Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	brother_n	daughter_n	omit_v	1,615	5	15.0636	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64753	The reports and arguments of that learned judge Sir John Vaughan Kt. late chief justice of His Majesties court of Common Pleas being all of them special cases and many wherein he pronounced the resolution of the whole court of common pleas ; at the time he was chief justice there / published by his son Edward Vaughan, Esq.	England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.; Vaughan, John, Sir, 1603-1674.; Vaughan, Edward, d. 1688.	1677 (1677)	Wing V130; ESTC R716	370,241	492

as in persons unmarried The next thing observable from this Canon is That the Makers were of opinion that the marriage with the Consobrina or brother or sisters daughter was equally unlawful as marriage with two sisters and the punishment by the Canon is equal Whence it follows That the Makers of the Canon Apostles or others did in those two Cases follow the exposition of the Karaits and not of the Talmudists The Karaits holding both marriages unlawful but the Talmudists holding neither unlawful by Moses's Law But by what Law Divine the primitive and succeeding Christian Churches conceived themselves obliged as generally they did and do in the matter of marriage to observe the Levitical prohibitions strictly and indispensably is a question of great difficulty But surely they took their measures of those Prohibitions from the Doctrine of the Karaits more than from the Scribes and Pharisees though the last were of more Authority in the Hebrews Commonwealth as appears by that of Matthew cap. 23. v. 2 3. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses his Seat all therefore they bid you observe that observe and do Nor was it without reason done for such of those degrees which are not particularly specified in the Eighteenth of Leviticus for in those the Scribes and Karaits agree but are deduc'd by Argument to be prohibited Seld. Uxor Ebraica l. 1. c. 3 4. Uxor Ebraica l. 1. c. 1 2. The Karaits conclude in their Prohibitions of Marriage from the Scripture it self but the Scribes in theirs from the Tradition and Sanctions of the Elders which Traditions the Christians often heeded not as introduced frequently against Gods Law as appears in the Tradition of Corban against Gods Precept of honouring the Father and Mother Mark 7.11 Mat. 15.3 4 5 6. most signally Nor is it strange that the Opinions of private men prevail above the publick in process of time So happened it in Luther Calvin and others in the beginning of the Reformation whose Opinions in time grew more authentique both in Doctrine and Discipline here and in many other States than the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which was the publique before in both kinds Many like Examples might be given ancient and modern which I purposely omit By a Canon of another very ancient Provincial Council called Concilium Eliberinum under Pope Silvester Three hundred and fourteen years after Christ and before the Council of Nice by the Sixteenth Canon of that Council Si quis post obitum Uxoris suae sororem ejus duxerit per quinquennium à communione abstineat Grot. l. 2. c. 5. p. 256. Sect. 14. By this so ancient Council marrying the wives sister was accompted unlawful but for the same reasons as before they could punish it no otherwise than by wayes in the power of the Church which was to hinder the Offender from Communion for five years And in this Council they followed the exposition of the Karaits also concerning marriages and not of the Talmudists nor is it rational to conceive that Canons then forbidding any sort of marriage proceeded from an Arbitrary power assumed by those who made them as Law makers to which they could no way pretend but because it was unlawful by the Principles and Persuasion of all Christian Believers Vide for these Rules Selden's Uxor Ebraica l. 1. cap. 4 5. By the first Rule is interdicted to a man his near of Kin By the Matrimonial Table of England interdicted The fathers wife The fathers wife or Step-mother f. 11 The mother The mother f. 10 The brothers wife The brothers wife f. 18 The sister The sister f. 16 The sons wife The sons wife f. 15 The daughter The daughter f. 13 By the second Rule is interdicted to a man the near of kin to his near of kin The Grand-fathers wife by the father The Grand fathers wife by the father f. 2 The Grand-fathers wife by the Mother The Grand-fathers wife by the mother f. 2 The Grand-mother by the Father The Grand-mother by the father f. 1 The Grand-mother by the mother The Grand-mother by the mother f. 1 The fathers brothers wife The fathers brothers wife f. 6 The fathers sister The fathers sister f. 4 The mothers brothers wife The mothers brothers wife f. 7 The mothers sister The mothers sister f. 5 The brothers sons wife The brothers sons wife f. 27 The brothers daughter The brothers daughter f. 25 The sisters sons wife The sisters sons wife f. 28 The sisters daughter The sisters daughter f. 26 The sons sons wife The sons sons wife f. 21 The sons daughter The sons daughter f. 19 The daughters sons wife The daughters sons wife f. 22 The