Letter of Resolution to Six Queries, Query 2

Letter of Resolution to Six Queries · Query 2

p. 35The second Quaere. Of marrying the Wives Sister.

IN the next place therefore, §. 1 if it be questioned, by what law of God it can be defined unlawful for a Christian to marry his deceased wives sister, I shall offer you my resolution by these degrees:

1. That by the law of God given to §. 2 the Jews, as it is now recorded,Prohibition of marrying the brothers wife. Lev. 18. this Prohibition is distinctly found, v. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife, it is thy brothers nakedness. Where by the Positive Law of God, given there to that people, it is apparent, That as there is a restraint prescribed, and from that, some boundaries by law cast up against unbridled lust, not permitting to marry those that are near of kin, and that extended to the kindred of his wife, as well as the mans own kindred, upon that ground of Scripture, that p. 36the man and his wife are one flesh, one body, and, in reputation of law, one person, Lev. 18.8, 14. So this is distinctly applied to the prohibiting the marriage of the brothers wife, v. 16. And for this there need not any farther proof be brought, then that Text, nor inquiry be made of the reason of Gods doing so, then this will of his, that being reason sufficient to those to whom his Prohibition is given, till it be by him freely superseded or suspended again.

§. 3 But because it is reasonably to be expected,The right of kindred▪ that every man that reads this Prohibition so express, will also remember the right of kindred so known among the Jews, and derived from the will of this soveraign Law-giver, that in case the eldest brother dye childeless, his next brother hath liberty, and some kinde of obligation lying on him, Deut: 25.5. to take the relict to wife, and raise up seed to his elder brother: It will, before we proceed one step farther, be necessary to the explaining and levelling of our passage, to give a brief account of this antinomie; and that not by interpreting the notion of the word Brother in Deuteronomy, of [the nearest of kin, without the prohibited degrees] (as hath been by some frivolously pretended) but by consideration of the absolute dominion of God, and consequently of his free power, p. 37as of making, so of abrogating totally, or (as far as he pleases) suspending the obligation of all Positive Laws, of what so…t soever they are.

For though some difference be ordinarily §. 4 made betwixt Positive Laws given by God to one particular nation,Dispensableness of Positive Laws. and those that are given to all mankinde, and again betwixt Judicial and Ceremonial; yet 'tis both evident, That those that are given to all, may, by some subsequent act, be abrogated or evacuated to some onelyonly, either in universum, or in some singular case, and that as fitly, as if they had peculiarly been given to those, and to none else; and that those that concern civil life, may, if God please, be as reasonably abrogated, as those that are ceremonies of our devotions. And again, that though the typicalness of some of those ceremonies, Ceremonial or Judicial.may be a more prevalent reason with God to abolish those ceremonies, when the substance is come, which the ceremonies were set to fore-shadow, then we can perhaps imagine for the abrogating of other ceremonies, which are not typical; or of judicial Laws, which are not pretended to be so: Yet still that is but the reason which moves God to abrogate the one, and not the other, and is not of any force to take away the obligingness of the one, more then of the other, till they are thus abrogated by the Law-giver. p. 38And consequently the whole weight of this matter is wholly to be laid upon the will of God, to continue, or void the obligation, either to all, or to whom he please. And so there is nothing strange in this, that for the preserving the name and family of the dead childeless brother, (in a nation, whose genealogies were with such a Religious care to be observed, and transferred to posterity) that God, which gave the Prohibition, Lev. 18. should soon after give the contrary directions in one case among the same Jews, without taking off the Prohition in all other cases.

§. 5 Thus upon that great reason of propagating mankinde at the beginning of the world, Marriage of brothers & sisters.the marriage of Brethren and Sisters was allowed by God, and so that law, which prohibited incestuous conjunctions, if it were given (as it is not certain it was) to Adam himself, or to his sons, before they had any children▪ was to give place to that present necessity, (as Positive Laws are wont to do) and so as soon as made, dispensed with, being not to take force, say the Hebrews, till mankinde was sufficiently multiplied.

§. 6 And to this purpose it is an ordinary distinction among the Schoolmen, from Thomas Aquinas, that the Law of Nature Law of Nature.is of two sorts,The Law of eternal Reason, Creation. Lex aeternae rationis, The Law of eternal Reason, and Lex aeternae creationis, The Law of eternal Creation: p. 39The former of which is said to be indispensable, the latter dispensable. This tinkling distinction, like many other that come out of the same mint, is not, in my opinion, reconcileable with the rules of Art. For Reason being the nature of man, and the Law of Nature signifying (no doubt) the Law of Humane, not Animal, or Sensitive nature, the Law of Nature, and the Law of eternal Reason must needs be phrases of the same importance and latitude, and so one cannot duly be a species of the other. And for the Law of eternal Creation, if that be contradistinguished to the Law of Reason, it must needs denote a Positive Law given by God to Adam, and all his posterity; and if so, it cannot be a species of the Law of Nature, but of Lex Positiva, Positive Law in general, as that contains both that which is given to all, and that which is designed onelyonly to some part of mankinde.

But this impropriety of expression being §. 7 passed by, which onelyonly renders the distinction in artificial, not useless, there is certainly so much of truth in that which is defined by the Schools, as will suffice to clear this matter, viz: that though the Law of Nature and Reason be acknowledged to be designed by God to oblige all men, of all times, in all cases, and so in his decree to be indispensable; yet of p. 40any other sort of Laws, even those that are given to mankinde at the first Creation, this will not be affirmable.

§. 8 That the Law of Nature is eternally obliging and indispensable, The indispensablenes of the Law of Nature.seemeth to arise 1. from the constitution of mans Soul, because what is the dictate of Reason, is of the nature of every man, as man, i. e. as he was at first created after Gods image (in conformity to which, goodness doth consist) and the contrary of that must needs be contrary to that image of God, and to that goodness which is in him eternally; and, unless the Soul of man be changed, must necessarily be resisted by natural conscience, that inarticulate voice of God, and manifestation of that to man, which is eternally in God. And 2. from the propriety of the matter of these Laws of Reason or Nature, which is essentially good, and consequently the transgression of the Laws, which enact it, is evil, antecedently to their being enacted: these being therefore enacted because they are good, whereas all other are good, and the transgression of them evil, on no other score, but because they are commanded.

