and she proves faithful to him he must during five years abstain from the Communion which shews that the Bond of Matrimony still remains inviolable and as we have already said in those Canons which are called Apostolical whosoever marries two Sisters or his Brother's Daughter is only forbid to be Priest which is indeed as near as possible to the words of the Canon set forth by Ioverius in his Collection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions A. D. 1555. Clas p. 3. Apostolorum Canon 18. Qui duas sorores duxit aut Consobrinam Clericus esse non potest Whoever has married two Sisters or his Neece must not be a Priest Now that these ancient Canons retain their Validity is apparent not only from the practice of the learned and judicious Grotius as well as other eminent Civilians who appeal to their Authority but they likewise receive confirmation and encouragement from the Laws of our own Nation it being Enacted 25 H. 8 19. That all Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial not repugnant to the King's Prerogative nor to the Customs Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom shall be used and executed till such time as they shall be otherwise order'd and determined Now upon these preceding Authorities some Queries may be offer'd As 1. Whether the 99th Canon Eccles. Angl. and the Table set forth 1563 concerning the prohibited Degrees of Marriage do not derive their Force from the Sacred Writ so that they are not to be understood or extended farther than the Scriptures do plainly direct 2. Whether the Energy and Force of Levit. 18.18 be not grounded upon the Reasons contain'd in the Text so that cessante Ratione cessat Prohibitio 3. Whether if the Marriage of two Sisters one after the other be not positively against the Law of God it be not adjudg'd lawful and confirm'd by the 32 H. 8.38 4. Whether the Solution of Iustinian in the like Cases of Affinity viz. Privignâ— Nurus in the first Book of his Institutions Tit. 10. de Nuptiis Paragr 6. be not properly applicable to Levit. 18.18 Si una tibi nupta est ideo Alteram Vxorem ducere non poteris quia duas Sorores eodem tempore habere non licet 5. Whether if any of the Canons Eccles. Angl. be dubious it be not proper and convenient to consult the ancient Canons for Explanation and Illustration 6. And lastly Whether upon these preceding Considerations to marry two Sisters Alteram post Alteram be malum vetitum Lege divinâ— and so sinful forô Conscientiae and such Marriage void or only inconvenient and obnoxious to Ecclesiastical Censures and Penalties which the Ecclesiastical Court may either inflict or commute Now to conclude with this first and principal Objection Whether it be a Sin against the Levitical Law I shall only make three short Remarques 1. That there are many other Laws in Leviticus that are no more abolish'd by Christ than this of Marriages which yet are wholly neglected and no ways look'd upon as obligatory 2. Many doubt Whether any of the Laws given to the Iews in particular are binding to other Nations excepting only those revived by Christ which this of Marriages never was 3dly and lastly 'T is worth our observation that when the Question was put to Christ by the Sadduces about the Wife that had been married to seven Brethren tho' 't was a common practice among them and he had so fair an opportunity offer'd him yet he never reproves the Custom of one Womans marrying several Brethren but answers only to the plain Question as 't was put That at the Resurrection they neither marry nor are given in Marriage Now since he did reprove and abolish all their other evil Customs it may well be suppos'd he thought not this so or otherwise he would have condemn'd it with the rest As for the second Objection That such a Marriage would be against the known Laws of the Land and therefore dangerous to you both I have sufficiently answered this already as likewise the third and last Objection since as well the Statute Laws as Honour and Conscience in this case do wholly depend upon the Legality of such a Match according to the Law of God which point I think has been pretty well clear'd by what has been said before But for the better illustration of the matter I will present you with a short view of the Original and Foundation of these Laws The Statute Laws of this Land never meddled with the Degrees of Kindred in relation to Marriages till Henry the eighth's time which happen'd thus Prince Arthur eldest Son to Henry the 7 th married Katharine the Infanta of Spain in November 1502 but on the second of April following the Prince dyed whose Death says Dr. Burnet was imputed to his using too great an excess in his Love towards her So that it is not likely he left her a Maid as some would have it After which the Princess having watch'd ten Months to see that she was not with Child by Prince Arthur she was married to her Husband 's youngest Brother afterwards Henry the 8 th by whom she had two Sons and one Daughter Mary since Queen of England the two Sons dying young and only his Daughter Mary surviving Now Henry the 8 th growing weary of his Queen as thinking he should have no more Children by her desired a Divorce and then tho' he had beâ—n married many years by and with the Advice of Fox Bishop of