Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	daughter_n	marry_v	son_n	25,961	5	6.0384	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57044	A Representation of the prejudices that may arise in time from an intended act concerning marriages &c.		1692 (1692)	Wing R1105; ESTC R26985	9,065	18

A REPRESENTATION OF THE PREJUDICES That may Arise in TIME FROM AN Intended Act CONCERNING Marriages c. LONDON Printed for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of St. Pauls 1692. 'T IS no Dishonour to the Greatest and Wisest of Assemblies even a Parliament to review and alter their own Acts and Constitutions whenever it is found by Experience that any Inconveniences or Mischiefs follow upon them But when Sins are likely to follow men are neither to venture nor stay for the Experiment Such many such both Sins and Inconveniences dangerous and greatly prejudicial seem but too apparent as the more than accidental Consequences of a Bill said to be now passing into a Law of the Land entituled An Act disabling Minors to marry without the Consent of their Father or Guardian and against their untimely Marriage after the Death of their Father and for preventing all Clandestine Marriages To shew how easily this Act may be eluded or abused and represent withal the Sins and Mischiefs that are likely soon to follow it I shall consider the Heads of it in an Abstract that has come to hand of it the Copy at large I have not seen nor is it in my Power to procure and do hope not to see passed into a Law By the Draught I have seen it is to be Enacted From the 30th of March 1692. No Son under 18 nor Daughter under 16. shall Marry or Contract without their Father if living or Guardian be present and consenting to or without Consent in Writing signed in the presence of two Witnesses or more otherwise the Marriage to be ipso facto void I will put the Case That a Man of 17. years of Age contracts with a Woman of the same years the Woman has Consent of her Parents the Man has not his Fathers Consent however these get married Now is this Marriage by the Intended Act made ipso facto void by Reason that the Man had not the Consent of his Father The Question that will arise from such a Case as this is Whether such a Marriage can be made void so as to secure the Consciences of such as shall be divorced in such a Case that they may either Separate or Marry others to the better liking of their Parents Now 't is not I conceive a very easie matter to prove That a Man of 17. years of Age who may well be supposed to have at that Age Discretion to know what he does and what a Marriage Contract signifies yet has without the Consent of his Father contracted himself to a Woman and gone on deliberately in it and actually married her and known her as a Wife may yet Lawfully and with a good Conscience yield to the breaking off this Marriage be divorced or take another Wife because his Father gave not his Consent to the first Contract he engaged himself in No doubt but it was his Duty to have sought and obtained the Consent of his Father before he had contracted himself and married But that his not having done his Duty in that case to his Father will afterwards free him of his Contract and Marriage to his Wife is a Conceit that few mens Consciences will admit The best Casuists have resolved the Marriage to be Valid in foro Conscientiae Vid. Grotius de Jure L. 2. cap. 5. though made without the Consent of Parents and even against it owning it the manifest Duty of Children to have the Parents Consent but if they marry without the want of it does by no means invalidate the Contract When that is finished the Man by Gods Law is to forsake Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife goes out into another Family and is not in such subjection as shall oblige him to break off against his own Inclination or indeed as can justifie him in Conscience in separating should he have an Inclination to comply with his Fathers Will from the Wife with whom he is become one Flesh Some that have pretended to argue the Invalidity of such Marriages have never been able to prove any Thing like it from God's Law the utmost they have proved amounts to no more than this viz. That it is deducible and may be inferred from divers Passages in Scripture that Children ought to have their Parents Consent in Marrying which all the World owns But this by no means proves that what ought not to have been done may upon no account be valid when it is done What is commonly brought as an Argument in the Case to prove the Nullity from Reason viz. That a Son cannot alienate or give away his Fathers Goods without his Consent much less himself who is his Fathers Child is very trifling For though he cannot give his Father's Goods nor alienate them but the Law will restore them and the Son perhaps may not be bound to give them away though he had promised to do it as not being obliged to fulfil an unlawful Promise yet if he alienates them to another as his own and has received from him with whom he has contracted for them an equitable Consideration he is obliged in Conscience no doubt to an Equivalent Restitution if he does not make good his Promise in their delivery or whenever a Law of the Land shall cause the Return of the Goods to the Father Besides the World never yet supposed I presume that the Property and Dominion a man hath in his Goods and that which he hath in his Child are of the same nature or the like extent or that a Child hath no more Power over his own Body to dispose of that to his own liking than of his Fathers Goods in which he hath no manner of Property The Child no doubt is interessed in his own Marriage and therefore is not to be disposed of by the Father in Marriage against his own Inclinations And therefore when he understandeth the Interest himself hath in contracting for the Marriage of himself and contracteth upon that Interest of his own without his Father he is to blame no doubt for passing by the Interest of his Father but under no necessity when that is done to disclaim what he has acted upon the account of his own Interest in the Marriage of himself but under an obligation of Conscience not to rescind the Contract he has made with another upon it They who would deny this must affirm the Dominion of the Father to be absolute and at all times the same and also that the Child is under the same Restriction at 20 30 years of Age as at 17 whether out of the Father's Family or in it A thing 't is which the generality of the World never dream't of The only thing that can be pretended if they will not say this is that the Child at more years may have more Discretion But one may have Discretion at 17. which another has not at 20 30 years of Age and for that Reason a Time cannot be fixed for the Validity of a Contract but