§. 9 Thus the shedding of innocent blood Shedding of innocent blood.was evil, and so looked upon, and adjudged by God in Cain, and by his own conscience condemned as criminous and punishable; before any Law was by God or Adam p. 41promulgate to the contrary. And although God (before whom 1. no man is so innocent, Abrahams sacrifice of h…s son.but that by the sentence pronounced against Adams sin, he is justly lyable to the common fate of mortality; and who 2. is the donor of life, and may therefore take it away, when, and by what means he pleaseth, by the Fathers knife, as well as by a feaver) may therefore fitly command Abraham to sacrifice his onelyonly son Isaac, and then the doing it in obedience to that command of Gods, is not the act of Abraham, but of God; yet for any man, without this special commission from God, to do the like, is, and was eternally evil, and therefore was afterwards prohibited. Thus Piety, Piety and Charity eternally good.Charity, Meekness, Peaceableness are, and eternally have been good, even before any man was ever exhorted to follow them, and have therefore been in time severally commanded by the Father, and Christ, because they were alwayes good. Nor will, nor can there ever be a time, wherein any, or all of these shall be as displeasing to God, as the contraries of them have hitherto alwayes been. It may most truly be said, that God cannot enact a Law, whereby those vices shall be authorized, Malice, Hatred, Cruelty, &c. and the contrary vertues prohibited.

And accordingly this hath been acknowledged §. 10 even by heathens themselves, p. 42and distinctly affirmed by Cicero, Cicero's opinion herein.de legib. l. 1. wherein having premised, that nothing is to be counted good, but what is laudable of it self, i. e. may be commended of its own accord (nihil in bonis numerandum, nisi quod per seipsum sit laudabile, id est, sponte suâ possit laudari) he addes, that that which is so, is before and without any precept, good and laudable (quod autem laudabile sponte suâ, illud ante & sine praecepto bonum & laudabile.) And the truth of this is supposed by all Christians, when they assign the difference of the Ceremonial from the Moral Law, or the reason why the one is perpetually observed, but not the other.

§. 11 But then these reasons notwithstanding, which are peculiar to the Law of Nature, It will be affirmable of all other, i. e. of every Positive Law (whether given to all men, or onelyonly to one Nation of men, or whether given with an actual reservation of some cases, wherein it should not oblige, (as the Sabbatick Rest, in cases of necessity and mercy, and for the services of the Temple, Positive laws dispensable, why?Mat. 12.5.) or indefinitely without any explicite or implicite reservation) that it is freely dispensable and alterable by God, 1. Because God is supposed to give this to man after his creation (who was therefore man, before he received it) and so this is but accidental and adventitious to him, and utterly extrinsecal p. 43to his nature, not implanted in him, or made a piece of his constitution, nor consequently such as, without altering his fabrick, may not be altered, as in the Law of Nature was supposed. 2. Because this being not eternally good, but receiving the goodness from Gods command, and consequently that command being given in time, God may also give it for what term he pleaseth, either to last alwayes, or to cease when he sees fit, and consequently whensoever he dispenses with it to any particular man or men, that is a time wherein it ceaseth to oblige him or them; and whensoever, by any other way of revealing his Will, he suspends or abolishes that Law to all, it again ceaseth to oblige any, and having the beginning from his positive Will, it determines upon any contrary act of that.

All which is directly applicable to the §. 12 case in hand:Difference between … unnatural sins and Incests. For when all those acts which are contrary to the natural use of men and women, Rom. 1.26, 27. are to all the world (antecedently to any Positive Command) universally and indispensably unlawful, and accordingly are called dishonourable affections, v. 24. and elswhere, not to be named, and abominable and detestable, yet these incestuous conjunctions being forbidden by positive Law to mankinde, are by God, that prohibited them, dispensable, and appear sometimes actually p. 44to have been dispensed with, some to the children of Adam, this of marrying the brothers wife, to the Jews. Which laws notwithstanding being not in universum repealed, or as far as concerned mankinde in general, but farther confirmed either by the Law of Moses or of Christ, have since that continued obligatory to all, to whom they were not actually dispensed with; and consequently are to us Christians now in the same force, that among all the nations of the world they alwayes were, i. e. as truly (though not in the same kinde) obligatory to us Christians, as the Law of Nature is in all other things; because, though they were alwayes capable of being dispensed with by the Law-giver, as the Law of Nature, in the respects forementioned, is not, yet these have not to us been actually dispensed with, but by stricter precepts of Christ confirmed upon us.

§. 13 Having therefore cleared the Proh…bition of marrying the brothers wife from that one prejudice, It will now ex abundanti be observable, That however this were afterward dispensed with to the Jews, The law of not marrying the brothers w fe, farther considered.yet 1. when it was given them, Lev. 18.16. it was given as absolutely as any other of the Prohibitions in that Chapter; particularly, as that of taking the fathers wife, which is acknowledged most incestuous. 2. It was enforced with p. 45this reason [It is thy brothers nakedness] i. e. by being thy brothers wife, she and thy brother are so perfectly one flesh, Conjugal unity the ground of Affinities.that thou mayst no more marry her, then a sister may marry a brother. The Laws of Consanguinity, which forbad a woman to be married to her Father, or Uncle, or Brother, were on this reason (of the strict union caused by marriage) proportionably enlarged to affinities also, to the forbidding the marriage of the Father's, and Uncle's, and Brother's wife. And 3. the reason of all this is clear also: For the principal ground, which appears,Propinquity the onelyonly ground of the interdicts. of all these interdicts, is the nearness of kin, (and accordingly those are the words of the general interdict, v. 6. under which all the specials are comprehended, None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him) and not any other consideration: Not that of Reverence; Not Reverence.for 1. that is due onelyonly to Parents, and those that some way partake of that relation in the ascending lines: and yet the father's marrying the daughter or neece, those of the descending, to whom he owes no reverence, is the same foul Incest with the former, and still where on one side paternal reverence is due, on the other side it is not due: And 2. the reverence due from the childe to the parent, being in a more eminent manner due from the Subject to the Prince, yet because there is not the relation p. 46of Propinquity, as well as obligation to reverence, the marriage of a Subject to a Prince is not under any interdict. And 3. the state of the wife being a state of subjection, and so of performing of reverence, this would be a propriety for (of more weight and consequence, then any objection against) the daughters being married to the father, if the reverence were the onelyonly considerable. The reverence, I conceive, which is spoken of in this matter, is the fear of approaching those that are near of kin, whom, on that score, and not because of the reverence, God hath forbidden us to approach. And accordingly the marriage of the superior to the inferior, the sons daughter, &c. v. 10. is forbidden on this reason, for their's is thine own nakedness, the children, to the end of the world, coming from the parents loins, and so being part of the parent, and so that a proof of the great nearness, (because every one is nearest to himself.) And so still the Propinquity is the bar, and not onelyonly or principally the reverence. From all which it follows, that seeing the wife of the father and of the uncle are acknowledgedly interdicted by that Law, the wife of the brother (who, if he be not as near as the father, is certainly nearer then the uncle, the fathers brother) is in reason deemed to be forbidden also, and accordingly is by the express words p. 47of that Law, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife.