Winchester and several of his chief Clergy he first pretends a scruple of Conscience for being married to his Brothers Wife the Pope nor Church would not allow of his scruple in that kind nor grant him any Divorce but chose rather to forfeit their Interest in these Kingdoms however King Henry's Lust prompting him to make use of any shift to obtain his desires he bribed some few Members among the foreign Universities to give him their opinionsâ— that the Marriage was unlawful and a Divorce but reasonable which accordingly his Commissioners executed in a Clandestine manner at Dunstable After this the Parliament who during his Reign were aw'd into a compliance with him in all things being for the Pope's Supremacy when ever he was for it and as much against it when he was against it made a Law 32 H. 8. ch 38. in compliment and confirmation of his Divorce and second Marriage limiting all Marriages to the Degrees of the Levitical Law so that we see this Law was made not of any Religious or pious Consideration whatsoever but only to serve a turn and gratifie the Lust of an imperious Prince And one consideration further is worthy our Notice viz. that this very Princess Mary was afterwards allow'd and approv'd of by the Judgment of the whole Nation and of all Christendom besides to be undisputably the right and Lawful soveraign Queen of England and so lived and dyed notwithstanding the said Act of Parliament and Divorce to which Title and Dignity she could no
of the Arguments of this Subject seem to turn upon this one Point viz. Whether the Marriage of two Sisters successively be against the Laws of God This is the Rock that all the Defenders of the Affirmative depend on and this they fix chiefly on Levit. 18.16 18. or some other Mosaic Prohibitions So that if it be made evident that such a Marriage is not forbidden by the Law of God the Bugbears of Custom for those of the Laws of the Land as well as the Canon-Law evidently from the proof of my ever Honour'd and Learned Friend depend entirely on this will vanish for if the Law of God be not infring'd I think there is no other consideration can reach the nicest scruple of the most severe Lady of Honour that has with it Sense and Reason as I am assur'd the Admirable Astraea has Tho this Point as well as the rest be already beyond contradiction clear'd yet I shall venture to attempt a Supererogatory Argument or two as a tribute I owe to the truth I so much approve of First then to make any Law the Law of God strictly taken for in some sense every Law that tends to the temporary convenience or good of a people is so it must have one quality that is inseparable from the Nature of God and by consequence of his Acts viz. Immutability that is it must be founded in nature and always the same So that what was the Law of God in the time of Abraham could not cease to be so or at least be opposite to his Law in our time and what God plainly and openly espous'd in the time of Abraham cannot but he suppos'd to be according to his Law Now 't is evident from the Sacred Scriptures that Sarah Abrahams Wife was his Sister by the Father tho not by the Mother Gen. 20.12 And yet indeed she is my Sister she is the Daughter of my Father but not the Daughter of my Mother and she became my Wife Here was at least a half-blood and something with a face very like Incest and yet the Marriage justify'd by God himself not only in the threats he us'd to Abimelech if he return'd not his Wife and those Plagues he inflicted on Pharoah and his House Gen. 12.17 And the Lord Plagued Pharoah and his House with great Plagues because of Sarai Abraham's Wife But also in the farther confirmation of it Gen. 17.15 16. And God said unto Abraham as for Sarai thy Wife thou shalt not call her Name Sarai but Sarah shall her Name be Now this alteration of her Name shew'd a particular favour she had found in being Abraham's lawful Wife for God always alter'd or order'd the Names of those he particularly chose as Abraham's Jacob's c. And ver 16. is a confirmation of my assertion I will bless her and give thee a Son also of her and She shall be a Mother of Nations Kings of People shall be of her Certainly never was Marriage better confirm'd than this so solemnly approv'd by the God of Heaven the God of Right and Just. And afterward God chooses to establish his Covenant with Isaac the Son of Sarah not with Ishmael the Son of Hagar tho Hagar was not his Sister Yet we find this very sort of Marriage so approv'd of by God in Genesis forbid by Moses in Leviticus that is if we will believe these Gentlemen that perswade us that he intended the prohibitions of the 18th of Levit. as to Marriage for if Thou shalt not uncover the Nakedness of thy Fathers Daughter be the same as Thou shalt not marry thy Fathers Daughter and this be a Divine immutable Law and by consequence so from the beginning the very Case of Abraham is expresly condemn'd Nay if this Levitical Prohibition be in this sense and the Law of God too then wou'd there be a Divine Law expresly contradictory to the Will of God himself Such absurdities do some men incur whilst they pursue either some private design or supinely interpret without a diligent and through comparison of the several Texts of Scripture But before I proceed 't will not be