Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	father_n	holy_a	scripture_n	2,746	5	5.8863	4	true

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

places of Holy Scripture These are That a man is prohibited his Mother his Fathers wife his Sister by the same venter positively from the beginning but a dispensation was as to the Sisters until a competent peopling of the world they add the prohibition of another mans wife which is also Moral as that of the Mother is 4. How the rest of the Levitical Prohibitions in the matter of marriage came to be so generally receiv'd by Christians as being authorized and prescribed by God seems to have no foundation so warrantable as that Council of the Apostles in the Fifteenth of the Acts. Where the Gentiles are directed to observe as necessary only four particulars of Moses his Law among which they are required to abstain from Fornication which if it had been rendred from the Septuagint from Incest or Turpitude of Copulation which answered the Original best it had much facilitated the solution of this Inquiry For it hath no colour That Fornication there should signifie the same with Stuprum and Scortum and that it should be abstained from as a special particular of the Law of Moses being an Offence not only prohibited by him yet not at all among the Prohibitions in the Eighteenth of Leviticus but by all the Nations of the Gentiles respectively as well as by Moses And it is plain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there rendred Fornication most frequently signifies in the Septuagint both Adultery and Incest and indeed any unlawful Copulation of man and woman The ends and reasons of this general Law to Christians might be First 1. If the State of the Jews as many particular men of that State did had embraced Christianity yet the Law of Moses had still been obliging to them as to their Civil Government as far as it could consist with Christianity and had been an eternal Law not to be abrogated but by God himself who was the Law-giver Therefore if the Gentiles observed not such of their Laws which preserved their Communion with the Gentiles from being odious and abominated by them The Gentiles and the Jews though both had embraced Christianity must never have had Communion the Jews being bound by God still to observe Moses's Law 2. This detestation among them could not sort with the Precepts of Christianity newly received by both 3. Marrying at what remoteness of Kindred they thought fit was in the power of the Gentiles for the future at their own election without transgressing their local and native Laws And therefore induc'd no inconvenience to observe that Precept 4. Since all Nations of the Gentiles had some restraint of marriages by humane prudence the Apostles conceived these dictated to the Jews to be the most convenient restraints to be voluntarily practised among Christians 5. Other the restraints directed by that Council all which concerned Meats which were necessary Mediums to make Communion between men are prohibited upon the same ground though in themselves indifferent and of no obligation if not made use of in a Jew's presence who was bound from them But Incest being a lasting offence and scandal to the Jews could not be concealed from them as the eating of Meats might and therefore was to be abstained from with resolution to continue it or not at all The three other Precepts by that Council by Authority of the Holy Ghost as the words import It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us are only concerning Meats that is First of things offered to Idols Secondly of Blood And thirdly of things strangled without abstinence from which no Communion could be between the converted Jews and Gentiles For 1. Generally in all Nations eating together is the most signal instance and proof of Fellowship and Communion and if the meat prepared be desirable by some and odious to others of the Company the fellowship must break 2. Among the Primitive Christians at their Sacramental Communion which was essential to the Christian Religion they had their Agapae or Love Feasts wherein 2 Cor. if the Food were such as the Christian Gentiles approv'd and was abominable to the Christian Jews a dissolution of the Communion between them must necessarily follow and consequently the Precepts of Christianity be frustrated both as to form and Christian kindness And this Fraction must have continued as long as the Hebrews Common-wealth lasted which might have been perpetual but by the dissolution of that State and Government their Laws likewise vanished which were peculiar to that Nation as it will fall out in the Cases of all States when dissolved If the State of England France or Spain or of any other Nation be dissolved their respective Laws end with their dissolution nor is it as to this purpose material whether the Laws of a Nation proceed from Divine Dictates and Authority or Humane For the State being dissolved there is no lawful Coercion left for keeping nor punishment for violating the Laws and where that is not there is no Law common to that people For without