Selected quad for the lemma: son_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
son_n	father_n	mother_n	sister_n	15,172	5	9.8017	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63915	A resolution of three matrimonial cases by John Turner.	Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.	1684 (1684)	Wing T3315; ESTC R24646	10,682	31

consequence had a plausible pretence to disobey and it would be at the same time to tax him with want of Justice which is every whit as essential and congenerous to his nature for what can be more unjust then to make it death for a Man to lie with the Mother of his Wife and yet to leave it perfectly at liberty for a Man to lie with his own Daughter And yet this is no where forbidden unless it be by parity of reason except it be Levit. 18. 17. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a Woman and her Daughter but that is manifestly to be understood of such a Daughter as was born to that Woman by another Husband and therefore she is called her Daughter by which it is implyed and supposed that she was not his and the same prohibition is exprest in other words Lev. 20. 12. If a Man lie with his Daughter in Law that is his Wife's Daughter both of them shall surely be put to death or except it be pretended to be forbidden Lev. 20. 14. If a Man take a Wife and her Mother it is wickedness they shall be burnt with fire both he and they For in this Case if a Man commit Incest with his own Daughter or if he should Marry her so as to make her his Wife he must of necessity have lain both with Mother and Daughter But this place is also to be understood of the Mother of that Wife by some other Husband therefore Moses calls the Daughter his Wife that is his lawful Wife and the fault was not in lying with the Daughter but the Mother after he had been joyned in Marriage to the Daughter And this Prohibition is as it were the reverse and counterpart of that other which hath been mention'd out of Levit. 18. 7. and c. 20. 12. For in the two former places it is forbidden for a Man to Marry the Mother and lie with the Daughter and in the latter it is forbidden for a Man to Marry the Daughter and commit Incest with the Mother And by these two places compared together it is still further evident that the Law of Moses is in these cases to be explained and interpreted by parity of reason for this was the reason of prohibiting first the enjoyment of the Mother and the Daughter in the descending line and then of the Daughter and Mother in the ascending because the Relation is exactly the same in both Cases and by consequence it is in both Cases equally unlawful which is to argue by parity of reason which if it be admitted as a measure of procedure in one Case the equity and justice of proceeding after the same manner is the same in all But on the contrary if we are no where to extend the intention and obligation of the law of Moses beyond the letter of it then it will be Levitically lawful for a Man to Marry his own Daughter because this is no where expresly forbidden but consequentially it is for if it be unlawful for a Man to lie with his Daughter in Law that is his Wives Daughter it is much more unlawful for him to do it with his own If it be forbidden as it is Lev. 18. 10. for a Man to uncover the nakedness of his Sons Daughter or his Daughter's Daughter that is of his Grand-child it is supposed much more that it is by that very Prohibition intentionally forbidden for him to uncover the nakedness of his own So likewise it is forbidden for a Man to Marry his half-half-Sister either by Fathers or Mothers side Lev. 18. 9. The nakedness of thy Sister the Daughter of thy Father or Daughter of thy Mother whether she be born at home or born abroad even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover But yet it is no where in express terms forbidden for a Man to Marry his own Sister born of the same Father and Mother which yet notwithstanding hath been looked upon by Jews and Christians as well the one as the other and both of them universally without any one exception to be Levitically prohibited and unlawful because the same reason whatsoever it is which forbids the Marriage of the half-Sister is much more strong and powerful against an incestuous conjunction with the whole so that it appears plainly not only that it is necessary in it self that the argument à pari or à potiori should be admitted in these Cases but that in some of them it is universally done and there is the same reason why it should be so in all Which may render my Fifth and Last consideration in a manner useless which is that God being so highly displeased with the Amorites and other Nations as utterly to extirpate them from off the face of the Earth and give their Land for an Inheritance to Israel his People and being so displeased at the Abominations themselves for which these Nations were extirpated and rooted out that the sanction of several of the Levitical Prohibitions was certain and unavoidable death in the most publick manner in the face and open view of the whole Congregation this ought to teach us not only to admit a parity or potiority of reason when they lie so naturally and so fairly in our way that we cannot without blushing pretend to shun or avoid them but rather then restrain our obligation to the Divine Law within too narrow bounds to exceed on the other hand by a pious mistake instead of falling short out of a spirit of presumption which is an offence to God when it hath not modestly dutifully and impartially considered things though it should happen to determine rightly as to the matter or the instances of obedience And this is my first answer to the Question proposed concerning the Marriage of an Uncle with his Niece which is drawn from the parity or similitude of the Case to the Marriage of an Aunt with her Nephew But Secondly It is I presume agreed on all hands that it is unlawful for a Nephew to intermarry with his Fathers or Mothers own Sister the Amita or Matertera the Consanguineous Aunt by the Fathers or Mothers side and it is I think as universally determined that it is unlawful for an Uncle to Intermarry with his Niece the Daughter of his own Brother or Sister and this was certainly the Old Roman Law till Claudius procured it to be abrogated by the Senate to excuse and justifie an incestuous Passion for his beloved Agrippina but yet this was looked upon by all to be so foul and abominable a thing that the example was not followed in that age by any more then one as Tacitus informs us or two at the most as Suetonius would have it and they also did it rather out of Complaisance and Flattery to Agrippina at whose instance it was done then out of any natural inclination in the Contracting parties and for the same reason because of its Turpitude and Incestuous nature it was repealed by Nerva and though it were afterwards restored by