amiss in a line or two to shew that this Standard I make of the Law of God is not my own particular Fancy but a Reality establish'd by Christ himself For he examining some of the Levitical Law tells the Jews this was permitted for the hardness of your Hearts but from the beginning it was not so where he makes from the beginning the Test and Standard of that permissory Law which must hold good too for the Prohibitions both proceeding from the same cause viz. the hardness of the Israelites hearts or the depravity of their inclinations But after all 't is evident to me that there is no Prohibition of Marriage intended by that 18. Chap. of Leviticus for I meet not with the Phrase of Uncovering the Nakedness importing Marriage in any part of Scripture I mean absolutely and alone and 't is evident from the 20. Chap. where the same Prohibitions are repeated that they are meant barely as to unlawful Copulations without Marriage for first to what purpose wou'd it be to forbid what never was done or cou'd indeed be suppos'd to be tolerated ev'n among the Jews For we never read of any Daughters that Married their Fathers or Sons their Mothers knowingly there was such a horror of this printed in the heart of man that the very Heathens gave a punishment to Oedipus for the involuntary commission of it and Periander kill'd his Mother for stealing his Embraces Next there is not one Verse in the whole Chapter except the 18th that has any relation to Marriage and that indeed expresses the taking to Wife which evinces the truth of what I assert viz. that Uncovering the Nakedness is not a Synonymous Expression for Marrying else 't would be perfect Nonsense in this 18th Verse which runs thus Neither shalt thou take a Wife to her Sister to vex her to uncover her Nakedness besides the other in her life-time Now if these Expressions were Synonymous it wou'd be thus Neither shalt thou take a Wife to her Sister to vex her to take a Wife c. Besides it seems to imply a liberty of espousing two Sisters at once tho not of enjoying both for uncovering the Nakedness is only an expression for bare enjoyment without regard either to Marriage or not If it be objected that the Chapter should be all of a piece and that either this Verse should not relate to Marriage or the rest shou'd I answer there is no necessity of that for in all the Chapters in the Books of Moses where several Laws are repeated he does not observe at least generally speaking any order or method in that but mixes things of no relation to one another as is evident from the very next Chapter where almost every Verse affords a new and different Prohibition Besides according to this the Verses that follow the 18th as well as those that go
not being able to see it himself calling the Wisemen to him privately says the Evangelist he enquired of them what time the Star did appear And besides it marched before them like a Torch and conducted them so that it cannot be said to have been a fixed Star in the Heavens Again some will tell you that the Fiery Army sent to the help of Elisha from Heaven was such whom the Prophet himself saw and yet his Servant that stood by him could not see Likewise in the miraculous Sign which was given of Ezekiah's Recovery from his Sickness when 't is said That God brought back the shadow of those Lines that it had gone down in the Dial of Achaz back ten Degrees Here some affirm That the Sun went not back in the Heaven as 't is generally believed but only in the Dial of Achaz for say they if the Sun went back in the Zodiac or that Degree of the Ecliptic standing still which he was running that Day the Primum Mobiâ—e came also backwards and with it all the rest of the Spheres if we say that he went back only in the Zodiac and a tenth part of the Zodiac then say they the Sun must needs return through a great many Signs of the Zodiac and bring back with him past Months yea and Seasons of the Year Besides that this Sign was seen only in the Land of Iudah and not elsewhere they pretend to prove from Ambassadors which were sent from Babylon to enquire after the Sign which say they might have been seen in Babylon as well as in Iudah had the Sun gone back in the Firmament Much to the same purpose they argue against the Miracle of the Suns standing still one whole Day in Gabaon at the command of Ioshua alledging That that long day extended not it self beyond the Country of Gabaon or otherwise it must have been apparent elsewhere And therefore they urge That the Light of the setting Sun after he was himself gone down was only the Reflection of his Beams remaining as yet in the Atmosphere which reverberated longer than ordinary upon the Mountain and City of Gabaon by a favourable Scituation of the Hills In the North of Scotland they have at sometimes in Summer hardly any Night at all and some Mathematicians write that according to the Obliquity of the Sphere there were some Days of six Months continuance with them who live under the Parallel Likewise concerning the Miracle of the Iews not wearing out their Garments or their Shooes in Forty Years time that they continued in the Wilderness some pretend that they feeding a Thousand Flocks in the Desart made Cloath and Rayment of their Wool as well as Shooes of their Skin and Leather wanting