coercion and punishment every man is free that is he is not bound to any Law of Community at least But perhaps Laws may be to particular men as to Abraham to sacrifice his Son to which he was bound under the displeasure of the Numen And thus by the dissolution of the Hebrew Common-wealth the Gentiles were freed from those Obligations touching Meats because the Jews were so too The observation of them being after the dissolution of the State but the pleasure of a particular person or persons and more than in order to preserve Communion between the people of the Jews and Gentiles those particular Precepts were of no sanctity to oblige universally more than any other the Mosaical Institutions 2. As before the dissolution of the Hebrew Common-wealth it was against Christian Charity and Love to give scandal and offence to an Hebrew by eating Meat detestable to him because God had bound him from it and the Christian Gentile might without offending any Law abstain from the Meat and decline giving scandal So after the dissolution of the Israelitish State when the Jew was equally free as the Christian Gentile it grew a scandal to the Gentile That the Jew should abhor or despise Meats which God had made lawful to the Gentile It hath been observed by learned men That it may be collected from the last part of the Eighteenth Chapter of Leviticus that there was some universal preceding Law given to abstain from those Carnal Mixtures forbid by Moses Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are defiled which I cast out before you verse 24. And many of the subsequent Verses are to the same purpose And these things are called Abominations Whence it is inferr'd The people could not be faulty of transgressing had there not been a Law for without Law there can be no transgression But many Answers may be given to this as First 1. From the Eighteenth of Leviticus no pretence can

particular being a part of that Law the Temporal Iudges had no Conuzance after this Act more than before and that this Act excepting in the matter of Marriages to the fourth Degree and onwards which it declares not to be against Gods Law was only directory to the Ecclesiastick Courts as the former Statutes were and gave the Temporal Courts no Iurisdiction to prohibit questioning any Marriage but those of Cosen Germans and onwards But the Judges of the Temporal Courts have long since and often after the Act of 32 H. 8. granted Prohibitions for questioning marriages out of the Levitical Degrees and thereby determined the lawfulness of such Prohibitions So as many Parliaments having past since Prohibitions granted in that kind without complaint of it as is likely but certainly without redress for it It is not safe in a Case of publique Law as this is between the Spiritual and Temporal Jurisdiction to change the receiv'd Law nor do I think it is expected That being taken then as setled That the Spiritual Courts may be prohibited to question marriages out of the Levitical Degrees The first question will be Whether any marriages be against Gods Law but those within the Levitical Degrees for if none else be the Temporal Courts having Conuzance of marriages within those Degrees have consequently Conuzance of all marriages against Gods Law Then must the words of the Statute No marriage shall be impeach'd Gods Law excepted without the Levitical Degrees be understood thus No marriage shall be impeach'd Gods Law excepted viz. his Law of the Levitical Degrees Cok. Litt. f. 235. a. The Authority which makes for this Exposition is Coke in his Littleton where these words are For by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 38. it is declared That all persons be lawful that is may lawfully marry that be not prohibited by Gods Law to marry that is to say that be not prohibited by the Levitical Degrees By which evidently he makes all the Law of God which prohibits marriages to be only the Levitical Degrees But I conceive clearly There are other Laws of God prohibiting marriages to be made and if made warranting their Dissolution and so intended to be by this Statute of 32 H. 8. besides the Law of God in the Levitical Degrees 1. For persons pre-contracted to another are prohibited by Gods Law to marry against such pre-contract 2. Persons of natural Impotency for Generation are prohibited to marry For marriage being to avoid Fornication 1 Cor. 7. v. 2. if it be useless for that purpose as natural Impotency is it is as null So is the Case of Sabell and another Case of one Bury Dyer 2 El. 178 divorc'd at the Suit of their Wives for Impotency 3. Plurality of Wives or Husbands is prohibited by Gods Law the first being not prohibited by the Levitical Degrees And Sir Edward Coke Cok. Mag. Ch. f. 687. a. in the end of his Comment upon this Statute notwithstanding the passage before in his Littleton saith expresly That marriages made with a person pre-contracted or with an Impotent person could not have been question'd in order to a Divorce by reason of this Statute but because such marriages are against Gods Law yet are they all without the Levitical Degrees This is the