Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	word_n	write_v	yield_v	83	3	6.6777	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63901	An argument in defence of the marriage of an uncle with the daughter of his half-brother by the father's side by John Turner ...	Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.	1686 (1686)	Wing T3301; ESTC R6144	34,383	76

offence is manifestly a restraint laid upon that possible and humanely lawful liberty of action which he had before and therefore the humane obligation cannot extend further then the Letter of the Law for what the Law hath not restrained it leaves still indifferent and it is true of humane Laws with respect to natural as well as positive obligations in lege prohibitoriâ quodcunque non prohibetur intelligitur permissum Secondly To come nearer to our present Case the intermarriage of Brother and Or of two Brothers to two Sisters Sister to Sister and Brother among us as likewise of the Son in Law to the Mother in Laws Daughter or Father in Laws Daughter are clear instances that our Law does not proceed by parity of reason for all these are manifest violations of one of those great and fundamental reasons of all those prohibitions which was to spread Friendships and propagate Good-will and Charity among Men by not restraining the Matrimonial affinities within too narrow a compass Thirdly In the Law it self which is the 25 of H. 8. c. 22. the particulars there specified are ushered in with a that is to say and in the Conclusion of it there is a reference made to them by the Word afore rehearsed and above expressed now if any man will shew me that the words that is to say were ever referr'd to any other than the particulars thereafter expresly declared without respect to any dark intimations by parity of reason or if the word afore rehearsed or above expressed were ever in any Act or other good Writing of Law referred to any other Particulars than what were before in the said Act or Writing expresly enumerated than I will yield the Cause notwithstanding what ever else hath been said in its defence but if these words are no where used otherwise than I have said and by consequence cannot be so here neither then I am as certain as the Law can make me as certain as the plainest evidence of demonstration can be that I must undeniably and infallibly carry it Besides that all this is spoken in defence of the Marriage of an Vncle with his Niece ex post facto at least for though it may be defensible though that Niece should be the Daughter of a Brother or Sister German by Father and Mothers side yet I would not advise or so much as yield to it before hand but our case is still more favourable we are the Niece only by the Half-blood and that not the Blood of the Mother but the Father which because the more uncertain is in all these Cases the more favourable of the two which was the foundation of Abrahams justification of himself to Abimelech the King of Gerar she is the Daughter of my Father and not the Daughter of my Mother and she became my Wife as much as to say according to the custom and usage of those times that the one is not a Sister prohibited in Marriage though the other be or that the Sister by the Fathers side is not legally so near a kin as the Sister by the Mother So Albericus Gentilis determines in this De Nupt. L. 5 c. 10. p. 540. very case ut tanto minus fuerit peccatum quanto est carnis conjunctio simplicior minor a patre And in another place in his Paraphrase upon one of the Levitical prohibitions he says Filiam matris tuae Ib. c. 8. p. 522. hoc est uterinam sororem ne accipias pari ratione cum filia patris tui aut forte etiam majori quia conjunctio carnis major ex parte est matris and this was perhaps one reason among others why the Marriage of Claudius with Agrippina his Brothers Daughter was not only ratify'd but perswaded by the Senate for Tacitus Suetonius and Zonaras do all of them speak of it after Tacit. Annal L. 12. Sueton Zonar in Claudio such a manner as if he were almost compelled to what he did by the importunity of the Senate and People which I for my part when it was so unanimous can scarce believe to have been dissembled especially to so easie a Prince as Claudius is represented I am sure we do not live in such flattering times though we have the Honour and happiness of much better Princes to sway the Scepter over us than ever the Romans could boast of and the example had been like to have been imitated afterwards by that good Prince Titus Vespatian who recommended Sueton in Damitiano juxta finem his Daughter for a Wife to his Brother Damitian though he did not think fit to accept of her in any higher quality than that of a Mistress which as to the business of Incest was the same thing Besides that several of the after Emperours did confirm this Licence though afterwards it were restrain'd Mosaic Roman legg collat tit de incest Nupt. p. 92. and prohibited again by others as appears by the Edict of Diocletian and Maximian publisht in the Fragments of Pythaeus where the marriage of the Sisters Daughter not that of the Brother is only forbidden And Vlpian saith speaking of his own time nunc ex tertio gradu licet uxorem ducere where when Cujacius would correct it Quarto he is deservedly chastised for it by Albericus Gentilis for Alberic Gent. der Nupt. l. 5. c. 10 p. ●39 Vlpian certainly meant that it was lawful in his time to marry the Brothers Daughter though not the Sisters Nay that even in Justinian's time the Female Consanguinity was more Sacred and the conjunction with it more Incestuous than the Male though it is true the Marriage of the Brother's Daughter were in his time forbidden likewise appears by this resolution of Papinianus ad Plautium Sororis proneptem non possum ducere uxorem quoniam parentis loco ei sum He do's not say Fratris proneptem but T it deritu Nupt. l. 39. Sororis implying the latter to be much more Sacred and more indispensably prohibited than the former Neither can any reason be given why Caracalla who married his Mother-in-law was never imitated so V. Spartian in Caracalla commonly as Claudius bating the difference of Age betwixt a Mother-in-law and a Niece but that the one was always look'd upon to be much more fowl and incestuous than the other Lastly St. Ambrose dehorting Paternus from marrying his Son to his the said Son's Sisters Daughter by Paternus the Fathers side which was but the Halfe-blood durst not say positively that it was against Law though it were a Sisters Daughter as this is not being only the half Sister by the Fathers side Hic autem gradus tertius est qui etiam civili jure a consortio conjugii exceptus videtur And now I conclude from the Premises that the Marriage of the Vncle to his Half-brother by the Father's sides Daughter cannot without Ignorance or Wickedness and in either Case without palpable injustice be Vacated or Dissolved JOHN TVRNER FINIS