Considerations Concerning Marriage, Question
QUAERE. Whether is it lawful for a man to mary his wives own ſiſter?
Anſwer IT is Unlawful, which I prove by ſix Arguments,
Firſt Argument.
A man may not marry one that is near of kin to him.
A mans wives ſiſter is near of kin to him.
Ergo, A man may not mrary his wives ſiſter.
Firſt A man may not marry one that is near of kin to him: for that is Gods precept or Rule for Mariage, Levit. 18.6. None of you ſhall approach to wit in a Conjugal way) unto any that is near of kin to him. or to any kindred of his fleſh, or to any of his fleſh, or to any fleſh of his fleſh: as … Hebrew word may be rendered, foreign.for it ſignifieth both fleſh and kindred.
This law commands that a juſt and due Diſtance be obſerved and preſerved (in reſpect of blood and alliance) by perſons that would contract Matrimony; that neither of them do come near the kindred of thier fleſh.
N…w kindred (as appears by the Catalogue of Particulars inſtanced, Levit. 18. from the 7. verſe to 19.) is not onelyonly Conſanguinity, whereby Perſons are of a blood, but Affinity alſo, whereby they that are not of blood, are allyed by Mariage each to other.
Houſhold government cap. 5.Yet Affinity or Alliance growes (as Mr. Perkins ſaith) by Mixtion or Participation of blood in the coupling of man and wife together in lawful mariage.
2. But a mans wives Siſter is near of kin to him, becauſe
1. Brother and Siſter (whether by Conſanguinitie or Affinity) are next of kin in a Collateral Line; therefore Mariages bettween them are unlawful, and inceſtuous.
2. She relates to him in the firſt degree of Affinity. Doctor Halls caſes.Out of our Civilians and Canoniſts a Learned Author that writes of this ſubject gathers
2 Kinds or degrees of Affinity Primary and Secondary.
1. Primary, is that Affinity between the Husband and Couzins of blood to his wife, or eConverſo: which indeed is juſtly held no leſſe for a barre of Mariage then his own natural Conſanguinity: for that is an Affinity contracted upon intereſt of blood, by vertue of that intire union between man and wife whereby they two become one fleſh. Upon this Account a mans wives Siſter comes to be the kindred of his fleſh: and therefore Gods Law prohibits him to marry her.
The Second degree of Affinity is wherein there is another perſon added to that firſt kind now mentioned. Here the Affinity ariſeth onelyonly from the intereſt of an Affinity formerly contracted; not upon intereſt of blood, as the former kind doth.
Mariage within this Second Degree is queſtioned; as whether it be Lawful for a man to marry his wives Brothers widow; by ſome that are the moſt favourable, it is held unmeet and inconvenient, (though lawful) as coming over near to the Ʋerge of a ſinful Conjunction.
Ergo, for perſons to marry within the firſt degree of Affinity (as for a man to marry his wives Siſter) cannot but be unqueſtionably unlawful.
2. Argument.
A man may not marry any of his wives kindred nearer in blood, then he may of his own. But a man may not marry his own Siſter, Ergo, a man may not marry his wives own Siſter.
A man may not marry any of his wives kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husbands kindred, nearer in blood then of her own.
Theſe are the very Termes in the Conteſſion of Faith, ſet forth by the Aſſembly of Divines, Proximity of alliance is no leſſe a barre to Mariage, then proximity of blood. For this I will give two Reaſons.
1. Reaſ. 1.Becauſe of what degree any one is of Conſanguinity to the wife, in the ſame degree of affinity is that perſon to the wives husband. De ſpenſalibus. Of houſhol… government p. 677.This Rule is laid down by Zanchius and by Mr. Perkins alſo, who addes further (to recite his own words)
Couzias by Mariage within the degrees both of the right and Collateral Line, doe come near to the kindred of their fleſh, in the ſame manner that Couzins by blood doe in the ſame Line; and the like degrees in both are forbidden. From hence it may be gathered (ſaith he) that it is in no ſort lawfull for a man when his wife is dead to marry her Siſter.