reason of the words Gods Law except for these marriages may be impeach'd though out of the Levitical Degrees this answers the words or otherwise by Holy Scripture in 28 H. 8. c. 16. also In what sense any Marriages and Copulations of Man with Woman may be said to be Natural and in what not In the first place to speak strictly what is unnatural it is evident that nothing which actually is can be said to be unnatural for Nature is but the production of effects from causes sufficient to produce them and whatever is had a sufficient cause to make it be else it had never been and whatsoever is effected by a cause sufficient to effect it is as natural as any other thing effected by its sufficient cause And in this sense nothing is unnatural but that which cannot be and consequently nothing that is is unnatural and so no Copulation of any man with any woman nor an effect of that Copulation by Generation can be said unnatural for if it were it could not be and if it be it had a sufficient cause There are other Males and Females differing in their Species which never have Appetite of Generation to each other and consequently can never have the effect of that Appetite the kinds whereof are innumerable Between these the acts of Generation are so unnatural that they are impossible and no restraint is necessary to such by Laws or by other Industry Marriages forbidden in Leviticus lawful before Those marriages and carnal knowledge which are amongst the most Incestuous enumerated in Leviticus the Eighteenth were so far from being unnatural in primordiis rerum that they were not only natural but necessary and commanded in that Command of Increase and Multiply that is the Carnal knowledge between Brothers and Sisters For the World could not have been peopled but by Adams Sons going in to their Sisters being Brothers and Sisters by the same Father and Mother or by a more incestuous coupling than that and if such Carnal knowledge had been absolutely unnatural in any sense it had never been either lawful or necessary For whatsoever is simply and strictly unnatural at any time was always unnatural and unchangeable Marriages lawful after restoring the World in Noah After the peopling of the World first from Adam then from Noah and to the time of Moses giving the Levitical Law Many other marriages prohibited in the Levitical Degrees were not only lawful but prosecuted with the most signal benedictions and promises of God Gen. 20. v. 12. As the marriage of Abraham with Sarah who was his Sister that is the daughter of his father but not the daughter of his mother So is his answer to Abimelech and so is the Tradition of her Genealogy But by the Eighteenth of Leviticus the marriage of the Sister by the Father is prohibited to the Son viz. Lev. 18. v. 9. Thou shalt not discover the shame of thy Sister the Daughter of thy Father or the Daughter of thy Mother whether she be born at home or born without c. The next instance is of Amram the Father of Moses and Aaron who married Jochobed his Fathers Sister namely the Sister of Roath And Amram took Jochebed his Fathers sister to his Wife Exod. 6. v. 20. and she bare him Aaron and Moses Which marriage is prohibited in the 18. of Leviticus viz. Thou shalt not uncover the shame of thy Fathers Sister Lev. 18. v. 12. for she is thy Fathers Kinswoman Jacob had two Wives at the same time Leah and Rachel Gen. c. 29. c. being Sisters which is a known Story But by the Eighteenth of Leviticus Thou shalt not take a Wife with her

of the Land Or How could they be Abominations if not prohibited To the 24. and 27. Verses of the Eighteenth Chapter of Leviticus the Answer is That those words referr to those universal laws of the Leges Noachidarum wherein Egypt and Canaan were defiled As Incest with the Mother Soror uterina the Fathers wife and to those horrid offences of lying with man or beast prohibited to all mankind from the beginning And if the Levitical Incest were prohibited to the people of Egypt or Canaan by some extraordinary publication which is not probable it follows not therefore they were prohibited to all mankind the words before referring but to those Nations or to one of them Concerning universal Obligation to the Levitical Prohibitions in Cases of Matrimony and Incest Though it be generally receiv'd by the Christian Churches from the primitive times of Christianity That all Christians are obliged to observe those Prohibitions as such which Human Authority cannot dispense with yet by what Law that Obligation was introduc'd upon the Gentiles converted to Christianity is not known with any satisfactory clearness For 1. It is evident they are not bound by them as they were Laws promulged by Moses to the Hebrews both because a Law deliver'd to a particular man or men or to a particular Nation or Nations is not universal to mankind nor binding them under any reason of a Law for every Precept or Prohibition is but to him or them to whom it is given 2. There being many several States who had their Civil Power and Jurisdiction separate from that of the Jews the promulging of a Law by Moses to the Jews could be no