This therefore being thus confirmed §. 14 and cleared to have been a Law given to the Jews, and that standing in force, till it was to them, as a Positive Law, dispensed with (and then the contrary either permitted or commanded for a determinate end, the preserving the name and family of the elder brother) It now follows by laws of unavoidable consequence, 1.Marrying of the wives sister forbidden by the Jewish Law. That the marrying the wives sister, was to those Jews forbidden also, and that 2. not superseded afterwards by that countermand in Deuteronomy. I shall briefly evidence these two parts of this consequence.

The first of these appears by the parity §. 15 of reason. And the Jews have resolved in this matter, even those of them (the Karaeans or Scripturarians) that binde themselves most to the Scripture rule, 1. That there is place for argumentation and deduction from the words of the law; and 2. that whatsoever can be deduced thence either à fortiori, or à pari, either because the remoter degree is prohibited,Prohibitions à pari. or that which is equally remote, is to be deemed piously and rightly concluded. Thus when v. 7. the Father and Mother are both named; and v. 12. the fathers sister, and v. 13. the mothers sister, and v. 14. the fathers brother, yet the mothers brother is not named, nor the sisters daughter, p. 48which would be equivalent with that. And yet this being the marriage of the uncle on the mothers side, with the neece, which is of the same distance, with the uncle of the fathers side, with the neece, and the Aunt on the mothers side, with the nephew, from the naming and prohibition of these, v. 13. and 14. by the parity of reason, that which is not named is by all resolved to be prohibited.

§. 16 And just thus is it in this matter: This of the wives sister which is not named,The wives sister is as near as the brothers wife. being directly the same degree of Propinquity, that the brothers wife, which is named and prohibited. And that will appear by either of the two wayes of measuring the Propinquity, the wives sister being as near to the husband, as the husbands brother is to the wife, and the sisters husband as near to the other sister, as the brothers wife can be to the other brother. And accordingly the Scripturarian Jews, as well as the rest, do here resolve, That a man is forbidden to marry foreign two, which are kin to one another, and specifie in a woman and her sister.

§. 17 And if by the English reading of our Bibles, Objection from Lev. 18.18.Lev 18:18Lev. 18.18. [Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time,] it be thought that the marrying the wives sister, in her life time, p. 49be the onelyonly thing forbidden, and consequently that to marry her after the wives death, is not forbidden, that will be presently answered from the margent of our Translation, where the Hebrew [foreign, Answered. foreign] is fitly and truly rendred, not [a wife to her sister] but [one wife to another] and so is a direct prohibition of Polygamy, at least, when the first wife is deprived and vexed by the taking in of the second, (as shall appear in the discourse of Polygamy, §. 7.) but not a permission to marry any that was otherwise prohibited. And that that is the meaning of the place, may be first more generally concluded from the variation of the style in this, from the former verses. The former interdicts had been given upon the reason of Propinquity, and accordingly that reason distinctly mentioned, first in general, v. 6. and then pursued in all needful particulars of it, to the end of v. 17. But the interdict here is upon a new reason, that of vexing, which is an evidence, that the first sort of interdicts (continued for twelve persons) is now quite finished, and that another head is begun against more wives then one: and accordingly upon that ensue also divers other new and particular Commands, to the end of the Chapter. Secondly, this will be concluded also from the nature and p. 50particular propriety of this reason (here annext) to that of Polygamy, viz. that of vexing, foreign, to weary, or provoke, or exasperate her, for which the Septuagint reade foreign, one that may raise, or inflame her rage or jealousie. For as that is not to be feared, but in the life time of the former wife, so as long as she is living, it will be caused by any prosperous rival or competitor, by admission of any stranger into an higher degree of favour, and not onelyonly, or peculiarly of the wives sister. Jealousie we know is not wont to be confined within bounds or limits, but is equally and impartially common to any person, which is injuriously preferred in her life time, and thereby provokes her grief, or her rage, is matter of vexation to her. For prevention of which it was, that the Divorces were recommended in Malachi, as a more tolerable unkindeness, as will also appear in the discourseaa§. 13. & 15. of Divorce, by the view of that place.

§. 18 And thus again the Karaei or Scripturarians (opposed to the Talmudists or Traditionals) interpret this place,The Karaeans interprettaion of the place. that 'twas here forbidden to have two wives at the same time: and they render a most satisfactory account for the seeming difficulty of the expression: because, say they, the word Sister in Hebrew, referring to somewhat that is precedent, signifies any other p. 51thing of the same kinde. So Ezek. 16.48.Brother and sister taken by the Hebrews for Another. [Sodom thy sister] is, Sodom, guilty of the same sins that Israel was, as appears v. 49. Behold this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, &c. and so v. 45. Thou art the sister of thy sisters, i. e. just such another as they, Sodome and Samaria, were. And it is an ordinary Hebrew figure thus to expresse parity, or likenesses. So Ex. 32.27. Slay every man his brother, is to be interpreted, Every man another; and accordingly when the sons of Levi obey'd that command v. 28. the conclusion was, that there fell of the people that day (not of the Levites peculiarly) about three thousand men. So Isa. 19.2. I will set the Aegyptians against the Aegyptians, and they shall fight every one against his brother, i. e. one against another. And this is so ordinary an Hebraism, that 'tis usual when the Hebrew reades brother, for the English to render it [another] Gen. 37.19. They said one to his brother, we reade fitly, one to another, though they were brethren that are there spoken of; and so Gen. 42.21. And where the speech is not of brethren, yet the phrase is so. Exod. 10.23. They saw not one his brother; and Exod. 16.15. They said one to his brother; and Isa. 3.5. The people shall be oppressed every one by his brother. And Exod. 16.3. it is used of things (of curtains) not onelyonly of persons. And in all these places we p. 52reade (as the phrase signifies, not as the words literally sound) one to another. And consequently here [a wife to her sister] will be directly according to the sacred Idiome, The interpretation of other Jews.or the Hebrews manner of speech, One wife unto another.