the Validity of it in Conscience depends upon a Man's having the Use of Reason when he made it be it at any Age. 'T will be said I know The Law of the Land will secure the Conscience in this case But it should be first proved that God allows us to take Man's Law for our Direction in this matter otherwise where there shall be found a Repugnancy between God's Law and any Law of men They who think in Conscience that they are to obey God rather than Man cannot be perswaded that any Law of the Land will bear them out in acting against the Law of God And here in this case there is so far a Repugnancy that the Law of Christ says if a man be Divorced for other Cause than that of Fornication and marry another he committeth Adultery and causeth the Wife to commit Adultery But the Intended Law of the Land makes void Marriage for want of the Consent of the Father of the married Person a Cause that we find no Instance of any Divorce for among the Jews when their Practice was permitted Some may say This making the Marriage void is not a Divorce but the Declaration of a Nullity in the Marriage but this I fear is a Subtile Distinction that can give little Security to the Conscience For the thing will be still in dispute What makes a Marriage in the sight of God whether the Voluntary Action of a Person having the use of Reason that contracts himself to a Woman in face of God's Church and cohabits with her upon it or the Consent which his Father shall give to what he does This the Conscience of a Voluntary Agent with resolve him in more plainly than all the Arguings of subtle Wits in the case 2. But now besides the Snare which the Dissolution of Marriages according to this Act may prove to Mens Consciences there may be an Injustice in it in many Cases to an Innocent Party As in the Instance proposed before for Example of a Man at 17. marrying a Woman of the same Age. The Woman may have the Consent of her Parents or is of Age sufficient according to this Law to marry without them and may be deceived by the Man and told that he has no Father living or that his Father is consenting and made to believe as much or may not mind to look after it being of less discretion than a man of the same Age with her In such a Case a Marriage may succeed and a Cohabitation Now should a Separation be made after this as by the Intended Law it may no Provision being made to help the Woman in case of such a Fraud it would be very hard in many Respects as She cannot be secured in Conscience in marrying again as She has been robbed of her Virginity as She may be left with Child c. The Innocent Party in such a case would be manifestly punished for the fault of the other 3. Again 't is by this evident what advantage likewise a fraudulent Person might make of this Law to serve his Ends upon a Woman and then get a Separation from her or throw her off upon any Dislike 4. In a word Suits about the Validity of Marriages will very probably be found endless considering the many Opportunities ill Men may have by this Act to call a Marriage into question whenever they shall dislike or be willing to get rid of their Wives Which may prove a much greater Evil to Parents as to worldly Respects in the Marriage of their Children than the Mischiefs which some may imagine this new Law will prevent 5. The Children likewise born of such Marriages are left without Provision unless it be that which the Law of the Land hath already made for Bastards which these I suppose are intended to be reputed And when the Women that are divorced in such Marriages shall come to be reputed Harlots as they must in consequence That Stain may be more a Prejudice to Families than can at a distance be apprehended By these Instances any Man that would set himself to consider may guess at a multitude of other very dangerous Consequences prejudicial to Christianity and more prejudicial to Families than the Mischief intended to be quenched which may follow upon this Act through the Inadvertency of many well meaning Persons the Endeavours of others to elude and others to abuse the same Son under sixteen or Daughter under fourteen their Father being dead tho they marry or contract with Guardians Consent yet such Marriage shall be ipso facto void The Intention of this I suppose is to prevent the Fraud and Dishonesty and Betraying of Trust in Guardians that they may not as some perhaps have done marry a Minor for Gain or to their own Relations as others to the Child 's great Disadvantage while it is so young as to be supposed not to have the Use of Reason to know what the Contract of Marriage signifieth or to assent to such a Contract A Crime this that deserves Punishment by such Forfeitures as the Guardian is subjected to by this Act in case of betraying his Trust viz. Value of a Third Part of the Minors Estate and perhaps a greater Penalty than so But in the making void such Marriages many Consciences may be intangled as before and greater Inconveniences happen to the Minor in respect of Reputation c. than the Provision which is made hereby for the Security of the Estate can recompense Minor marrying contrary to the Act not to have the Benefit of any Law by reason of such pretended Marriage but shall lose Right and Title to Goods Chattels Dower Letters of Administration c. A Punishment somewhat too severe upon Minors whom this Act supposes not to have Vnderstanding to Contract for their own Marriage who cannot therefore well be supposed to have Foresight enough to prevent the Danger which after this Law they will incur The Father Guardian or Friend of such Minor may prosecute in the Minors or their own Name in Ecclesiastical Courts and have the Marriage nulled A most strange Imposition this is certainly like to be upon the Church that the Church shall be enforced to void Marriages according to the Laws of the Secular Power when the Trust it hath in the matter of Marriages committed to it is from the Law of Christ which hath confined all Christians to marry One to One and the Marriage to be Indissoluble but in Fornication The Civil Power may as well be an Enemy to Christianity as not and that as well professing to maintain it as professing to persecute it and to say therefore that God hath left the Consciences of Christians to be secured by the Civil Power submitting to what it determines in this case is to say that the Consciences of Christians can be secured in the Dissolving of Marriages otherwise than according to the Law of our Lord. Whenever therefore the Law of a Kingdom shall inforce the Ministers of the Church