neither Weavers Taylors nor Shooemakers among 〈◊〉 numerous a Mob Now lastly others will not allow that the Flood of Noah was upon the whole Earth but only upon the Land of the Ieâ—s nor to destroy all Men but only the Iews Forâ— say they God being offended at their Wickednessâ— said I will cut off Man whom I have created from the Face of the Earth from the Mâ—n to the Peast from the creeping thing to the Fowl of the Heaven Where they will have it that the Hebrews by Earth ever meant their own viz. Palestine by the Man whom he had created the Iews the Posterity of Adam and by living Creatures the Gentiles match'd among the Iews Besides Cattle Birds and all creeping Things within the Land of Palestine except only Noah and his Family Now that this Flood was only in the Land of the Iews they argue First From the Causes of the Deluge which were only the Sins of the Iews Secondly From the words of Berosus who hath written of the Ark says Iosephus in which the chief of our Family was preserved not the chief of Mankind but the chief of our Lineage that is the Iews Thirdly From the Dove that was sent out and returned at Night with an Olive-branch free from Dirt or Slime and cover'd with green Leaves whereas say they in all places where the Flood had been the Trees were depress'd and cover'd with Slime and Mud. They further tell you That the World was said to be divided by Phâ—leg who was the Fifth in Descent from Sem wherefore they question how they could People China America the Southland Greenland and the rest with Inhabitants These and many more Scruples are raised by some nice and curious Enquirers so that we see our Learned Dr. Burnet stands not alone by himself in his more refined and speculative Doubts All which might easily be salved were it not for that untoward Axiom in Philosophy à Posse ad esse non valet consequentia However as that Argument shews it may not be so yet neither does it demonstrate it is not so For God seldom alters or perverts the Course of Nature however Miracles may be necessary sometimes to acquaint the World with his Prerogative least the Arrogance of our Reason should question his Power a Crime no wise Man can ever be guilty of Who climbling up from Cause to Cause shall ever find the highest Link of Nature's Chain to be tyed at the Foot of Iupiter's Chairâ— The next Charge against our Author is for his disowning Original Sin which I must ingeguously confess was ever a difficult Pill with me to swallow my Reason stopping it in my Throat and not having Faith enough to wash it down There are some Persons I know who believe that Wars Plagues Feavers and all the Troop of natural Corruptions invaded the Earth by that imputation of the Sin of Adam without discriminating between Natural and Legal Sin For Wars Plagues and Feavers with whatever else of this sort troubles and afflicts Mankind are the consequences of Natural Sin which is the Wickedness and Imperfection of Nature This will easily appear to such who can suffer that ancient Cloud of Prepossession to be taken off which dulls their sight for who knows not that Wars had their Original from such whom eitheâ— greedy Desire of Prey or cruel Thirst after Revenge or sacred Ambition of Rule stirr'd up to take Arms Then who hath not had experience of the Breeding and Inflammation of Plagues and Feavers either by the natural Corruption of the Air or by the Corruption of our natural Bodies We have as many Witnesses of this Observation and Truth as we have States-men and Physicians therefore not from Adam's Sin proceed our Diseases but from our own Corrupt and Rotten Natures the innate Infirmity of Men being the chief and natural Calamity of Men. Nay it is not known that Adam who was the Criminal and Fountain as they say of so great Evils was ever so much as troubled with the least Disease all those 930. Years which he lived unless you will believe him who relates out of I know not what Author that Adam died of the Gout wherewith he was troubled from his Ancestors Did Cain fall sick when he slew his Brother No
he was very strong and lusty he fled to the East of Eden where he associated himself with a pack of Lewd Fellows he set up for the Trade of Padding then married a Wife begot a Son and built a City Likewise the most excellent Poet falls out with his Gods for that his Mistress Eugenia being perjured kept the same Face which she had before or rather became fairer and fairer The same is also the constant complaint of the Elect in Scripture That the Wicked prosper so much in this World Wherefore to me it seems certain that the Imputation of Adam's Sin is no ways an occasion of our Sufferings I know there are some affirm That if Adam had not sinn'd Men should never have died as if Immortality and Eternal Life which nothing but a New Creation could beget should have been bestow'd on Men by Vertue of the First Creation which by its own Nature is subject to Death and Corruption And that those Men should not have died who as the Schools say are naturally Corruptible and were created Mortal Some will here object and say God told Adam That on the Day he eat that Fruit he should die the Death from whence they gather That if Death was given as a Punishment to Adam on that Day wherein he trangress'd the Law of God then surely