Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n
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
|
A RESOLUTION OF THREE Matrimonial CASES VIZ. I. Whether it be Lawful for a Man to Marry his deceased Wife 's Sister's Daughter II. Whether the half-blood make Kindred III. Whether such a Marriage being made it ought to be dissolv'd or no By John Turner late Fellow of Christ's Colledge in Cambridge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be ready always to give an answer to every Man that asketh you a reason LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church Yard 1684. THE Preface THE Three Queries here resolved were sent to me upon the Thirtieth of Jan. last I know not well from whom they came and it seems he that sent them did not think it worth his while to call for an answer However because the resolution proceeds upon such Principles as may be applyed to any other Case of this nature so that every Man may easily discern hereafter for himself what is lawful or unlawful in these Cases therefore I thought it convenient to make it publick Farewell A RESOLUTION OF THREE Matrimonial CASES Quest I. Whether it be a lawful Marriage for a Man to Marry his deceased Wife 's Sister's Daughter or no Quest II. Whether being but of the half blood do not make Kindred Quest III. If such a Marriage be made already whether it be better that they part or not FOR the First of these Queries it appears by the Third which is concerning Divorce in Case of an unlawful Marriage that it is to be understood of a Marriage ex Antecedenti lawful or unlawful that is to say whether it be lawful for a Man to endeavour a Marriage or to enter into a Matrimonial Contract in order to it with one who stands related to him in the degree mentioned in the said Query And to this I Answer That it is not lawful and I conceive its unlawfulness to be demonstrable from that prohibition in the Eighteenth of Leviticus v. 14. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Father's Brother thou shalt not approach to his Wife she is thine Aunt which is again repeated c. 20. v. 20. If a Man shall lye with his Vncles Wife he hath uncovered his Vncles nakedness they shall bear their sin they shall die Childless For if it be unlawful for a Man to Marry his Aunt the Wife of his Father's Brother then it is likewise unlawful for a Woman to Marry her Uncle the Husband of her Mothers Sister because these two Relations are as to nearness of Kin exactly the same so that all the Question is whether in Matrimonial Cases we are to stick to the letter of the Levitical Law or whether parity of reason be of necessity to be admitted And I do humbly conceive the latter of these to be true and I offer these following reasons for my opinion First The fundamental reason of all these Prohibitory Laws is nearness of Kin. Levit. 18. 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of Kin to him to uncover their nakedness from whence it follows that if in two Cases given the nearness of Kin be in both exactly the same the reason of the Law and by consequence its Obligation is in both Cases equally concerned Secondly I appeal to the constant and universally received opinion of the Jewish Rabbins and to the practice of that Nation which is founded upon it for in the Matrimonial Tables of the Jews which are much more particular then that of Moses the additional Prohibitions that are to be met with in them are altogether grounded upon parity of reason as may be seen in Mr. Selden in his Vxor Hebraica and in his De jure naturali gentium juxta disciplinam Hebraeorum where he hath given an account of all those Prohibitions out of Maimonides and the Jewish Talmud Thirdly It is to be considered that these Prohibitions were not of a purely Mosaick that is a Typical Umbratick and alterable Nature but that they were built upon the reason of things and the unchangeable Interest of Mankind for the propagation of Interests and Dependencies and for the spreading and continuance of Friendship among Men which reason being altogether equal and the same equally violated on the one hand or gratified on the other in the Marriage of an Aunt to the Nephew or of an Uncle to the Niece it is manifest that the Law-giver proceeding upon this reason and there can be no other tolerable reason of these Prohibitions assigned did intend equally to prohibit both if he have prohibited either of them otherwise we must suppose one of these two things Either that Moses that is in effect God himself did not sufficiently understand and comprehend the full Extent and Latitude of that reason upon which the Prohibitions were founded or else that the reason of those laws may be violated from time to time and from age to age in a thousand myriads of instances with the consent of the Law-giver himself by which means it would come to pass if it were lawful for an Uncle to marry the Niece though the Marriage of an Aunt with her Nephew were forbidden that whatever the advantage was which was intended by the prohibition of the latter to be procured to the World that advantage by the licence of the former would be but half obtained and on the other side whatever the disadvantage or detriment was which was designed to be avoided or prevented that disadvantage would be but half redressed now both of these things being equally absurd and impious to suppose it follows likewise upon this Third consideration as well as the two former that in the Mosaick Prohibitions a parity of reason and a Parallelism or Sympathy of Cases is of necessity to be admitted Fourthly If there had been liberty still allowed after it was prohibited for an Aunt and her Nephew to intermarry together yet notwithstanding for an Uncle and his Niece to do it and so in other parallel instances that might be given this would have been a very great and a very plausible pretence for disobedience it would have been an occasion of frequent murmuring and repining in the Parties that were prohibited to Marry when others as to nearness of blood exactly in the same circumstances with themselves were to the scandal of all Law and Justice and without the least color of Equity indulged so that there being not only in both instances the very self same reason but it being likewise necessary to the due effect of the Prohibition exprest that it should be extended to the Prohibition imply'd by parity of reason it follows that it was actually extended so far and to say otherwise is to accuse the Divine Justice and Wisdom together It would be to accuse the Divine Wisdom as if God wanted foresight and did not pry sufficiently into the natural issue and result of things by making a Law to a stubborn and refractory people which even the most obedient might very justly complain of and by