Adrian and encouraged after that by the example of L. Antoninus Caesar who Married his Niece Lucilla the Daughter of his Brother M. Aurelius Antoninus the Philosopher yet it always remained incestuous and prohibited by the Laws of the Empire for a man to Marry his Sister's Daughter though he were allowed to Marry the Daughter of his Brother the reason of which was that though in Laws well constituted for a bar to concupiscence and for the spreading of Friendships a parity of Cases ought to be allowed yet the violation of a law in one Case ought not by any means to be drawn into Precedent or Example to the violation of it in another so that it being naturally or politically unlawful or inconvenient for a Man to Marry the Daughter of his Brother it was still more reasonable to confine the Interpretation of the S. C. Claudianum by which it was provided de futuro that such Marriages should be deemed lawful to the letter of the law itself so as the priviledge should not be extended to the Niece descending from the Sister Now it is to be noted that both by the Jewish and the Roman Law Affinities and Consanguinities were equally forbidden and to the same degrees as for the Roman Law it is so plain so frequently inculcated and so universally acknowledged by all the Ancient Civilians that it is to no purpose to go about to prove it and that it was so in the Jewish I prove by these following Texts Lev. 18. v. 8. The nakedness of thy Fathers Wife shalt thou not uncover it is thy Fathers nakedness that is it is same thing in the Interpretation of Law as if a Man had uncovered the nakedness of his own Mother his Father and his Mother in Law being united as it were into the same person in the same manner as his own Mother and his Father were Again v. 15. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Daughter in Law she is thy Sons Wife that is she is to be reputed as standing in the same nearness of relation to you with your Son himself and by consequence it is in the eye of the Law the same thing as if you had uncovered the nakedness of your own Daughter for a Son and a Daughter are the same as to nearness of blood or distance from their common Parent So also v. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Brothers Wife it is thy Brothers nakedness that is it is the same thing as if you had been guilty of uncleanness with your own Sister for a Brother and a Sister are in relation the same Lastly v. 14. which I mention last because I intend to make the most particular application of it Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Fathers Brother thou shalt not approach to his Wife she is thine Aunt that is by having been joyned in Marriage to your Fathers Brother it is the same thing as if she had been your Fathers own Sister so that the reason why a Man might not approach to his Aunt in Affinity or by Marriage was because the Aunt in consanguinity or by blood was forbidden and because of the legal analogy and resemblance of the one to the other but now by the same reason that an Aunt by consanguinity may not Marry her Nephew an Uncle in the same nature may not Marry his Niece because the distance in both Cases is exactly the same and if Affinities and Consanguinities go hand in hand as well by the Mosaick as the Roman Law and if they are forbidden to the same degrees and by reason of their resemblance and analogy to the alliances by blood by reason of Man and Wife 's being the same Flesh and legally united into the same person then is a Man forbidden by the Levitical Law to Marry his Niece by Affinity which is the Case proposed The Second Query is Whether being but of the half-blood do not make kindred To which my Answer is affirmative that it does because though the legal Nearness of a Sister-in-Law and a Sister by both Parents be the same so far as the Matrimonial Prohibition is concerned yet the natural Nearness is greater in an half Sister then in a Sister by Affinity and therefore it seems reasonable if the one be forbidden that is to say the Sister by Affinity the Sister German or Vterine by Father or Mothers side is much more and to this it is to be added that all along before the giving of the Law the half Sister descended of the same Mother was always accounted as sacred and as indispensably prohibited in Marriage as the whole Sister her self that is she was in the interpretation of Law looked upon as an whole Sister as Abraham said concerning Sarah his Wife in his Apology to Abimelech the King of Gerar She is the Daughter of my Father but not the Daughter of my Mother implying thereby as I conceive that if she had been his Sister by the Mothers side it had not been Lawful for him according to the opinion and usage of those times to take her to Wife but without any elaborate canvassing the business this query is sufficiently answered by comparing these two places together Levit 18. 6. it is said None of you shall approach to any that is near of Kin to him to uncover their nakedness and v. 9. The nakedness of thy Sister the Daughter of thy Father or the Daughter of thy Mother whether she be born at home or born abroad even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover From whence it is manifest from comparing the latter place with the former that the half-Sister is near of Kin and consequently that the half-blood makes Kindred therefore a Mans Wife's half-Sister is to be looked upon as his Wife's Sister and because Affinities and Consanguinities in the Practice and Interpretation of Law are the same therefore his Wife's Sister is to be looked upon as his Sister and her Daughter is the same thing as his Niece the Daughter of his own Sister to whom he is in the language of the Civil Law parentis loco and therefore ought not to Marry her and if a Mans Grand-child be forbidden him in Marriage by the Levitical Law it self upon this reason which must be acknowledged to be implyed in the Prohibition because he cannot Marry his Daughter then it seems reasonable in this Case also that if a Man cannot Marry the Mother his Wife's half-Sister he cannot Marry the Daughter neither who is immediately descended from her and it is certain in the Civil Law that in the collateral as well as the direct line the ascendentes and descendentes are prohibited in infinitum It remains now only that I consider the Third Query which is this Whether the Marriage proposed being made it be better for them to part or no To which I Answer First That in some Cases it is necessary according to the Christian Doctrine which is very tender of Divorces and with a