Hence it is laid down as a certain Rule among Divines, Cujus non licet inire Nuptias ejus nec conjugis licet. Becauſe a wife cannot marry her owne Brother, nor a husband his own Siſter; no more can a man marry his wives own Siſter, becauſe her near conſanguine who was one fleſh with him.
This Rule holds undeniably true within the firſt ranck of aſſinity, which is a perpetual Impediment to marriage: as though the wiſe be dead, yet her kindred is of affinity ſtill with her husband remaning alive. The Rights and T… of affinity between the Husband and the Conſanguines of the wife are not looſed, the wiſe being dead, although they had no children together; but they hold firm ſtill, being founded in the union made between them by Mariage, not in Iſſue, though that may ſtrengthen the ſame. See for this Willets Synopſis Papiſmi page 790. Junij Append. and Explic. Levit. Theſ….
2 Reaſ. 2. De ſpenſalibas Theſ. 5. p. 788.Becauſe by the very ſame Rules, ſaith Zanchius, is a husband forbiden to marry with the Conſanguines of his wife (or with thoſe that are of her blood) that conſanguines or thoſe of a blood are forbidden to marry among themſelves. But a man may not marry his own Siſter, Levit. 18.9 therefore nor his wives Siſter.
The Reſult is this. A man may as lawfully marry his own mother as his wives mother, and his own Aunt (by father or mother) as his Uncles wife, for that is ſaid to be an uncovering of the nakedneſs of his fathers Brother, Levit. 18.14. and his own Siſter as his brothers wife, for this is called an uncovering of his brothers Nakedneſs, Levit. 18 16. or as his wives Siſter. From both which being compared together I may frame the
3. Argument.
A man may not marry his Brothers wife, Ergo he may not marry his Wives Siſter.
A man may not marry his Brothers wife becauſe this is Expreſly forbidden in Levit. 18.16. and 20.21. Therefore nor his wives Siſter becauſe a mans wives Siſter is full as near of kin to him as his B…others wife is and where there is the ſome Reaſon of propirquity, Ameſ… … l. 5. c. 3. App… …there is the ſame Reaſon and force of prohil it on. It is Dr. Anes his Rule, In thoſe degre…s (prohibited to mariage.) perſons not expreſſed in the law ſhould be accounted, if they have the ſame nearneſs, with thoſe which are by Name forbidden. As the ſame law that, forbids the Nephew to marry the Aunt, forbids the Uncle to marry the Neece, Levit 18.14. and cap. 20.20 An Uncles wife and an Aunts husband are equally near of kin, Vide Annot. in Lev. 18.14, Zanch de ſponſ. Theſ. 4.but for a man to marry his Uncles wife is under an Expreſs prohibition; ſo is it for a woman to marry her Aunts husband. It is truly ſaid by Dr. Hall in his Caſes of Conſe. Divers no leſs unlawful Copulations are omitted in this black roll of uncleanneſſes then thoſe which are expreſly mentioned; the reſt being i… tended to come in by way of Analog… onelyonly; for it is eaſie to obſerve that all the ſeveralties of the degrees prohibited run ſtill upon the male, under which, if the Exorbitancies of the other ſex were not meant to be comprehended, females ſhould be lawleſs and the law imperfect.
Therefore though a mans marrying his wives Siſter be not forbidden in Expreſs T…rms, yet it is effectually prohibited by neceſſary Analogy and clear Implication of ſence.
4. Argument.
A woman may not marry two Brothers.
Ergo, a man may not marry two Siſters.
Becauſe there is the ſame Reaſon of propinquity (or nearneſs of kin) in both: and reaſon requires this (ſaith Beza.) De Repudiis & Divortiis.ut de ſimilibus ſimiliter ſtatuatur, that the like ſhould be determined of the like▪ It was a Canon in the Neocaeſarien Councel, that it a woman maried two Brothers, abjiciatur uſque ad mortem, ſhe ſhould be caſt off even to death.
