as in persons unmarried The next thing observable from this Canon is That the Makers were of opinion that the marriage with the Consobrina or brother or sisters daughter was equally unlawful as marriage with two sisters and the punishment by the Canon is equal Whence it follows That the Makers of the Canon Apostles or others did in those two Cases follow the exposition of the Karaits and not of the Talmudists The Karaits holding both marriages unlawful but the Talmudists holding neither unlawful by Moses's Law But by what Law Divine the primitive and succeeding Christian Churches conceived themselves obliged as generally they did and do in the matter of marriage to observe the Levitical prohibitions strictly and indispensably is a question of great difficulty But surely they took their measures of those Prohibitions from the Doctrine of the Karaits more than from the Scribes and Pharisees though the last were of more Authority in the Hebrews Commonwealth as appears by that of Matthew cap. 23. v. 2 3. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses his Seat all therefore they bid you observe that observe and do Nor was it without reason done for such of those degrees which are not particularly specified in the Eighteenth of Leviticus for in those the Scribes and Karaits agree but are deduc'd by Argument to be prohibited Seld. Uxor Ebraica l. 1. c. 3 4. Uxor Ebraica l. 1. c. 1 2. The Karaits conclude in their Prohibitions of Marriage from the Scripture it self but the Scribes in theirs from the Tradition and Sanctions of the Elders which Traditions the Christians often heeded not as introduced frequently against Gods Law as appears in the Tradition of Corban against Gods Precept of honouring the Father and Mother Mark 7.11 Mat. 15.3 4 5 6. most signally Nor is it strange that the Opinions of private men prevail above the publick in process of time So happened it in Luther Calvin and others in the beginning of the Reformation whose Opinions in time grew more authentique both in Doctrine and Discipline here and in many other States than the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which was the publique before in both kinds Many like Examples might be given ancient and modern which I purposely omit By a Canon of another very ancient Provincial Council called Concilium Eliberinum under Pope Silvester Three hundred and fourteen years after Christ and before the Council of Nice by the Sixteenth Canon of that Council Si quis post obitum Uxoris suae sororem ejus duxerit per quinquennium à communione abstineat Grot. l. 2. c. 5. p. 256. Sect. 14. By this so ancient Council marrying the wives sister was accompted unlawful but for the same reasons as before they could punish it no otherwise than by wayes in the power of the Church which was to hinder the Offender from Communion for five years And in this Council they followed the exposition of the Karaits also concerning marriages and not of the Talmudists nor is it rational to conceive that Canons then forbidding any sort of marriage proceeded from an Arbitrary power assumed by those who made them as Law makers to which they could no way pretend but because it was unlawful by the Principles and Persuasion of all Christian Believers Vide for these Rules Selden's Uxor Ebraica l. 1. cap. 4 5. By the first Rule is interdicted to a man his near of Kin By the Matrimonial Table of England interdicted The fathers wife The fathers wife or Step-mother f. 11 The mother The mother f. 10 The brothers wife The brothers wife f. 18 The sister The sister f. 16 The sons wife The sons wife f. 15 The daughter The daughter f. 13 By the second Rule is interdicted to a man the near of kin to his near of kin The Grand-fathers wife by the father The Grand fathers wife by the father f. 2 The Grand-fathers wife by the Mother The Grand-fathers wife by the mother f. 2 The Grand-mother by the Father The Grand-mother by the father f. 1 The Grand-mother by the mother The Grand-mother by the mother f. 1 The fathers brothers wife The fathers brothers wife f. 6 The fathers sister The fathers sister f. 4 The mothers brothers wife The mothers brothers wife f. 7 The mothers sister The mothers sister f. 5 The brothers sons wife The brothers sons wife f. 27 The brothers daughter The brothers daughter f. 25 The sisters sons wife The sisters sons wife f. 28 The sisters daughter The sisters daughter f. 26 The sons sons wife The sons sons wife f. 21 The sons daughter The sons daughter f. 19 The daughters sons wife The daughters sons wife f. 22 The daughters daughter The daughters daughter f. 20 By the third Rule is interdicted to the husband his wives near of kin From a woman and her fathers wife Omitted From a woman and her mother From a woman and her mother f. 12 From a woman and her Brothers wife Omitted From a woman and her sister A woman and her sister f. 17 From a woman and her sons wife Omitted From a woman and her daughter A woman and her daughter f. 14 By the fourth