must be something that doth resemble, 〈◊〉 like unto the beast: and if the Mark in the forehead or right hand, signify the profession and practice of the Laws, Religion and Decrees of the Beast: then what is meant by the Image of the beast, that they must not buy nor sell that have not the Beasts mark? and whether it have no relation to the silencing of Preachers, that do not subscribe their Canonical obedience, I desire to be resolved, and would be much engaged to those that would take the pains to do it.  
For, certain it is, many pecious souls are at a stand, and know not what way to turn themselves, to see so many eminent Persons, which they dare not think but there is something of God in both Parties, and yet they are at such a distance in their practice and affections, and that for a small Punctilio, or as the Holy-Ghost saith, They make a man an offender for a word; or for omission of some small matters, which they that urge them, will not say that either salvation or damnation doth depend upon the doing, or not doing of them: and yet for omission thereof, their mouths shall be stopped from preaching; and in some sense salvation or damnation depends upon preaching. Rome 10.14. How shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard: and how shall they hear without a Preacher, etc. For preaching is the outward ordinary means that God hath ordained to work Conversion in such as he will save: for where Vision faileth, the people perish: and by the ●●●ching of the Word also, those that are not reform, their condemnation will appear to be just. And those that do not preach, and those that hinders others from preaching, see what the Scripture saith, Ezek: 33.6. If any man be taken away in his iniquity, for want of warning, his blood will God require at the Watchman's hands: both he that should, and doth not preach, and he that hinders others from preaching. Let no man say, I take upon me to teach, for what I do is but (as the Apostle saith,) 2 Pet: 3.2. To stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance, though ye know these things: for I heartily desire peace and unity, and that all men would remember and practise St. Paul's exhortation, Colos: 3.13. To forbear one another, and to forgive one another: and if any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. Or else; how 〈◊〉 any man pray the Lords Prayer? a Heathen may say it, but no man can pray it, but such as are willing to pass by their brethren's failings and infirmities: For if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive your trespasses. And these Men (we speak of) say, that if they trespass against Men in denying to subscribe Canonical obdience, it is, fearing they should trespass against God if they should do it, because they cannot do it of faith, and whatsoever is not of faith, is sin: and whether it be right in your sight, to obey Men rather than God, judge ye.  
A third Quaerie may be this, vizt.  
Whether the silencing of Godly Ministers, have not some relation to the causing of the daily Sacrifice to cease, that hath been offered up daily to God: and how do men think God will take it, Whose voice once shook the Earth; Heb: 12.26, 27. but now he hath promised saying, Yet once mose, I shake not the Earth only, but also Heaven: and this word, yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, [which some think the things that are made, are to be understood of all Humane Inventions in Divine Worship,] that the things that are not made, may remain: that is, those things that are of Divine Institution, shall remain: Men, nor Devils, nor all the Powers of Darkness shall not be able to prevail against that which is of Divine Institution, when all Humane Inventions, in point of Divine Worship, shall be removed, according to this Promise.  
If any should think or say, that I make myself too busy to propound such Questions, give me leave to answer such, That I do but propound my Question to men: and yet I find jeremiah in the 12 chap: in such an evil time as this, when God had warned the Prophet, chap: 7. verse 16. and chap 11. verse 14. That he should not pray for that people for their good, for he would not hear him for them; yet even then did jeremiah (chap: 12. verse 1.) propound a question to God: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal treacherously? meaning that they were happy as to their outward estate in the world. For (saith he) thou hast planted them, and they have taken root, and grow: thou art near their mouth, and far from their reins. Then God answers jeremiah, ver: 6. Even thy brethren, and the house of thy Father, they have dealt treacherously with thee; they have called a multitude after thee: and verse 10. Many Pastors have destroyed my Vineyard, they have trodden down my portion under foot: they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness: and being desolate it mou●●●th to me. and verses 13, 14. They have sown wheat, but shall reap thorns: For thus saith the Lord against all mine evil neighbours, that touch mine Inheritance, which I have caused my people Israel to inherit, Behold I will pluck them out of their Land, and no marvel if God pluck them out, when they had plucked God's people out first: for he that toucheth them, toucheth, the Apple of his eye. I am loath to trouble the Reader with too much, until I see how this will be accepted: and now all those that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, I commend you to God, and to the word of his Grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among them that are sanctified.  
By George Pressicke.  
FINIS.