§. 19 'Tis true, whataaOn Lev. 18.18.Lev 18:18 H. Grotius and J. Drus…us say, that the Pesictha reprehends the Karaeans for this interpretation. And the Jews more generally affirm, That the thing forbidden in that place, is the having two sisters together, and not two wives together; and from thence conclude it lawful to have two sisters successively. But it is visible what brings them into that opinion,In favour of Polygamy. viz. the beloved and presumed lawfulness of Polygamy, which they are unwilling to have restrained; yet must acknowledge to be so by this Text, if those words be thus interpreted with the Karaeans. Mean-while it will be hard to finde among those Jews (who affirm from that place the lawfulness of marrying two sisters successively) any shew of reason for either of these two things, 1. Why the marrying the deceased wives sister should be there permitted, where marrying the deceased brothers wife is distinctly forbidden. Or 2. why Polygamy, which by dispensation to the Jews, is acknowledged to be permitted them in order to multiplying that people, should not be beleived to be prohibited the Jews in general, p. 53or the prohibition of it be set down among those Laws, which had been given to the sons of Adam and Noah, (here put together in this Chapter) as well as the marrying the brothers wife, which is acknowledged to be permitted, nay in one case prescribed the Jew, is yet distinctly here forbidden.

For the former of these, 'tis true that §. 20 Abarbane l enquiring why it should be prohibited the Nephew to marry the Uncles wife, The vanity of their Reasons.and not prohibited the Uncle to marry the Nephews wife, refers himself to Maimonides Moreh Nebahim 3.49. where he saith, That God, intending the diminution of uncleanness, prohibited it under those heavy penalties in those persons, which had the most continual conversation together, and so most occasion of it, as the Nephew hath more occasion to converse in the Uncles house, then the Uncle in the Nephews. And again he addes it, as the opinion of one of their Divines, that the Reason of most of the prohibitions in this kinde, is to be fetcht from the care of peace, and avoiding of jealousie and contention, which is sharpest, saith he, among persons that are otherwise ne…rest: Which reason ceaseth, when the sister of her that is marryed is deceased. But certainly there is little in either of these reasons to satisfie any reasonahle man.

p. 54§. 21 For 1. can it be beleived that it is indeed lawful for the Uncle to marry the Nephews wife, Discovered.when the Nephews marrying the Uncles wife is expresly prohibited? or are the Jews to be heeded in so senseless an affirmation? It hath already been shewn §. 13. That all marriages of near of kin (whether Consanguinity or Affinity) are distinctly forbidden, v. 6. and is there any imaginable colour of doubting, but the Nephews wife is as near to the Uncle, as the Uncles wife to the Nephew? And again, that parity of reason is of force in the interpreting these prohibitions? And what is parity of reason in this matter of Propinquity, but that those marriages which equally partake of Propinquity, should be deemed equally unlawful?

§. 22 And for the Reason there cited from Maimonides, it is impossible it should be soberly conceived to have any thing of reasonable in it: for 1. By that reason Incest should be forbidden onelyonly to keep men from fornication, and so fornication be the greater, and Incest the lesser sin. As that certainly, which is therefore forbidden, that it may secure another Precept, is to be looked on as a lighter fault, then the breach of that Precept, as the means is inferior, because subordinate to the end: and as the prohibition of the eating of blood, being designed to deter from shedding of mans blood: and p. 55the command of Circumcision, to keep from uncleannesse; the eating of blood, and neglect of Circumcision, are sure lighter offences then Murther and unnatural Lusts. 2. By this reason, those severe penalties should onelyonly have been made against Fornication or Adultery, committed with those with whom we most familiarly converse, but not against marrying of them. For supposing that it were still lawful for brothers and sisters to marry, the making it capital for them to commit uncleanness one with another out of marriage, would as much deter them from such uncleanness, as if it were also capital for them to marry. He that were sure to be hanged for swearing, would be as certainly deterred from swearing, as if the same punishment were denounced against swearing and cursing also; which makes it probable, that the ground or end of those prohibitions, was the lessening of, or restraining from uncleanness, but more probably, that peace & amity might by this means be extended more largely, then the natural bands of relation had extended it, as both Plutarch in his 101 Roman question, and S. Augustine de Civ. Dei, l. 15. c. 16. have affirmed. Or if there were no other reason against incestuous conjunctions, the Positive Will of God alone were reason sufficient. But then 3. there is no reason p. 56to affirm or suppose, that those that are expresly forbidden to marry others, are more frequently conversant in their houses, then those that are as near, but are not forbidden. For example; the fathers brother is named, and the mothers sister, but the mothers brother is not named; and yet the neece may be as conversant in the mothers brothers house, as in the fathers brothers, or as the nephew in the mothers sisters, and there is no imaginable reason of disparity to be pretended. And however, this cannot be applied to the point in hand: for the wives Sister is as frequently in the house, and conversant with her Sister, as the husbands brother with his brother; & so there is no reason deducible from hence, why the one should be interdicted, the other not.

§. 23 Then for that other Reason, fetcht by their Divines from the care of avoiding of jealousie and contention, The second reason from the sharpness of sisters quarrels.that certainly must extend to the interdicting of all Polygamy, or, if considered in earnest, Concubinacy, where the wife doth not consent; as well as of taking one Sister to another. For supposing the wife to whom he hath covenanted to cleave as long as she lives, to require of him the discharge of this Oath, what peace can there be betwixt her, and any other (an inferior, her servant perhaps) that is injuriously taken in and preferred before p. 57her? This is in universum so contrary to peace, so sure to be vexatious, that, as was said, Divorces were permitted by God, as more tolerable injuries, more reconcileable with peace, then they.

The whole weight of this pretended Reason, lyes upon this,A mistake. That the quarrels §. 24 of those that are nea…est are most sharp: But if there were no injury to provoke any quarrel at all, (as supposing Polygamy absolutely lawful, though there would be sin against the law of propinquities, yet against the wife there would be no injury in taking in one Sister to another) then sure the nearness were a more reasonable argument to secure their friendship, then to engage their causless …nmity. For although the greatness of the former friendship, by enhancing the subsequent injury, doth fitly adde to the exasperation, and make it more unreconcileable; yet sure without any such provocation, it cannot reasonably beget it, and therefore the old saying of Fratrum quo{que} gratia rara est, the kindeness of brethren is a rare thing (which I see by some learned men made use of to this purpose) is sure misapplyed by them, for that was never in any the most ironny age so to be interpreted or extended, that the friendships of brethren are rarer then of any others, (unless by the accident of living most together, they may have more occasions p. 58of quarrels, then others that live at greater distance, and then to counterballance that, the length of the familiarity, and acquaintance. And advantage of conversation to beget kindeness, and conserve it, may be as competent reasons to make their kindeness exceed others, and being deeper rooted, to flourish the more) but that, as an expression of the little love that is among men, fratrum quo{que}— even brethren also have seldome a constant agreement and kindeness to one to another.2 Tim. 3.3.2 Tim 3:3 Thus certainly it is meant by the Apostle as a sad character on the latter dayes (those before Gods vengeance on the crucifiers) that men should be without natural affection, as Christ had foretold of the same times, that they should be betrayed by parents and brethren, &c. Luk. 21.16. Mar. 13.12. which signifies this to be the greatest, and the most extraordinary evidence of the failing, or growing cold of Charity, Mat. 24.12. and that which includes, and presupposes the lower degrees of uncharitableness, between those that are not so near; but is far from concluding, That those that are thus nearest, are thus aptest to betray, and hate one another. It is clearly a presumption of the contrary.