Rule is interdicted to a man the near of Kin to his wives near of Kin. A woman and her grand-mother by the mother A woman and her grand-mother by the mother f. 3 A woman and her grand-mother by the father A woman and her grand-mother by the father f. 3 A woman and her fathers brothers wife O. A woman and her fathers brothers wife f. 6 A woman and her mothers brothers wife O. A woman and her mothers brothers wife A woman and her brothers sons wife Omitted A woman and her brothers daughter A woman and her brothers daughter f. 29 A woman and her sisters daughter A woman and her sisters daughter f. 30 A woman and her sisters sons wife Omitted A woman and her sons sons wife Omitted A woman and her sons daughter A woman and her sons daughter f. 23 A woman and her daughters sons wife Omitted A woman and her daughters daughter A woman and her daughters daughter f. 24 A woman and her fathers sister A woman and her fathers sister A woman and her mothers sister A woman and her mothers sister A woman and her grand-fathers wife by the father Omitted A woman and her grand-fathers wife by the mother Omitted These last four Degrees are not mentioned under the fourth Rule by Mr. Selden but referred to by the words reliquis quae supersunt ex iis quae in regula secunda propinquorum sunt propinquae but the two first of these last four are forbid in our Matrimonial Table not the two last as several others of the same kind for the husband is not forbid by the Table the wives of his wives Grand-fathers nor her Fathers nor Brothers wife nor sons wife nor her fathers brothers nor mothers brothers wife nor her brothers sons wife nor sisters sons wife nor her sons sons wife
nor her daughters sons wife By the fifth Rule is interdicted that two near of Kin marry two other near of Kin. A man and his father from a woman and her daughter O. A man and his father from a woman and her sons wife O. A man and his father from a woman and her brothers wife O. A man and his father from a woman and her sister O. A man and his brother from a woman and her brothers wife O. A man and his brother from a woman and her daughter O. A man and his brother from a woman and her sons wife O. None of those comprised in this fifth Rule are prohibited by the Matrimonial Table but all the persons interdicted by the Doctrine of the Karaits or Scripture Rabbies are also interdicted by the Matrimonial Table of England excepting eleven persons before mentioned not interdicted to the wives husband by the Table who are interdicted by the Karaits enumeration but in this paper are marked with Ciphers as to the Matrimonial Table in the first four Rules of the Karaits Doctrine So as all the persons prohibited in those first four Rules of the Karaits being in number Four and forty are also prohibited by the Matrimonial Table which together with Eleven persons ciphered in the Table as excepted make up the like number of Four and forty from which if you deduct Eleven as excepted there will remain Three and thirty wherein the Table and the Karaits agree And whereas the enumeration of the prohibited marriages to a man are in the Table but Thirty and by consequence so many to the woman for where the man is prohibited to marry the woman the woman must reciprocally be prohibited to marry the man the reason is because in the number of degrees in the Table the Grand-fathers wife the Grand-mother and the wives Grand-mother make but three degrees But in the enumeration of the Karaits the Grand-fathers wife by the father the Grand-fathers wife by the mother the Grand-mother by the father and the Grand-mother by the mother the wives Grand-mother by the father and the wives Grand-mother by the mother are severally enumerated and so make Six persons Three more than are enumerated in the Table and so the Numbers agree The second Assertion And as to the second Assertion That admitting this marriage is not within the Levitical Prohibitions yet the Temporal Courts cannot prohibit the impeaching or drawing it into question by the Spiritual Court There is a great difference between marriage within the Levitical prohibitions and marriage within the Levitical degrees which commonly are taken to be the same For marriage within the Levitical prohibitions was always unlawful to the Hebrews by Gods Law that is the Mosaick Law But marriage within the Levitical degrees was not always unlawful for marriage between persons of the same nearness in Affinity or Consanguinity which only makes the degree was in some case and circumstance unlawful in others lawful So a marriage unlawful and a marriage lawful as the Circumstance varied in the same degree that is the same nearness of Relation The Levitical degrees qua such are set forth by no Act of Parliament but marriages which fall within some of those degrees are said to be marriages within the degrees prohibited by Gods Law by 28. H. 8. c. 7. 