Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	king_n	law_n	positive_a	3,676	5	11.2679	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63896	Addenda & mvtanda, in the late defence of the marriage of an uncle with his niece being the daughter of the half-brother by the father's side / by the author of that defence.	Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.	1686 (1686)	Wing T3298; ESTC R6190	18,827	51

after such a manner that many and those very Learned Men too have been induc'd to believe it was the Marriage of the Vncle with his Niece for of this Opinion were most of those whom I have already cited as Asserters of the meerly positive Obligation of the Mosaick Law Sixthly and lastly Though I am far from disputing the Kings Power in dispensing with a Statute in Cases of necessity of which he is the Judge yet in ordinary Cases he is never supposed to intend it and it is certain that when among other Articles presented to him by the Convocation he gave his Royal Assent to the Matrimonial Table in which the Uncle is prohibited to Marry his Niece the Convocation themselves were of Opinion that this Degree was some way or other prohibited by the Law of Moses and the King agreed to this Prohibition among others upon that supposition but now since it appears so plainly that this sort of Marriage was never actually forbidden by the Law of Moses nor so much as intended to be forbidden either nothing but Gods Law can impeach any Marriage and by consequence this cannot be impeach'd or else an Act of Parliament may be Repealed by an Act of Convocation which yet hath no Power to make any Laws or Ordinances whatsoever but what the Parliament it self hath given it and the Parliament can never be supposed to put a Power destructive of their very Constitution into the Hands of the Clergy met together in a Convocation nay they have expresly provided with the Kings Royal Assent who without necessity which cannot here be pretended will never break his Word with his People and then the breach of it is the truest Justice that no Convocation shall exercise any such Power FINIS AN Additional Advertisement Concerning the HALF-BLOOD DEut. 13. 6. It is provided in case of Idolatry If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother or thy Son or thy Daughter or the Wife of thy Bosom or thy Friend which is as thine own Soul entice thee secretly saying Let us go and serve other Gods c. v. 8. Thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him neither shall thine Eye pity him neither shalt thou spare neither shalt thou conceal him v. 9. But thou shalt surely kill him thine Hand shall be first upon him to put him to death and afterwards the Hand of all the People The meaning of this Law is that Idolatry should certainly be punished with Death let the Relation be never so nigh or the Endearment and Friendship never so great as appears by those Words Or the Wife of thy Bosom or thy Friend which is as thine own Soul and when it is said Thy Brother the Son of thy Mother without mention of the Brother by the Father it is imply'd that the one is nearer of kin than the other in the Interpretation of the Levitical Law this best answering the intention of this Law of Moses which did oblige them not to conceal even their nearest Relations and in this Prohibition the Brother being the Son or supposed Son of the Father is included a fortiori Books written by the same Author and Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Pauls Church-yard 1. ANimadversions upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in a Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor October 19th 1679. 2. A Discourse of the Divine Omnipresence and its Consequences in a Sermon Preached before the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn the first Sunday of Michaelmas Term 1683. 3. A Sermon Preached before Sir P. W. 1681. with Additions To which are annexed three Digressional Exercitations I. Concerning the true time of our Saviours Passover II. Concerning the Prohibition of the Hebrew Canon to the Ancient Jews III. Concerning the Jewish Tetragrammaton and the Pythagorick Tetractys Quarto 4. Two Discourses Introductory to a Disquisition demonstrating the unlawfulness of the Marriage of Cousin Germans from Law Reason Scripture and Antiquity Octavo 5. A Letter of Resolution to a Friend concerning the Marriage of Cousin Germans Octavo 6. A Resolution of Three Matrimonial Cases viz. I. Whether it be lawful for a Man to Marry his disceas'd Wives Sisters Daughter II. Whether the Half-Blood makes Kindred III. Whether such a Marriage being made it ought to be dissolv'd or no. 7. Boaz and Ruth A Disquisition upon Deut. 25. 5. concerning the the Brothers Propagating the Memory of his Elder-Brother deceas'd in which the Antiquity Reason and Circumstances of the Law are Explain'd the Mistakes and Impositions of the Jewish Rabbins in this and other matters detected and a fair way opened for a clearer understanding of the most obscure and dark places in the Law of Moses together with a discovery of several things as well in the Eastern as Roman Antiquities never yet explained or understood by any 8. An Argument in defence of the Marriage of an Uncle with the Daughter of his Half Brother by the Fathers side Octavo