§. 25 So far is it from having any appearance of reason (what is pretended by these Jews) that the taking two Sisters p. 59together is the onelyonly thing there forbidden. And indeed, if those two things were granted, which are by them supposed. 1. That more wives might by that law be had at once; and 2. That one Sister might be taken after the decease of the other, the conclusion would undenyably be inferred, that the two Sisters might be taken together, were it not for that one danger of their being more vexatious, and more unreconcileable to one another, then any others would be; which being shewed to be no reason, their whole pretension is vanished, their double plea, 1. For Polygamy, and 2. For marrying two Sisters successively, is brought to nothing.

Then for the second, why it may not §. 26 be beleived, or acknowledged by a Jew, That Polygamy should be here forbidden, though by dispensation otherwise permitted the Jews, as well as marrying the brothers wife be permitted the Jew, which is here acknowledgedly prohibited, I finde not any reason pretended, nor is it imaginable that any thing of any weight should be producible by any Jew. 'Tis visible to common sense, that what would hold for one, would hold for the other, being both positive laws, and so equally dispensable; both given to the Sons of Adam and Noah, and from thence transcribed, under that head of Disclosing of nakednesses, p. 60and so equally obligatory, till they were dispensed with, and to all others, who had no such dispensation; and so, without any exp…i…it interdict of Christs, both prohibited to us Christians. And therefore 1. it was but a shortness of discourse in those Jews, that thought their Charter for their beloved Polygamy so deeply concerned in this interpretation of those words: and 2. the greater their interest was conceived to be, the less will their authority be able to perswade others. And however the Karaeans, The Karaeans,those that profess, and by their name are acknowledged to keep close to the letter of the sacred Precept, are less likely to mistake, by enlarging the literal sense of it, then any others, who from the subsequent permission and customary practises of Polygamy, and their known zeal in that cause, whereby their lusts were so highly gratified, have been induced to that other interpretation. And of Maimonides And Mai…o…ides.'tis evident, (which of all those Hebrew Writers hath the reputation of the most sober and most skilful in their learning) that in his opinion by this Chapter of Leviticus, are forbidden the conjunctions of those, that are nearest to one another, by marriage, as well as by blood, in which number the wives Sister must needs be acknowledged to be included, none being imaginable to be p. 61nearer. And so the words of the Text enforce, v. 6. None shall approach to any that is near of kin to him.

But to all this the practise of Jacob in §. 27 marrying two Sisters Jacobs marrying of two Sisters,before the law, is objected, both as an example of the lawfulness of that practise among the Nations, before the law was given to the Jews, and as a probable reason, why this law against taking one Sister to another in her life time, was here made, viz. to prevent the like quarrels, which had faln out between Leah and Rachel, and so as a reason still, that those words should be rendred [a wife to her Sister] and not [one wife to another.]

To this I answer, 1. That these quarrels §. 28 (as was said) are as incident to strangers, Answered. that meet in the same great interest (in case of such injury, and invasion of propriety) as to Sisters they can be. If Jacob had married any other wife in stead of Leah, is it probable that Rachels love, and barren womb, would have been more patient of that competition? If all such dissensions as those betwixt Jacobs wives were designed to be prevented by this law, it is certain the law was very imperfect, and unable to attain its end, or else all Polygamy, against the consent of the former wife, was here prohibited. And therefore 2. unless it otherwise appear, that that interdict Lev. 18.18. p. 62be to be interpreted of two Sisters, that of Jacobs marrying two Sisters, will have nothing to do with it, being not at all referred to by any part of the Context, but onelyonly fancied to be so from the casual concurrence and agreement of the story of the one, with that which is conceited to be forbidden in the other. Which indeed may probably have been a means to impose upon some, and have given them prejudices this way: but being a remote ground of conjecture, which is not so much as a probable argument (of which also there may be more then one for any thing that is most untrue) will have no force to interpret that Text that way, much less to prove that the sixth verse, which forbids approaching to any that are near of kin, did not forbid approaching to the wives Sister, which is so very nea…; or that the 16. verse, that forbids approaching to the brothers wife, did not, à pari, forbid this which is directly equal and parallel to it.

§. 29 And therefore all the force that can be pretended from this objection, Jacobs example impertinent.must be that, which arises from Jacobs example, who, it is acknowledged, did this, and was a pious man, and lived before the law, and so may seem to be a proof that this was formerly practised. And therefore some farther answer must be given to that: And it will soon be done, p. 631. By observing that as far as it doth prove any thing, it doth prove more then they that make use of it to infer the lawfulness of marrying the Sister of the deceased wife, do desire to prove from it. And therefore I shall first demand, whe- they can from Jacobs example think it lawful for a Christian now to have two Sisters together? and if they think they may not, then whence the unlawfulness of that proceeds? If from the Jewish law in that verse, Lev. 18.18. Then, it seems, that, which was given to none but the Jews, doth oblige us Christians: which is both false, and acknowledged by the objecters to be so: If from the law given to the sons of Adam or Noah, then it seems this was forbidden by that law, and then Jacobs practise must be directly contrary to that law, and so be an acknowledged transgression in him, and not imitable in us: If onelyonly by the Christian law, then that Christian law will no where appear express to that purpose; and for any deduction which will be producible from thence, to conclude this, the like will as readily be produced to interdict the marriage of the Sister of the deceased wife. And so still this argument from Jacobs example will not be useful to the objecter. But then 2. for Jacobs practise, as it concerned his individual, considered as a pious man, though it be p. 64most certain, that all the actions of a pious man are not pious; and, that Jacobs actions particularly, do not all appear to be pious, witness the deceiving his father, and supplanting his brother of his birthright first, and then his blessing, yet it is farther observable to what original this action of his must be imputed.