daughters daughter The daughters daughter f. 20 By the third Rule is interdicted to the husband his wives near of kin From a woman and her fathers wife Omitted From a woman and her mother From a woman and her mother f. 12 From a woman and her Brothers wife Omitted From a woman and her sister A woman and her sister f. 17 From a woman and her sons wife Omitted From a woman and her daughter A woman and her daughter f. 14 By the fourth Rule is interdicted to a man the near of Kin to his wives near of Kin. A woman and her grand-mother by the mother A woman and her grand-mother by the mother f. 3 A woman and her grand-mother by the father A woman and her grand-mother by the father f. 3 A woman and her fathers brothers wife O. A woman and her fathers brothers wife f. 6 A woman and her mothers brothers wife O. A woman and her mothers brothers wife A woman and her brothers sons wife Omitted A woman and her brothers daughter A woman and her brothers daughter f. 29 A woman and her sisters daughter A woman and her sisters daughter f. 30 A woman and her sisters sons wife Omitted A woman and her sons sons wife Omitted A woman and her sons daughter A woman and her sons daughter f. 23 A woman and her daughters sons wife Omitted A woman and her daughters daughter A woman and her daughters daughter f. 24 A woman and her fathers sister A woman and her fathers sister A woman and her mothers sister A woman and her mothers sister A woman and her grand-fathers wife by the father Omitted A woman and her grand-fathers wife by the mother Omitted These last four Degrees are not mentioned under the fourth Rule by Mr. Selden but referred to by the words reliquis quae supersunt ex iis quae in regula secunda propinquorum sunt propinquae but the two first of these last four are forbid in our Matrimonial Table not the two last as several others of the same kind for the husband is not forbid by the Table the wives of his wives Grand-fathers nor her Fathers nor Brothers wife nor sons wife nor her fathers brothers nor mothers brothers wife nor her brothers sons wife nor sisters sons wife nor her sons sons wife

nor her daughters sons wife By the fifth Rule is interdicted that two near of Kin marry two other near of Kin. A man and his father from a woman and her daughter O. A man and his father from a woman and her sons wife O. A man and his father from a woman and her brothers wife O. A man and his father from a woman and her sister O. A man and his brother from a woman and her brothers wife O. A man and his brother from a woman and her daughter O. A man and his brother from a woman and her sons wife O. None of those comprised in this fifth Rule are prohibited by the Matrimonial Table but all the persons interdicted by the Doctrine of the Karaits or Scripture Rabbies are also interdicted by the Matrimonial Table of England excepting eleven persons before mentioned not interdicted to the wives husband by the Table who are interdicted by the Karaits enumeration but in this paper are marked with Ciphers as to the Matrimonial Table in the first four Rules of the Karaits Doctrine So as all the persons prohibited in those first four Rules of the Karaits being in number Four and forty are also prohibited by the Matrimonial Table which together with Eleven persons ciphered in the Table as excepted make up the like number of Four and forty from which if you deduct Eleven as excepted there will remain Three and thirty wherein the Table and the Karaits agree And whereas the enumeration of the prohibited marriages to a man are in the Table but Thirty and by consequence so many to the woman for where the man is prohibited to marry the woman the woman must reciprocally be prohibited to marry the man the reason is because in the number of degrees in the Table the Grand-fathers wife the Grand-mother and the wives Grand-mother make but three degrees But in the enumeration of the Karaits the Grand-fathers wife by the father the Grand-fathers wife by the mother the Grand-mother by the father and the Grand-mother by the mother the wives Grand-mother by the father and the wives Grand-mother by the mother are severally enumerated and so make Six persons Three more than are enumerated in the Table and so the Numbers agree The second Assertion And as to the second Assertion That admitting this marriage is not within the Levitical Prohibitions yet the Temporal Courts cannot prohibit the impeaching or drawing it into question by the Spiritual Court There is a great difference between marriage within the Levitical prohibitions and marriage within the Levitical degrees which commonly are taken to be the same For marriage within the Levitical prohibitions was always unlawful to the Hebrews by Gods Law that is the Mosaick Law But marriage within the Levitical degrees was not always unlawful for marriage between persons of the same nearness in Affinity or Consanguinity which only makes the degree was in some case and circumstance unlawful in others lawful So a marriage unlawful and a marriage lawful as the Circumstance varied in the same degree that is the same nearness of Relation The Levitical degrees qua such are set forth by no Act of Parliament but marriages which fall within some of those degrees are said to be marriages within the degrees prohibited by Gods Law by 28. H. 8. c. 7. 