Here I will anſwer the chief objections which I conceive may be made.
1. Object. This prohibition of degrees from mariage mentioned in Levit. 18. was but ſome Moſaical law given to the Jewes onelyonly, and not binding to us Gentiles.
Anſ. No, the laws there expreſt againſt inceſtuous Mariages from ver. 6 to 19. (as well as againſt adultery, Sodomy, Buggery in the verſes following) are moral, univerſal and perpetual, binding to all Nations, by which the law of Nature is Explained. So ſaith Willet in his Synopſ. Papiſ. pag. 790. Ʋrſins Catech. qu. 109. Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. Ameſ. Caſ. Conſe. l. 5. c. 35. Zanchius, Perkins and diverſe others. See the Confeſſion of Faith by the Aſſembly of Divines chap. 24.
That theſe prohibitions are moral and Natural may be proved by five Reaſons.
Reaſ. 1 Elſe, why doth God count the Tranſgreſſions of theſe lawes ſuch abominations, Levit. 1826. and abominable Cuſtomes, ver. 30. which defile the land, verſ. 25.
Reaſ. 2 Elſe, why ſhould the breaches of thoſe lawes be charged upon the Heathen the Egyptians and Canaanites (that is, …ll the Nations that dwelt in the land of Canaan) as their abominable practices, Levit. 18.3.24.27, 30. ver. In all theſe are the Nations defiled, and they were ſeverely puniſhed for the ſame. For theſe ſins (even of inceſtuous Marriages among the reſt) the land of Canaan did ſpue out her Inhabitants though Gentiles (v. 25.) who were not tied to obſerve the lawes peculiar to the Hebrews: yea who had not the law written in Tables of ſtone. Therefore theſe ſins of the Gentiles were ſins againſt the law of Nature. Willet in Lev. 18. qu. 30.It is ſaid of the Cana…nites that they were guilty of many other ſins; but moſt of all they were defiled by theſe Pollutions of the fl…ſh and Vncovering of Nakedneſs, which they learned of their fathers Cham and Canaan, who conſented together to leave uncovered their fathers Nakedneſs.
Reaſ. 3 3. Elſe, why were the Jewes forbidden and forewarned of theſe ſins, to wit, Inceſtuous Mariages.
1. As being the Manners of the Heathen among whom they had lived and converſed in Egypt; and were to live and converſe with in Canaan, or as being the ſins of the Gentiles, Levit. 18.3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, and after the doing, of the land of Canaan whither I bring you, ſhall ye not d…e. Theſe were their doings.
2. And that under the very ſame penalty God inflicted on the Canaanites for theſe ſins, ver. 28, 29. that the land ſpue not you alſo, when you defile it (to wit, by an… of theſe abominations) as … ſpued out the Nations that were before you. God concludes with this charge to Iſrael ver. 30. Therefore ſhall ye keep mine Ordinance, that ye commit not any of theſe abomin…ble cuſtomes, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not your ſelves therein. I am the Lord your God. God denounceth many and heavy judgements upon the breach of theſe lawes, Levit. 20.11.12.14.16, 20. Deut, 27 20.
Reaſ. 4 4. That theſe Prohibitions are moral may further appear becauſe we find them upon the ſame account not onelyonly in Moſes but in the prophets; Ezek. 22.10.11. Amos 2.7. not onelyonly preſcribed in the old Teſtament, but preſſed in the new; as, that it is not lawful to have a Fathers wiſe (or mother in law) 1 Cor. 5.1. Yea, or a Brothers wife, Mark 6.18.
Reaſ. 5 5. Inceſtuous Mariages are prohibited by the light of nature and from her principles. For to this purpoſe (ſaith Mr. Perkins) not onelyonly the lawes of the Romane Emperours (which according to Peter Martyr, Loc. Com. claſſ. 2. c. 10. Num. 43.were accounted inter egregias & honeſtiſſimas (ab honeſtate naturae deſumptas, Zanchi.) amongſt the moſt honeſt and famous lawes) but alſo the civil Canons and conſtitutious of men (very skilful in that kind) have in all ages been made expreſly againſt ſuch perſons as have offended in thoſe Societies (or Conjunctions) forbidden by the Law of Moſes.