§. 30 He loved Rachel, and, by compact for seven years servi…e with Laban her father, The ori…inal of Jacobs action.was promised to have her to wife, Gen. 29.18, 19, 20. and having performed the condition so far as to call her, and that truly, his wife, v. 21. he required to have her given him, that he may go in unto her. And the marriage-feast being kept, v. 22. (all which implies and supposes them absolutely married) Laban at night took Leah, and brought her to him, and he went in unto her, mistaking her for Rachel, and not knowing his error till the morning, v. 25. which thus far being wholly imputable to Laban, and not to Jacob (who was not conscious of it) cannot be imagined sufficient to annull his marriage with Rachel, which was before compleated (as far as compact of parents, consent of parties, and all the solemnities of marriage, accustomed in the place, could compleat it) and so leaves this hard necessity inevitably on Jacob, either to leave his own espoused beloved Rachel, and take his neither espoused, p. 65nor beloved Leah, or else to leave them both, the one whom he had married, the other to whom he had gone in (for it is not imaginable, that Laban that would not before let him prefer Rachel before Leah, would now, having a much stronger obligation to the contrary, permit him to do it) or else to take them both, which accordingly he did. To which also that some divine dispensation was added, though it is not defined in the Scripture, yet, considering the promise of God to keep him, and be with him in all, whether places to which, or affairs about which he goes, Gen. 28.15. and again the many revelations of God by dream afforded him; and yet farther, the blessing that ensued on Leahs offspring (six Patriarchs, and Judah the line of Christ, one of them) and the custome of blessing in her name, Ruth 4.11. it is (not improbably) supposeable. But I lay not the weight on that. The force of the objection was before sufficiently evacuated.

The first part of the consequence being §. 31 thus cleared,The prohibition of marrying the wives sister never superseded. viz. that the taking the wives Sister was to the Jews forbidden; The second branch (viz. that this prohibition was not afterward superseded or dispensed with, by the countermand in Deuteronomy, of marrying the brothers wife) will immediately appear both by the force of the old rule, That the law p. 66of exceptions confirms the obligation of all those that are not excepted, and especially by the cessation of the reason for the taking away this latter, which held and prevailed for the taking away the former obligation. For whereas the preserving of the elder brothers family, depended on the younger's marrying the relict, and raising up seed to him, which might succeed to his name and patrimony, 'tis manifest that the Sisters succeeding the Sister, and bearing children to the husband, would bring no such advantage along with it: For any other wife, of any other family, would as probably bear him children, and doing so, as certainly bear up his name and family, as his wives Sister could do: whereas the son of another family, marrying the relict of the eldest brother of this, would certainly beget all the children to his own name and family, and not to him, whose wife he married.

§. 32 All that is now behinde for the bringing this home to us Christians, will be best adapted by way of reply to one expected objection. For it being granted, that this was thus by parity of reason acknowledged to be interdicted the Jews; It will yet be replyed, and objected, That neither of these two interdicts pertain to us Christians, any more then other Judicial laws, which were by God also p. 67given to the Jews, How this law, being given to the Jews, is obligatory to Christians.are supposed to be obligatory to us. To this I answer by acknowledging the force of the objection, as far as is yet pretended. For it is certain, that no law obliges those, to whom it was not given, and consequently that no law, given onelyonly to the Jews (that people of one particular nation, and not the Representative of the whole world, or from whose loins all others were to be peopled) layes any engagement (though to them 'twere given even by God himself) on any other Nation, into whose municipal laws it hath not by the Governors been received, either by their free, prudential Choyce, or by way of imitation from them, and following that pattern, which they see given by God to his own people. And when it is so received by the subsequent laws of any other nation, it is their receiving it, and not the first giving it to the Jews, that becomes obligation to those others.

OnelyOnly here it must now be added in §. 33 the last place. That this law which was given to the Jews, Lev. 18. had been formerly given by God to the sons of Adam, This Law given formerly to the sons of Adam.(either after that the way of satisfying the first necessity, the propagating and peopling the world, was once provided for, or before, with a reservation of liberty in that one case) and from thence by Tradition to the sons of Noah, as p. 68those that represented all the nations of the world, that should come from them, and so consequently was obligatory to all. Whereupon the Jews affirm of that interdict, Lev. 18.6. which forbids these marriages, that it bindes not onelyonly the Israelite, but foreign the stranger or proselyte, who, we know, was obliged by those Precepts onelyonly, which were given to the sons of Noah. For though Gods giving these laws to the sons of Adam or Noah is not affirmed in Scripture, yet (according to the foundation laid in the former**§. 7. Discourse, as a preparative to what I am now to build upon it) it is to be believed by all those that acknowledge Scripture, upon another score.

§. 34 For 1. one of the Precepts of the sons of Adam and Noah enumerated by the Jews (and therefore looked on by the Apostles at the Synod of Jerusalem, The proof of that.as that which concerned the Gentiles as well as the Jews) is intituled, as was said foreign Of, or, Against disclosing Nakednesses, and that by the Jews generally expressed by De incestu & illicito concubitu, Of Incest and unlawful conjunction; and every one of the forbidden propinquity, Mother, Sister, &c. styled foreign Nakedness or turpitude. Which therefore in all reason is to be extended as far as the interdict, Lev. 18. which is there intituled in like manner, p. 69The disclosing or uncovering of Nakedness, v. 6. &c.The seven Precepts of the sons of Noah, Act. 15.Acts 15 This will farther appear by comparing these seven Precepts, as they have been set down from the Jews Traditions, with the style wherein they are mentioned, Act. 15. whereas the two first concerning strange Worship, and the benediction of the one God, the God of Israel, are summarily comprised under the style of Abstaining from things offered to Idols; and that of shedding blood, under [Abstaining from blood] and that of a member of a live creature, or eating flesh with the blood in it, under that of things strangled, and those two, of judgements, or administration of justice, and of theft (for which some Jewish Writers reade […oing as they would be done to]) under those words (which some printed books, and many ancient written Copies, particularly Beza's venerable Greek and Latine one, which he sent to the University of Cambridge, have added, and the Aethiopick and other Interpreters retain) foreign, and what you would not have done to your selves, do not that to any other; so the fourth Precept, foreign Of, or, Against disclosing Nakednesses, is rendred, foreign, abstaining from fornication.

Which being premised, it is 2. manifest, §. 35 that the word foreign, ordinarily rendred p. 70fornication, Fornication used in a latitude for all lusts prohibited.is used in the New Testament in a greater latitude then is ordinarily thought to belong to it, so as to contain in it, not onelyonly Adultery, as appears Mat. 5.32. and 19.9. but also all unnatural sins, contrary to the distinction of sexes and kindes, (foreign, saith Thomas Magister) and also all breaches of the positive interdict of Propinquity. In a word, all unlawful desires of the flesh, of what kinde soever, all acts of prohibited carnality. Of this nature there were many sorts still remaining among the new Converts of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5.1. and therefore his charge against them lyes in that indefinite form, foreign, fornication, foreign.or perhaps in an universal, comprehensive form, foreign, Fornication universally or in gross, containing all the several species of it: And one species there named by him, is that of incestuous Copulation with the fathers wife.