28 H. 8. c. 16. Nor is it said in any Act of Parliament That all marriages within the Levitical degrees are prohibited by Gods Law Sir Edward Coke in the first Edition but not in the rest Cok. Litt. f. 235. a. Edit 1. of his Littleton hath I confess these words By the Statute of 32 H. 8. it is declared That all persons be lawful that is may lawfully marry that are not prohibited by Gods Law to marry that is to say that be not prohibited by the Levitical degrees By which he makes all Gods Law by which any marriage is prohibited to be the Levitical degrees which is not so nor doth he constare sibi for in his Comment upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. he saith expresly That marriage made with a person pre-contracted or with a person naturally impotent could not have been impeached in order to a Divorce by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. but because such marriages are against Gods Law Yet they are not marriages within the Levitical degrees This marriage in question therefore though by way of Admission not within the Levitical prohibitions if it be within the Levitical degrees at all and whether unlawful or lawful within them and by what Law soever so unlawful or lawful cannot be prohibited to be impeached by the Spiritual Courts by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For that Act prohibits the impeaching of marriages only which are absolutely without the Levitical degrees leaving all other to the Spiritual Jurisdiction as before the Act of 32. Now The Levitical degrees are to be reckon'd by the persons whose carnal knowledge is forbidden a man in respect of Consanguinity or Affinity by the Law of Moses As the carnal knowledge of the mother the fathers wife the sons wife c. in respect of Consanguinity of the wives daughter her daughters daughter her mother c. in respect of Affinity And it is plain the wives sister is prohibited in some respect of Affinity by the words Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her Therefore her marriage with her sisters husband is a marriage within the Levitical degrees And agreed on all sides to be unlawful within the degrees if during the wives life but doubted if unlawful after her death Next it is certain the wives husband was restrained from taking his wives sister as he might take another woman that is either during his wives life or after Therefore his marriage with her was within the Levitical degrees But it must be clearly without those degrees if the impeachment of it may be prohibited by the Act of 32 H. 8. This marriage permitted lawful by the Canon Law where used Decret Greg. l. 4. Tit. de Divortiis c. 9. If a man marry his brothers wife none will deny that marriage to be within the Levitical degrees yet in some case that marriage was lawful by the Mosaick Law that is if the deceased brother died issuless But that will not hinder the impeachment of such a marriage by the Statute of 32 H. 8. So if a man marry his fathers brothers wife it is a marriage within the Levitical degrees Yet if the fathers brother were by the half blood only of the mothers side the Rabbies and Scribes held such marriage not unlawful by the Levitical Law but by the Sanctions of the Elders Seld. Uxor Ebraica l. 1 c. 2. f. 8. Many such cases may be found to prove a marriage may be lawful though it be a marriage within the Levitical degrees But none of those can therefore be prohibited to be impeached for they are not marriages without the Levitical degrees as the Statute

marriages instanc'd in which were lawful before the Law of Moses and which have not a moral inconsistency with them and so a natural iniquity and which therefore are prohibited among all civilized Nations whether ancient or modern as well as among the Jews for the most part Selden de Jure Gentium In some places some particular examples may be to the contrary for special reasons of Revelation or Prophecy believ'd as the Mother to marry the Son Accordingly it is affirmed by the Statutes of 28 H. 8. c. 7. 25 H. 8. c. 22. That the marriages enumerated in both those Acts to be prohibited by Gods Law were notwithstanding allow'd by colour of Dispensations by mans power The words of the Statute of 28. are after the recital of the prohibited marriages All which marriages albeit they be plainly prohibited and detested by the Laws of God yet nevertheless at some times they have proceeded under colours of Dispensations by mans power which is but usurped and of right ought not to be granted admitted nor allow'd The same words are in the Statute of 25. but instead of All which marriages the words are Which marriages c. The second Question What are the Levitical Degrees I omit because the marriage in question is in no sort in the Degrees Observation And by the way it is very observable That as we take the Degrees of Marriage prohibited by Gods Law to be the Levitical Degrees expressed or necessarily implyed in the Eighteenth of Leviticus upon parity of reason or by Argument à fortiori So there are some in Leviticus which by