28 H. 8. c. 16. Nor is it said in any Act of Parliament That all marriages within the Levitical degrees are prohibited by Gods Law Sir Edward Coke in the first Edition but not in the rest Cok. Litt. f. 235. a. Edit 1. of his Littleton hath I confess these words By the Statute of 32 H. 8. it is declared That all persons be lawful that is may lawfully marry that are not prohibited by Gods Law to marry that is to say that be not prohibited by the Levitical degrees By which he makes all Gods Law by which any marriage is prohibited to be the Levitical degrees which is not so nor doth he constare sibi for in his Comment upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. he saith expresly That marriage made with a person pre-contracted or with a person naturally impotent could not have been impeached in order to a Divorce by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. but because such marriages are against Gods Law Yet they are not marriages within the Levitical degrees This marriage in question therefore though by way of Admission not within the Levitical prohibitions if it be within the Levitical degrees at all and whether unlawful or lawful within them and by what Law soever so unlawful or lawful cannot be prohibited to be impeached by the Spiritual Courts by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For that Act prohibits the impeaching of marriages only which are absolutely without the Levitical degrees leaving all other to the Spiritual Jurisdiction as before the Act of 32. Now The Levitical degrees are to be reckon'd by the persons whose carnal knowledge is forbidden a man in respect of Consanguinity or Affinity by the Law of Moses As the carnal knowledge of the mother the fathers wife the sons wife c. in respect of Consanguinity of the wives daughter her daughters daughter her mother c. in respect of Affinity And it is plain the wives sister is prohibited in some respect of Affinity by the words Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her Therefore her marriage with her sisters husband is a marriage within the Levitical degrees And agreed on all sides to be unlawful within the degrees if during the wives life but doubted if unlawful after her death Next it is certain the wives husband was restrained from taking his wives sister as he might take another woman that is either during his wives life or after Therefore his marriage with her was within the Levitical degrees But it must be clearly without those degrees if the impeachment of it may be prohibited by the Act of 32 H. 8. This marriage permitted lawful by the Canon Law where used Decret Greg. l. 4. Tit. de Divortiis c. 9. If a man marry his brothers wife none will deny that marriage to be within the Levitical degrees yet in some case that marriage was lawful by the Mosaick Law that is if the deceased brother died issuless But that will not hinder the impeachment of such a marriage by the Statute of 32 H. 8. So if a man marry his fathers brothers wife it is a marriage within the Levitical degrees Yet if the fathers brother were by the half blood only of the mothers side the Rabbies and Scribes held such marriage not unlawful by the Levitical Law but by the Sanctions of the Elders Seld. Uxor Ebraica l. 1 c. 2. f. 8. Many such cases may be found to prove a marriage may be lawful though it be a marriage within the Levitical degrees But none of those can therefore be prohibited to be impeached for they are not marriages without the Levitical degrees as the Statute
matter of the Law 239 14. A man hath no Right to any thing for which the Law gives no remedy 253 15. The effect of Law can do more than an act of Law 280 16. How things become natural by custome 224 17. What natural Laws are 226 227 18. Of transgressing Natural Laws and in what sense that is to be understood 226 227 228 19. It is not safe in case of a publick Law as between the Spiritual and Temporal Jurisdiction to change the Received Law 220 20. The Law of the Land cannot be altered by the Pope 20 21 132 21. Many Laws made in the time of the Saxon Kings are now received as Common Law 358 Lease Lessor Lessee See Title Statute 23. 1. A Demise having no certain commencement is void 85 2. In what cases the Lessee shall bring an Action against his Lessor for breach of Covenant upon a Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment without the lawful disturbance of himself c it being a full exposition of that Covenant when it is either by Law or Express and general or particular from 118 to 128 3. A Demise of Tythe with Land is good within the 13 El. but a Demise of Tythe barely is not good 203 204 4. A man leases Lands for certain years habendum post dimissionem inde factum to J. N. and J. N. hath no Lease in esse the Lease shall commence immediately from the Sealing 73 74 80 81 83 84 5. A power is granted to Demise Lands usually letten Lands which have been twice letten are within this Proviso 38 6. Which at any time before have been usually letten that which was not in lease at the time of the Proviso nor twenty years before