Now whatſoever Law is natural being written in the hearts of Heathens, muſt needs be moral and perpetual, as it is written in Gods Book at large in a full and fair copy.
Obj 2. God commanded Deut. 25, 5. that the Brother in caſe his Brother died without iſſue ſhould take his wife and raiſe up ſeed to him, Ergo, its lawful to mary a Brothers wife, and why not then a wives ſiſter?
Anſ. That Prohibition in Lev. 18.16. of marying the Brothers wife, is the law of nature common to all Nations. This in Deut. 25.5. is but a ſpecial exception of a general Law; a peculiar priviledge granted by God (the Law maker) to the Iſraelites, who was pleaſed then (as he might) to make this particular exception from it among the Jewes, and that in a ſpecial caſe, viz. to preſerve families and inheritances in that land, which God would have diſtinct among them for the Meſſiah's ſake, that it might be known clearly of what tribe he came. And to conſerve the Family in the name of the firſt born. This being but an indulgence (granted to the Iſraelites in a ſpecial caſe and by a ſpecial warrant; or if a law, yet but judicial appropriated to their ſtate, and relating to the land of Canaan and expectation of the Meſſiah) is not now lawful to be preached by us Gentiles, whom the caſe doth not at all concern; but we are under the general prohibition in Levit. 18.16. which is fully confirmed in the Goſpel, Mark. 6.18. John ſaid unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy Brothers wife.
Obj. 3. Jacob maried two Siſters Rachel and Leah, Therefore a man may marry his wives Siſter.
Anſ. The examples of the Patriarches (or others) who tranſgreſs the Rule, may not be imita…ed, nor be made a Rule. Wherein ſoever they turn aſide we muſt leave them to follow a better guid, that is the law of God, the Rule of Gods word. As many as walk according to this Rule (and not according to Examples ſwerving from it) peace and mercy ſhall be upon them. Gal 6.16. Cain, Factum eſt compellente neceſſitate. Auguſt.Eno…h and Seth maried their own Siſters; neceſſity made it then not unlawful. It is a juſt Rule of Law Thoſe things may not be drawn into precedent which have been yielded upon meer neceſſity. Doctor Halls ca… ſes.As we uſe to ſay, neceſſity hath no Law, ſo it can make none. After wards as mankind grew, nature it ſelfe taught men to keep further aloof from their own fleſh: and ſtill remeteneſs of diſtance enlarged it ſelf with time.
Obj. 4. The marying of a wives Siſter is not directly forbidden in the law; and what is not prohibited is permitted.
Anſ. The marying of a mans own daughter is not expreſly forbidden in Levit. 18. (but of his ſons daughter or daughters daughter ver. 10. or of his daughter in law, ver. 15.) is it therefore lawful?
There are inceſtuous Mariages not ſpecified, which are as really forbidden as thoſe which are expreſſed. If we hold our ſelves cloſe to the letter of this Rule, that what is not prohibited is permitted it will lead us into Sodom. But this Objection received its anſwer before in the third Argument.
Fifth Argument.
Ames caſe Conſ. lib. 5.For a man to mary his wives Siſter, hinders one end of Mariag…, which is the dilatation of kindred and affection; Junii Appendex ad explan. Levit.that humane Society might be extended and confirmed by a Matrimonial conjunction, between families that were remote and diſ-joyned: That is a good note and to purpoſe, which our Divines have in their Annotations on Levit. 18.14.