§. 36 Now to bring home these premises to the point in hand.Incest unlawful among the Gentiles. It is there directly said, 1 Cor. 5.1. that the having (or conjugal living with) the deceased fathers wife, is such a fornication, as is not named among the Gentiles. To which I might adde that speech of Virgil, —Thalamos ausum incestare Novercae, calling it a bold incestuous fact. This p. 71was by Charondas a heathen made infamous, which is more then to be pronounced unlawful. And when Seleucus the King would have married his wife Stratonice to Antiochus his son, he was afraid, saith Plutarch, lest she should be offended with the unlawfulness of the fact. Of other incestuous conjunctions, such as this was, the heathens are frequent in their expressions of detestation. Lysias an heathen Orator, foreign, to marry the mother and the daughter, was an act of the most wretched of all men. And Cicero pro Cluentio, cryes out of another of like sort, O scelus incredibile, & praeter hanc unam in omni vitâ inauditum, that it was an incredible villany; and of which in his whole life he had never heard of a precedent. Andaaforeign. Aristophanes speaking of a brother lying with his sister of the same mother, speaks it with a full detestation,

—foreign

foreign.

O accursed man, &c. And it is Aristotles observation in his Politicks, that he …hat should ignorantly commit such a fact, would, when he knew it, abhor that pleasure.

p. 72§. 37 And thus it is the conjecture of the learned Photius, Though practised by them.That the Circumcision of Abraham, and his posterity was instituted as an embleme of restraint from incestuous copulations, The Chaldaeans, saith he, Epist. foreign. mixed with their mothers daughters and sisters, foreign, by an impious detestable custome, gotten in among them; and therefore that neither he, nor his posterity, foreign, should be polluted with these customes of their fathers, he was commanded to be circumcised, foreign, for the abolishing of such nefarious turpitude, the circumcising of his own flesh, being saith he, foreign, the dividing, and averting him from those of Consanguinity or Affinity with him, foreign, in respect of conjugal conversation. Whereas, saith he the Chaldaeans incontinence foreign without fear or shame, continued a long while after▪ Abrahams time to commit such villanies. And if this were so, and, upon that score, among others, Abraham were cōmanded to leave the place of his nativity, then will this be an evidence of the prohibition of these marriages to all the nations before that time, by the precepts given to the sons of Adam and Noah. And then there will be little reason to doubt, but that this interdict p. 73extended to affinities, as well as consanguinities, and all that are prohibited the Jews, Lev. 18. particularly that mentioned by S. Paul, with such abhorrence, as that which was not named among the Gentiles, or which, though it had been committed, was yet looked on as an foreign, a commission of that which it was ashame to name. To which purpose it is observable, what is so oft and so distinctly affirmed, Lev. 18.24, 25, 27, 30. and c. 20.23. that in all these, i. e. all the incestuous marriages (as well as unnatural lusts) there prohibited, the nations were defiled which God cast out before the Jews, w^ch so heavy a punishmēt inflicted on those heathen nations for this iniquity, must conclude this positive prohibition of incestuous marriages to have been long before given to them, as wel as those natural instincts against the unnatural sins, for all w^ch joyntly they were abhorred by God, and cast out.

The learned**De Jure Belli, l. II. c. 5. Sect 14. Hugo Grotius indeed §. 38 (whose authority, I foresee, will be here objected) is inclinable to restrain the note of universality to the principal heads of that Chapter, unnatural conjunctions with mankinde, with beasts, with parents, with sisters, with other mens wives, and that the other are added onelyonly foreign, by way of fortification and prevention of the former. But (beside, that the Karaeans have prevented this interpretation, p. 74by affirming the whole kinde of incestuous marriages (of which,Every of these prohibited to, and punished in the nations. say they, those that follow are but some examples) to be comprehended in the first words of the interdict, v. 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him) 'tis obvious to conceive how ill a precedent this is, and how dangerous a way of interpreting, to restrain, where the law doth so distinctly not restrain, to except some particulars, when the words are repeated over and over, in the most unlimited comprehensive form of universality: Defile not your selves in any of these, for in all these the nations &c. v. 24. and, Ye shall not commit any of these, v. 26. for all these abominations &c. v. 27. and, Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, v. 29. and, not any of these abominable customes, v. 30. And so again c. 20.23. the nations committed all these. 'Tis not possible words should be more providently formed to exclude all exception or restraint, and to define every of the forenamed practises to be abominations first, and those very abominations (all of them) for which the Canaanites were cast out, and consequently that they were prohibited by some former law, by which those Canaanites were obliged, or else could not thus be spued out for committing them. As for the example of Jacob, which is conceived to favor that interpretation p. 75by marrying two Sisters, that hath been answeredaa§. 27, &c. already, and an account given of his doing it, which is reconcileable with that prohibition; and though he were a pious man, 'tis clear, Laban, who was the cause of his defiling Leah, when he had marryed Rachel, was not to be deemed such. And for the example of Amrams marrying his Aunt, and some of the Graecians, Iphidamas and Diomedes, doing the like, they will be far from argumentative, when it is considered how many single men of all times, and even whole nations have been guilty of breaches of a higher nature, then those against positive laws. That it was not much more ordinary among all people, it would be very strange if there had not been some acknowledged restraint laid upon it, and the very producing of so few, and these noted as singular examples, is a fairer probability on the other side, that such marriages were accounted unlawfull, where the law of Moses had not prohibited them, and so that to some former laws, that obliged all, this temper was imputable. And accordingly it is known, that Reuben, Jacobs eldest son, (long before the law given to the Jews) is disinherited for the crime of going up to his fathers bed, defiling his fathers concubine, Gen. 25.22. and c. 49.4. and 1 Chron. c. 5.1.

Which being granted, there will be no §. 39 p. 76reason to doubt, but that all and every of those marriages forementioned, particularly that of the brothers wife (which is the next degree to the fathers wife) and this of the wives Sister as near (and in the same line) as that, was forbidden also.The Arabians practise herein. To which purpose there is an eminent testimony of a learned Arabick Writer. Al Sharestanius, set down by Mr. Pocock in his Notes on the History of the Ancient Arabs. Turpissimum eorum quae faciebant (Arabes tempore ignorantiae) erat hoc, quòd vir duas sorores, & patris sui uxorem, velut successor, assumer…t, The foulest thing that the old Arabs did in time of ignorance, was this, that a man marryed two sisters, and took, as heir, or successor, the wife of his deceased father. Of the latter of which, saith Al Mostatraf Ebnol Arhir, that when a woman was left a widow, or divorced from the husband, the eldest son should take her by inheritance, and cast his garment over her, as a sign of it. This being formerly in use, was by the Alcoran forbidden, O vos qui creditis, non permissum est vobis foeminas haereditatis jure accipere. They that receive Mahomed's laws, must not take the fathers wives by way of inheritance. From which testimonies though it be concluded that some nations did admit that, which S. Paul saith was not so much as named among the Nations (as it is affirmed by p. 77Strabo of those Arabians, that they used to take their own daughters, and so Clemens and Bardesanes say of the Persians also) yet S. Paul might by the word Gentiles mean the civiller, or more regular of the unconverted Gentiles, or speaking to the converted Corinthians, might mean the unconverted of that Province; and being true of those, it is sufficient to justifie S. Pauls speech, who to the reproach of Christians, mentions this practise among them, and addes that the heathens were not without an abhorrence of it.