is not within the Proviso 34 35 by the Demise of the Farm of H. the Mannor of H. will pass 71 7. Proviso that the Plaintiff may lease for One and twenty years reserving the ancient Rents so long as the Lessees shall pay the Rents these are words of limitation and the Non-payment of the Rent determines the term without a Demand 32 License See Title King Dispensation  Limitation 1. A Limitation determines a Lease without demand of the Rent 32 2. What words shall be taken to be a Limitation and no Condition 32 Livery and Seisin 1. Where a Rectory is granted Una cum Decimis de D the Tythe which alone cannot pass without Deed doth pass by the Livery of the Rectory and without Livery the Tythe will not pass because it was intended to pass with the Rectory by Livery 197 198 London 1. The Customes of London are confirmed by Act of Parliament 93 2. How Declarations are in London according to their Custome ibid. Marriages See Title Statute 16. 1. Incest was formerly of Spiritual Conizance 212 2. The Judges of the Temporal Courts have by several Acts of Parliament full conizance of Marriages within or without the Levitical Degrees 207 209 210 3. They have full conizance of what Marriages are Incestuous and what not according to the Law of the Kingdom and may prohibit the Spiritual Courts from questioning of them 207 209 210 305 4. The Interdicts of Marriage and carnal Knowledge in the Levitical Law were directed to the men not to the women who are interdicted by a consequent For the woman being interdicted to the man the man must also be interdicted to the woman for a man cannot marry a woman and she not marry him 305 5. A man married his Grand-fathers Brothers wife by the Mothers side and held lawful 206 207 6. A man married his first Wives sisters daughter and held unlawful and after a Prohibition a Consultation granted 247 321 322 7. For a man to marry his wives sister is a Marriage expresly prohibited within the Eighteenth of Leviticus 305 8. What Marriages are lawful and what not 210 218 219 305 306 307 308 309 9. How the words No Marriages shall be impeached Gods Law except shall be understood 211 10. What Marriages are prohibited within the Levitical Degrees 214 215 306 307 308 11. What Marriages are by Gods Law otherwise prohibited 220 221 12. Marriages contrary thereunto ought not to be dispensed with 214 216 13. Marriages with Cosen Germans lawful 218 219 14. All Marriages are lawful which are not prohibited within the Levitical Degrees or otherwise by Gods Law 219 240 242 305 15. In what sense any Marriages and Copulations of man with woman may be said to be natural and in what not 221 16. Marriages forbidden in Leviticus lawful before 222 17. Marriages lawful after restoring the world in Noah ibid. 18. Concerning Universal Obligation to the Levitical Prohibitions in cases of Matrimony and Incest 230 19. What Marriages were usual in old times 237 20. How simple Fornication was satisfied in the time of Moses ibid. 21. Who shall be said to be the near of kin which are prohibited Marriage 307 308 309 310 311 22. What Marriages are by the Matrimonial Table of England interdicted 315 316 317 318 23. Marriages within the Levitical Prohibitions were always unlawful but Marriages within the Levitical Degrees were not always unlawful 319 320 321 24. How the Levitical Degrees are to be reckoned 320 25. All Marriages prohibited by the Table are declared to be within the Degrees prohibited by Gods Law 328 26. In what the Parochial Matrimonial Table used in England agrees with the Karait Rabbins 311 312 27. The primitive Christian Church could punish Incestuous Marriages no otherwise than by forbidding them the Communion 313 28. By what Law the primitive Christian Churches conceived themselves obliged in the matter of Marriage to observe the Levitical prohibitions strictly and indispensibly 314 29. Amongst the Hebrews there was no Divorce for Incest but the Marriage was void and the Incest punished as in persons unmarried 313 Master and Servant 1. Although there is no Master or Servant originally in Nature but only parity yet after Laws have constituted those Relations 242 2. A Father cannot be Servant to his Son 243 Metropolitan See Arch-bishop Ordinary  Misrecital See Lease 1. Where a Lease is misrecited in the date and the habendum is to be from the date which is misrecited there the Lease shall commence from the Sealing 73 Monopoly 1. If Exportation or Importation of a Commodity or Exercise of a Trade is prohibited generally by Act of Parliament and no cause thereof expressed a license may be granted to one or more persons with a Non obstante for by such general Restraint the Law intended to limit the over-numerous Importers and Traders and such general Licenses shall not be accounted Monopolies 345 2. To avoid a Monopoly the Kings Dispensation upon all prohibitory Laws must generally be limited by Law 346 Naturalization See Title Alien  Non obstante 1. IT is a license to do a thing which at the Common Law might be done without it but now being restrained by some Act of Parliament cannot be done without it 345 356 2. Where a