What in this Law (viz. againſt Inceſtuous Mariages) is forbidden to the Jews, is much more forbidden to Chriſtians; who having more latitude and liberty of choice then they had (who were to marry not onelyonly within their own Nation, but within their own Tribe, and ſometimes (as hath been ſaid) two Brothers muſt ſucceſſively be Husbands to one wife) are leſs capable of excuſe, if in carnal concupiſcence they tranſgreſſe theſe prohibitions. And in the general (ſince the Goſpel is the Law of love and charity, not to one Nation onelyonly, but all the world over) as far as conſanguinity or affinity will work in affection without a new tye of Matrimony, ſo far reacheth matrimonial prohibition; and ſhould there firſt begin where the Relations are ſo remote, that they have little or no operations of love: that ſo charity might be more diffuſive; and not ſo contracted to ones kindred, as it was among the Jews.
The Sixth Argument
May be drawn from humane Teſtimonies, (which challenge a place after Scripture and Reaſon) that paſſe their condemnatory ſontence upon this Mariage, viz. of a man with his wives ſiſter: as
1. Laws made againſt it. Zanchy, Theſ. 5. circa incepta conjugia inter Affines.in his book de Sponſalibus ſaith, This is Moſes his ſenſe, and therefore the Law of Nature, that it is as filthy and diſhoneſt a thing for one man to mary two ſiſters one after another: as for one woman to marry 2. brothers one after another. And this, ſaith he, is confirmed by thoſe Laws of the Romanes (which are by all judged to be taken from the honeſty of Nature) and bypious and Chriſtian Emperors; who do as well condemn the Inceſt that a man ſhould mary his wives ſiſter, as that he ſhould marry his brothers wife. And though ſome of the Romanes did marry ſo, as Lucius Tarquinius Superbus did his Brothers wife, and Honorius the Emperour did two ſiſters. Yet Dion…ſius calls the former mariage foreign an impious mariage; a thing abominable among the Graecians and Barbarians: And the latter was condemned: and the unhappy end of both the ſiſters (as he relates) declared that thoſe Mari…ges (vis. of two ſiſters) were not allowed of God.
That Table of forbidden degrees in the Church of England, ſet forth by Authority, names this expreſſly, the wives ſiſter. And the laws of the Land prohibit this mariage. See Sr. Edward Cooks ſecond part of the Inſtitutes of the Laws of England, page 683. See the Statute of the twenty and fifth year of Henry the eighth, chap. 22. and of his twenty and eighth year, c. 9. and of his thirty and ſecond year, c. 38.
2. As for the ancient Fathers, Patres omnes haſce nuptias damnarunt, ſaith Zanchius; All the fathers condemned theſe mariages.
3. So do our moderne Divines generally make the Siſter of a mans wife to be an affinity hindring mariage as Junius in his notes and table of degrees upon Levit. 18. and the Geneva Divines in their notes and table upon the ſame chapter. Beza de Repud…is et Divortiis is full and expreſs againſt it, Vol. 2. p. 63. Polanus in his Syntagma l. 10. c. 53. Butanus de Conjugio Loc. 12. Willets Comment on Levit. 18. Quaeſt. 17.
Yea learned Zanchie affirmes that Noſtri feculi doctiſſimus quiſque ejuſdem eſt ſententiae, lsc. cit.all the moſt learned of his time were of the ſame opinion; and that his poſition (viz. For a man to marry his wives Siſter is in ceſt) is confirmed by the conſent of all Graeciaus and Barbarians and Nations.
I will conclude with the grave advice ſome Divines have given about the mariage of Couzen Germanes; which holds more ſtrongely in the caſe propoſed.
One ſaith Let ſingle perſons who have the world before them look further of, and faſten their affections at a more unqueſtionable diſtance.
Another ſaith, It is ſafe to forbear what is doubtful, and to keep aloof from what is unlawful; eſpecially the choice of lawful marlages being large enough, without the hazzard of ſo great a ſinne as Inceſt.
It was wont to be Mr. Perkins his expreſſion to this purpoſe,
Let thoſe who muſt walk cloſe to the brim of a ſteep precipice look well to their feet, and tread ſure; but if a man be to chuſe his way, let him ſo caſt it, as that he may not approach near the brink of danger.
The Lord give us underſtanding in all things, and guide our feet in his wayes.
FINIS.
End of the text · Edward Reyner, Considerations Concerning Marriage (1657)