Meane while it is cleare from thence,§. 40. both that the practise, though admitted among the old ignorant Arabs, was looked upon by Mahomed himselfe as a foule nefarious thing, and also that taking to wife of two Sisters was looked on as a crime of the same quality with marrying the father's wife, and that is all I intended to conclude from it.

Which therefore being thus concluded, §. 41 The Christians obligation.and supposed to be by God interdicted to the sons of Adam and Noah, (and so to all the nations of the world) and that not onelyonly as a ceremony to hedge in another duty (as that of the member of a live creature, or flesh with the blood in it, or foreign, of that which was strangled, evidently was, to beget a dread of shedding mans blood, Gen. 9.4.6.) but as a prohibition terminated in it self, and this p. 78again not abrogated by Christ, but stricter laws of purity, now enacted by him, then ever had been before, and foreign in the full latitude absolutely forbidden, as that which should exclude him that were guilty of it out of the Kingdome of heaven; and the same again by S. Paul more distinctly applied to this matter, under the foreign, fornication in gross (containing all the species of it, and so all these disclosings of nakedness, Lev. 18. of which number this is by analogie resolved to be one) All this, I say, together, will make a very competent authority to deter any Christian from the use of it, and that foreign, for conscience of that duty and obedience, which every creature must pay to God, every Christian to Christ, though the Scripture rather intimates (and relates to) this interdict, as a thing supposed, then defines how, or when, or to whom (beside the Jews) it was ever given.

§. 42 The Authority of the Church.Beyond all this it is farther manifest, That the Church of Christ (which will bear sway with all humble and sober Christians, and to whose Canons none did ever obstinately deny submission, without the brand and reward of Schism, that great sin of carnality in the Apostles account, most contrary to the unity of members, and to the meekness prescribed by Christ) hath through all ages from the Apostolical p. 79first and purest times, been most strict in prescribing abstinence from such liberties, particularly this, which we have now in hand: which appears partly by the Infamy which hath attended such marriages, which supposes them to have been reputed unlawful by some former law, partly by the plain words of Canons which have forbidden them. The Apostolick Canons The Apostolick Canon.forbid the taking of any man into the Clergy, making him Bishop or Deacon, which shall have marryed two Sisters (one after the death of the other) or the brothers daughter, foreign. And Zonaras styles it there, foreign, an incestuous marriage. Where, if it be thought that this is no mark of the unlawfulness of the thing, but onelyonly an interdict to the Clergie, that they shall not marry thus, leaving it free to others: This will be the same strange way of arguing, as if from the qualifications of the Bishop set down by S. Paul, that he should be no drunkard, no covetous person, &c. i. e. that such as are so, should not be admitted to holy Orders, we should conclude that these qualities might be lawful and free from other men, who were not Ecclesiasticks, or because the Bishop must be one that hath not marryed after suchaaSee Resolution to the third Quaere, §. 34. Divorces as are forbidden by Christ; and the widow is p. 80to be the wife but of one husband in like manner, it were therefore lawful for all other Christians to use such Divorces and marry again, which we know was prohibited by Christ, or that other Christian women might have more husbands, or leave one and marry another, which we know was never lawful among any civil, though Heathen people. The plain of it is, that the onelyonly thing conclusible from the interdicts of the Church Canons, is the frequency of such practises among unbeleivers, which made it necessary to revive and refresh the prohibition to Christians: To whom, under Christ, such marriages were reputed so foul, and the state of such sins being permanent, did so much enhance them above the nature of Single acts of greater sins, that, although for every commission of any known Sin, a man were not made uncapable of any dignity in the Church, (or rendred irregular, if after the receiving of orders he were found guilty) yet of these sins he that were once guilty, should for ever remain under a brand, and be counted uncapable of holy Orders, which he, that were otherwise worthy, would not, surely, have been, had it not been accounted unlawful, before that Canon inflicted that punishment on the offender. And then it being acknowledged p. 81that Christ hath not descended to the specifying of such particulars; and that the Apostle that speaketh of one such sin, saith it was not named among the Gentiles, the result will be, That this brand of the Apostolical Canon, is founded in the Universal Prohibition obliging all men, and so the Christians of all nations, as well as the Jews, and that not abrogated but confirmed, and by stricter precepts of Continence, and denunciations against the incontinent, continued on the Christian by Christ.

What was thus punished and marked §. 43 by the Apostolical Canon, The Eliberitan.was after in the Councel of Eliberis universally interdicted to all under a severe penance, Can. 61. or rather a penance of such a quality assigned it, which presupposed the prohibition, and acknowledged unlawfulness of it: Si quis post obitum uxoris suae sororem ejus duxerit &c. If any man after the death of his wife, shall marry his wives Sister, and she be a beleiver, he shall be excommunicate for the space of five years. And the like is so frequent throughout the Canons, and so acknowledged to be so, that there is no need of multiplying any more testimonies, They who have disputed this interdict, and against whose doubts this Discourse was designed, being the men who express their displeasure against the p. 82tyranny of the Church-Canons, which have, say they, obtruded these restraints upon men, who have otherwise a richer inheritance of liberty belonging to them.

§. 44 To these I shall adde but this one thing, that if the authority of the universal Church of Christ be so vile to them,The laws of the Realm. yet the authority of the Civil Magistrate, and municipal Laws being not so profestly under their prejudice, it is sufficiently known that thus much of the Canon law is received into, and confirmed by the Law of this Land, and theaaSee Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 22. and 28 H. 8. c. 7. and 32 H. 8. c. 38. and Lord s…kes Magna Charta, p. …3. marrying the wives Sister expresly prohibited. And this is not rashly to be despised by any, though the Commissioners which were wont to have the cognizance and punishing of such facts, be not so likely to call men to account for them. It being still reasonable that conscience should restrain, when fear of wrath is not ready to do it; and that those Laws, which are not presently able to avenge themselves, should be esteemed to have God (whose Title it is to defend the poor, and punish the wrong-doer) for their more solemn, and more formidable avenger.