marriages instanc'd in which were lawful before the Law of Moses and which have not a moral inconsistency with them and so a natural iniquity and which therefore are prohibited among all civilized Nations whether ancient or modern as well as among the Jews for the most part Selden de Jure Gentium In some places some particular examples may be to the contrary for special reasons of Revelation or Prophecy believ'd as the Mother to marry the Son Accordingly it is affirmed by the Statutes of 28 H. 8. c. 7. 25 H. 8. c. 22. That the marriages enumerated in both those Acts to be prohibited by Gods Law were notwithstanding allow'd by colour of Dispensations by mans power The words of the Statute of 28. are after the recital of the prohibited marriages All which marriages albeit they be plainly prohibited and detested by the Laws of God yet nevertheless at some times they have proceeded under colours of Dispensations by mans power which is but usurped and of right ought not to be granted admitted nor allow'd The same words are in the Statute of 25. but instead of All which marriages the words are Which marriages c. The second Question What are the Levitical Degrees I omit because the marriage in question is in no sort in the Degrees Observation And by the way it is very observable That as we take the Degrees of Marriage prohibited by Gods Law to be the Levitical Degrees expressed or necessarily implyed in the Eighteenth of Leviticus upon parity of reason or by Argument à fortiori So there are some in Leviticus which by the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 7. and otherwise in our enumeration of the Levitical Degrees we admit as absolutely prohibited which in the Levitical Law and in the meaning of the Eighteenth of Leviticus were not absolutely but circumstantially prohibited that is 1. The marriage of a man with his Brothers wife which by 28 H. 8. cap. 7. is absolutely prohibited and commonly receiv'd to be absolutely prohibited by the Levitical Degrees But was not so by the Levitical Law nor by the meaning of the Eighteenth Chapter of Leviticus but when the dead brother left Issue by his wife But if he did not the surviving Brother was by the Law to marry his wife and raise Issue to his Brother This Law was so known that by all the Evangelists a Woman who had Seven Brothers successively our Saviour was asked Whose Wife she should be at the Resurrection 2. The second of this kind is A man is prohibited by 28 H. 8. and by the receiv'd Interpretation of the Levitical Degrees absolutely to marry his Wives sister but within the meaning of Leviticus and the constant practise of the Common-wealth of the Jews a man was prohibited not to marry his Wives Sister only during her life after he might So the Text is Thou shalt not take a Wife with her Sister during her life to vex her by uncovering her shame upon her This perhaps is a knot not easily untied how the Levitical Degrees are Gods Law in this Kingdome but not as they were in the Common-wealth of Israel where first given Third Question The third Question and chiefly concerning the Case in question is Whether Harrison's marriage with his great Vncles that is his Grand-fathers Brothers wife be a marriage by good and sound deduction of Consequence within the Levitical Degrees not particularly expressed For I think it evident it is not among those that are express'd neither in the Greek nor Latin Translations nor in the British names of Kindred where my Fathers Cosen German hath the appellation of my Uncle nor holpen by the gloss of being prohibited in the Twentieth of Leviticus though not in the Eighteenth 1. The word Uncle is an equivocal expression and in several places signifies several Relations as in the British the Father or Grand-fathers Cosen German is accounted an Uncle to the Son 2. The Fathers Brother hath in Latin a specifique term of Relation to the Son or Daughter viz. Patruus But the Stat. of 28 H. 8. c. 7. recites this prohibition to be To marry his Uncles Wife So hath the Mothers brother Avunculus but in the Greek it hath not and is express'd only by the word Kinsman 3. In Junius and Tremellius's Translation done with regard to the Septuagint and the Original the Twentieth of Leviticus verse the twentieth is rendred Quisquis cubaverit cum Amita sua nuditatem patrui sui retexit where expresly instead of and uncovered his Uncles shame it is uncover'd his Uncle his Fathers Brothers shame which makes it the same with the Eighteenth of Leviticus verse the fourteenth I shall therefore first agree That marriage with the Grand-mother Great-grand-mother and with the Great-grand-father and so upwards without limit is though not expressed equally prohibited in Leviticus as marriage with the Father Mother or Grand-father to the Son or Daughter So as in the right Ascending Line of Generation there