the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 7. and otherwise in our enumeration of the Levitical Degrees we admit as absolutely prohibited which in the Levitical Law and in the meaning of the Eighteenth of Leviticus were not absolutely but circumstantially prohibited that is 1. The marriage of a man with his Brothers wife which by 28 H. 8. cap. 7. is absolutely prohibited and commonly receiv'd to be absolutely prohibited by the Levitical Degrees But was not so by the Levitical Law nor by the meaning of the Eighteenth Chapter of Leviticus but when the dead brother left Issue by his wife But if he did not the surviving Brother was by the Law to marry his wife and raise Issue to his Brother This Law was so known that by all the Evangelists a Woman who had Seven Brothers successively our Saviour was asked Whose Wife she should be at the Resurrection 2. The second of this kind is A man is prohibited by 28 H. 8. and by the receiv'd Interpretation of the Levitical Degrees absolutely to marry his Wives sister but within the meaning of Leviticus and the constant practise of the Common-wealth of the Jews a man was prohibited not to marry his Wives Sister only during her life after he might So the Text is Thou shalt not take a Wife with her Sister during her life to vex her by uncovering her shame upon her This perhaps is a knot not easily untied how the Levitical Degrees are Gods Law in this Kingdome but not as they were in the Common-wealth of Israel where first given Third Question The third Question and chiefly concerning the Case in question is Whether Harrison's marriage with his great Vncles that is his Grand-fathers Brothers wife be a marriage by good and sound deduction of Consequence within the Levitical Degrees not particularly expressed For I think it evident it is not among those that are express'd neither in the Greek nor Latin Translations nor in the British names of Kindred where my Fathers Cosen German hath the appellation of my Uncle nor holpen by the gloss of being prohibited in the Twentieth of Leviticus though not in the Eighteenth 1. The word Uncle is an equivocal expression and in several places signifies several Relations as in the British the Father or Grand-fathers Cosen German is accounted an Uncle to the Son 2. The Fathers Brother hath in Latin a specifique term of Relation to the Son or Daughter viz. Patruus But the Stat. of 28 H. 8. c. 7. recites this prohibition to be To marry his Uncles Wife So hath the Mothers brother Avunculus but in the Greek it hath not and is express'd only by the word Kinsman 3. In Junius and Tremellius's Translation done with regard to the Septuagint and the Original the Twentieth of Leviticus verse the twentieth is rendred Quisquis cubaverit cum Amita sua nuditatem patrui sui retexit where expresly instead of and uncovered his Uncles shame it is uncover'd his Uncle his Fathers Brothers shame which makes it the same with the Eighteenth of Leviticus verse the fourteenth I shall therefore first agree That marriage with the Grand-mother Great-grand-mother and with the Great-grand-father and so upwards without limit is though not expressed equally prohibited in Leviticus as marriage with the Father Mother or Grand-father to the Son or Daughter So as in the right Ascending Line of Generation there can be no lawful marriage 1. The Father and Mother are the immediate natural Causes of the being of their Children and the Grand-father and Grand-mother are natural mediate causes of their being and so upwards in the right ascending Line interminately for a man could no more be what he is without his Grand-father and Grand-mother and so upwards than without his Father or Mother Therefore they are really Parents and necessary mediate causes of bringing the Children to have being and consequently what is due of reverence or acknowledgment for his being from the Child to Father or Mother is likewise due to those other Relations in the Ascending right Line But the Uncle quatenus Vncle c. doth no more contribute to the natural being of the Nephew or Neece than as if he had not at all been The marriage of the Son or Daughter with Grand-mother or Grand-father and so with any Ancestor Male or Female in the right Ascending Line is after Laws determining the knowledge and reverence due to Parents unnatural and repugnant in it self For there is unnaturalness in Civil things when constituted sometimes Though there be no Master or Servant originally in nature but only parity yet after Laws have constituted those Relations A. cannot at the same time be both Master and Servant to B. there is a repugnancy in the nature of those two Offices to be consistent in the same persons at once A Father or Mother cannot be Servant to their Son or Daughter for under the relation of Father or Mother the Son is to obey them but in that of Servant they to obey him which is repugnant and against the nature of those Relations Vnder the Law it was not forbidden a man to Curse his Servant but Death to Curse his Father or Mother A man might correct and chastise his Servant qua such but penal alike to chastise his Father or Mother in this sense The marriage of the Son with his Mother or the Daughter with her Father are