same Degrees a Man and his Wife are all one and his Wives Sister as to this Particular is the same with his own and her Daughter the same with his Consanguineous Niece by the Whole Sister which if it be determin'd lawful the Daughter of the Half-Brother is much more the Half-Blood and the Paternal Consanguinity taken together making the Case more favourable by Four to One which is the exact Proportion Thirdly Though it be true what I have affirmed That the Talmudists or Traditionary Doctors are agreed in permitting the Marriage of an Vncle with his Niece and this as far off as the time of Josephus and probably a great deal longer yet the Karraites or Scriptuary Jews forbid it as well by the Brother as the Sisters Side conceiving it as I suppose to be included by Parity of Reason But this is so far from being a Prejudice to our Cause that it is the greatest advantage it can possibly receive for it is absurd to think that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Misnical or Traditionary Jews were ignorant of this Opinion of the Karraitish Faction and therefore their determination in this case did not proceed out of heedlesness or inadvertency as it is found to have done in many others but was certainly grounded upon one of these two bottoms either that Parity of Reason was not to be regarded and that according to Antient Tradition it did not indispensably oblige their Forefathers who upon Prudential Considerations assumed a latitude and liberty to themselves either of entring into such Marriages or abstaining from them or else that there was indeed no Parity in this Case as certainly there is not and much less in the Half-blood and the Half-blood by the Fathers side and though I am no great friend to the Traditions of the Jews which in many cases are monstruously fabulous and impertinent yet where a Tradition hath reason to assert it this is a great Argument of its Truth and Credit and the Reason and Tradition do reflect upon each other a mutual Authority and Reputation Fourthly and lastly Though Archibishop Parkers Matrimonial Table were confirmed by Authority of a Convocation in the Second of King James the First yet it is to be considered that the power of such Assemblies and Synods of the Clergy and the Validity of what they shall determine is founded upon 25 H. 8. c. 12. and in that Act there is this provision made Provided alway that no Canons Constitutions or Ordinances shall be made or put in execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy which shall be contrariant or repugnant to the Kings Prerogative Royal or the Customs Laws or Statutes of this Realm Wherefore all the Question is whether this Marriage be against the Law of God as I think I have abundantly proved that it is not and upon supposition that I am in the right the Matrimonial Table as to this particular Prohibition is of no manner of force or obligation because the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 38. expresly says That no Reservation or Prohibition Gods Law except shall trouble or impeach any Marriage And this is all I have to say only since there is a Sentence of Divorce already past in this Cause I would humbly recommend it to those before whom the final determination of this Controversie shall lie that they would reflect upon our Saviours injunction in Cases of this Nature whom God hath joyn'd as he hath joyned all those who being actually Married are not antecedently by his Law forbidden to Marry let no man put asunder and that in the Judgment they shall give upon this Case they would set the great Judge of Heaven and Earth before them as a Pattern who hath told us not only for our instruction but imitation too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice and that in the midst of Judgment he remembers Mercy FINIS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reliquiae Secundae I Did believe upon the Writing of my last Paper that I had exhausted the Argument which was the Subject of it but upon further enquiry I find I have not and there is further to be added to what I have said already as follows First Learned Men are divided in their Opinions whether the Prohibitions in Leviticus are Natural that is founded and rooted in the Law of Nature or in the Natural and Eternal Reason of things or whether they are purely positive and no more Of the first sort is Lyranus Abulensis Bonfrerius Masius Montanus and Nicholas Serarius and among the Reformed Mr. Calvin of the latter is Paulus Burgensis Cajetanus C. a Lapide Sanchez and the Authors by him cited Tirinus Lorinus Menochius and Magalianus and among the Reformed three great Authorities Drusius Episcopius and our Learned Bishop Taylor as for mine own Opinion I must confess that I incline rather to the Sentiments of the former but they that think with the latter that the Obligation of these Laws is positive and no more they have no pretence for a Dissolution of this Marriage because in Laws meerly positive there is no such thing as Parity to be admitted such Laws being all of them a manifest restraint upon the Natural Liberties of Mankind and therefore ought not to be strained by Parities and Interpretations whether true or false beyond the Letter of them Secondly As to my Interpretation of the Phrase of Dying Childless it is confirmed by the Authority of the Learned Jesuite Stephanus Menochius who in his Comment upon that place hath these remarkable Words to the very same Sense with mine Hi incestuosi non sinentur in hoc scelere permanere donec liberos habere possint sed occidantur and this when all is done is the true meaning of the Text though the Jews who are horribly unskilful in the remote Antiquities of their own Nation have devised other fanciful Glosses which will not abide the test of a judicious enquiry and that we may not wonder at this severity of punishing all Incestuous Conjunctions with Death Paulutius Forojuliensis refers it as he very well might besides the Reason I have given to the Arbitrary disposal of Almighty God who may annex what Sanction he pleases to his Laws or which is all one to some Impulsive Cause or Motive which he hath not thought fit to reveal so that with respect to us it is Arbitrary let it be what it will in it self where speaking of Congress with a Menstruous Woman being punished with Death he says Multa alia quae non sunt peccata mortalia puniebantur paenâ mortis ex aliquâ causâ legislatorem movente ut esus Sanguinis Thirdly When it is said Levit. 18. 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him to uncover their Nakedness It is to be observed that this nearness of kin is to be measured not from our selves but from the Fountain of Kindred that is from a common Father or Parent