promulgation of it to different Nations under other Civil Powers and though the Jews believed Moses a Messenger of God's and so were bound to what he delivered as by that office other Nations who believed not so of him were not bound by his Testimony had he testified to other Nations the same things to be the will of God to them as he did to the Jews which he never did nor could Nor are other Nations bound to the Decalogue quatenus published by Moses for the same reason but are bound only to what is moral of it 3. Without a sufficient promulgation of a Law it obligeth no more than a Law conceiv'd only in the mind of the Law-giver 4. If Moses his Laws in cases of Incest extended to mankind quatenus reveal'd to the Jews mankind were equally bound to all other the Mosaick Laws whereof no alteration had been made upon the coming of the Messias which is contrary to the perswasion and practise of all the Gentile Nations converted to Christianity at the beginning of it and ever since 5. It is likewise contrary to the determination of the Holy Ghost and the Apostles at the great and first Council of Antioch mentioned in the Fifteenth of the Acts where the Gentiles were directed to observe but four Particulars of the Mosaick Law as necessary for them but upon what reason more necessary than the rest observed by the Christian Iews is not clear 6. It is true That by some of our Statutes many of the Levitical Prohibitions are affirmed to be Gods Law obligative to us yet the Particulars are not therein named the Levitical Prohibitions or to be according to the Mosaick Law and many Levitical Prohibitions are omitted in the enumeration of the marriages against Gods Law made by those Statutes And though such declaration of them to be by Divine Law be concluding as to any gain-saying of ours yet as to others not subject to the same Authority with us such declaration may not only be of no authority but may be accounted sensless and absurd I shall therefore endeavour to shew in what notion some of those Prohibitions may be obligative as universal positive Law and some obliging as moral Laws and so universal and of Divine Obligation the residue obliging not quatenus delivered to the Jews but as the same Laws delivered to them are made universal by a new Obligation 1. And first All those Prohibitions mentioned in the Eighteenth of Leviticus were positive Laws of God to them quatenus they relate to and terminate in degrees of Kindred therein specified and the breach of them punishable by the punishments ordained to that end in the Mosaick Law And in these respects none of them are binding to any other people than the Hebrews 2. Divers of those Prohibitions are likewise of moral prohibition and in that sense binding all men as in the descending and ascending Line of Generation As the Father is prohibited to marry his Daughter his Sons daughter and his Daughters daughter and further the Levitical Prohibition for nearness of Kin and for the respects before extends not But the Father is likewise morally and universally therefore prohibited not only those persons but all others descended from them interminately that is as far as may be known So in the Ascending Line the Son is prohibited his Mother and Grand-mother and no further by the Mosaick Law but morally not only them but all other his great Grand-mothers interminately as far as may be known and so as well as the Son are all Males descended lineally from him The reason of this Moral Obligation is well given by the Learned Grotius in these words Grot. de Jure belli l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 12. pars 2. Ab hac generalitate eximo matrimonia parentum cujuscunque gradûs cum liberis quae quo minus illicita sint ratio ni fallor satis apparet nam nec maritus qui superior est lege matrimonii eam reverentiam praestare potest matri quam natura exigit nec patri filia quia quanquam inferior est in matrimonio ipsum tamen matrimonium talem inducit societatem quae illius necessitudinis reverentiam excludat c. And again Grot. de Jure belli l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 13. pars 3. Ut de parentibus liberis nihil jam dicam quippe quos ut existimo etiam sine expressa lege ratio naturalis jungi satis vetat By the same reason by the Moral Law the Father or Mother cannot be Servants to their Sons or Daughters for as Father or Mothers honour is due to them from those they serve but as Servant honour is due from them to those they serve that is their Children who are their Masters and Superiors As Parents their Children whom they serve ought to obey and reverence them As Servants they are to obey their Children who are their Masters and Superiors and to reverence them So as this office and relation is inconsistent and repugnant between Parents and Children and unnatural therefore morally unlawful 3. There are other of the Levitical Prohibitions that by the constant tradition of the Jews were delivered to mankind in the beginning and which they term praecepta Noachidarum to which they conceiv'd all the sons of Adam obliged and these Precepts seem warranted by several