Adam would never have died if he had never sinn'd But that Consequence I deny for although they die which kill yet they who do not kill are not Immortal Besides to conclude this point 't is altogether inconsistent with God's Attributes of Mercy and Justice to punish all Mankind for one single Persons sin which we could no ways prevent or hinder nor any but God himself who permitted that Evil Spirit to Reign in him The Roman Schools affirm the first Motions of Concupiscence to be no sin because they are involuntary and come upon us whether we will or no then why should they think Original Sin to be really and truly a Sin in us which is altogether as involuntary and unchosen by us as Concupiscence For how can anothers sin wherein we have no hand be imputed to us Eternal Death was not threatned to Adam for his sin and therefore could not from him descend upon us for that which was none of ours The Death that Adam's Sin introduced is such as could have a Remedy or Recompence by Christ but eternal Death hath no Recompence nor can ever be destroy'd whereas temporal Death shall If God should impute Adam's Sin so as to damn us for it then all our Good we receive from God is much less than the Evil saith Dr. Taylor If God will not give Men Heaven by Christ he will not throw them into Hell by Adam if his Goodness will not do the First his Mercy and Justice will not suffer him to do the Last Nor did any Church ever enjoyn Pennance or Repentance for Original Sin wherefore it seems preposterous and unreasonable that any Man should be damn'd for that which no Man is bound to Repent However I do no way find that Dr. Burnet does absolutely declare against Original Sin but rather the contrary acknowledging the Degeneracy of Mankind from its primitive State which must be redeem'd by the Seed of a Woman All Extreams are dangerous as walking upon the Brink of a Precipice or the like and if he be not so violent in this Point what others may only think he wants in Piety may perhaps be really supplied in Charity And what they only fancy they have in Piety may be truly defective in Charity An honest Augure is ever in most danger of his own Fraternity But to proceed it hath been a point very much disputed among several Politicians in the Commonwealth of Learning who was the real and true Author of the Pentateuch A late and great Modern Philosopher of this Nation declares It is not an Argument sufficient to prove those Books were written by Moses because they are call'd the Five Books of Moses for as much as Books often take their Titles from their Subject as well as from their Authors It 's true the History of Livy denotes the Writer but the History of Tamberlain is denominated from the Subject We read in the last Chapter of Deuteronomy v. 6 th concerning the Sepulcher of Moses that no Man knoweth his Sepulcher to this Day that is to say to the Day wherein those Words were written wherefore it is manifest that those Words were written after his Interment But it may perhaps be alledged That the last Chapter only and not the whole Pentateuch was written by some other hand and the rest by Moses Let us therefore consider that which we find in the Book of Genesis cap. 12. v. 6. and Abraham passed through the Land to the place of Sichem unto the Plain of Moreh and the Canaanite was then in the Land which must be the Words of one that wrote when the Canaanite was not in the Land and consequently not of Moses who died before he came into it Likewise Numb 21. v. 14. the Writer citeth another more ancient Book entituled the Book of the Wars of the Lord wherein were Registred the Acts of Moses at the Red-Sea and at the Brook of Amon which he would never have mention'd of himself but could as well have given us an account himself of what he did in those places Wherefore it is evident That the Five Books of Moses were written by another Hand after his Decease But yet it is rational to believe that Moses wrote the Volume of the Law contain'd in the 11 th of Deuteronomy and the following Chapters to the 27 th which he commanded to be written on Stones in Entry into the Land of Canaan Also Moses himself deliver'd it to the Priests and Elders of Israel to be read every seventh Year to all Israel at their Assembly in the Feast of Tabernacles as we may find in the 31 st Chapter of Deuteronomy v. 9 th Nay it may be also question'd whether the aforesaid was that very Law which Moses delivered since having been a long time lost Helkiah pretended to find it again and so sent it to King Iosias 2 Kings 22.8 and the 23.1 2 3. so that we have only Helkiah's Word for it The Book of Ioshua was also written long after Ioshua's time which may be gather'd out of many places of the Book it self Ioshua had set up twelve Stones in the midst of Iordan for a Monument of their Passage of which the Writer saith Ioshua 4.9 They are there unto this day which Expression Vnto this day is a Phrase that signifieth a Time past And the same is manifest by like Arguments of the Books of Iudges and Ruth that they were written long after the Captivity Iudges chap. 1.21 26. chap. 6.24 chap. 10.4 chap. 15.19 chap. 17.6 and Ruth chap. 1.1 but especially Iudges 18.30 Now the Reason why I make mention of these things is only to shew That our most Reverend