can be no lawful marriage 1. The Father and Mother are the immediate natural Causes of the being of their Children and the Grand-father and Grand-mother are natural mediate causes of their being and so upwards in the right ascending Line interminately for a man could no more be what he is without his Grand-father and Grand-mother and so upwards than without his Father or Mother Therefore they are really Parents and necessary mediate causes of bringing the Children to have being and consequently what is due of reverence or acknowledgment for his being from the Child to Father or Mother is likewise due to those other Relations in the Ascending right Line But the Uncle quatenus Vncle c. doth no more contribute to the natural being of the Nephew or Neece than as if he had not at all been The marriage of the Son or Daughter with Grand-mother or Grand-father and so with any Ancestor Male or Female in the right Ascending Line is after Laws determining the knowledge and reverence due to Parents unnatural and repugnant in it self For there is unnaturalness in Civil things when constituted sometimes Though there be no Master or Servant originally in nature but only parity yet after Laws have constituted those Relations A. cannot at the same time be both Master and Servant to B. there is a repugnancy in the nature of those two Offices to be consistent in the same persons at once A Father or Mother cannot be Servant to their Son or Daughter for under the relation of Father or Mother the Son is to obey them but in that of Servant they to obey him which is repugnant and against the nature of those Relations Vnder the Law it was not forbidden a man to Curse his Servant but Death to Curse his Father or Mother A man might correct and chastise his Servant qua such but penal alike to chastise his Father or Mother in this sense The marriage of the Son with his Mother or the Daughter with her Father are
say Thy mother and sister are thy near of kin therefore shalt thou not uncover their nakedness So express Instances are made in five of the six sorts of persons declared to be near of kin But as Instance is made in the daughter though she be as immediately as the son near of kin to the father and eminently comprehended under that Law of not approaching to a mans near of kin and by all both reason and exposition within it which made Sir Edward Coke Cok. Inst 2. f. 683. by mistake in his Table of Prohibited Marriages in his Comment upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. to set down the daughter as nominally prohibited by the Eighteenth of Leviticus and then in the Margent to say those Degrees are truly set down in the Statutes of 25 28 H. 8. whereas the daughter is mentioned in neither of them nor in the Eighteenth of Leviticus The use I make of this is to shew That the extent of the prohibiting Law is not to be measured from the persons instanced in Leviticus for should it be so estimated the Law would be narrower than it self the Instances comprehending only five prohibited persons But the Clause of not approaching to a mans near of kin comprehending six and so the Law would be inconsistent with it self The second General Law Besides those six Degrees of persons before mentioned who are past question a mans next of kin and consequently his near of kin and declared by the Levitical Law so to be there are other degrees of kin prohibited which are also undoubtedly a mans next of kin after the former six kinds and are denoted also in Leviticus as a mans near kin and who are instanc'd in as and indeed are the next and so the near of kin to a mans near of kin as before and prohibited for that reason beyond which kindred no prohibition is found in Leviticus Whence a seond general Law is deduced from Leviticus the Eighteenth That no man shall discover their nakedness who are the near of kin to his near of kin or of them who are propinqui propinquis suis which they draw from these words Lev. 18. v. 12. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers sister she is thy fathers near kinswoman v. 13. v. 14. v. 10. Nor of thy mothers sister for she is thy mothers near kinswoman Nor of thy fathers brother which must be for the same reason he being his fathers near kinsman Nor of thy sons daughter or of thy daughters daughter for the like reason they being near of kin to his son and daughter as his son and daughter are to him All which are instanced in in Leviticus as prohibited for that reason and many others are of the same relation not instanced in as a mans mothers brother his fathers father his mothers father his fathers mother his mothers mother his brothers daughter his sisters daughter and others who are equally near of kin to his near of kin as his immediate near of kin are to himself and were never doubted to be prohibited within the Levitical Degrees by any Whence also it appears That the Instances given in this second Rule drawn out of Leviticus are not the Law it self nor comprehend the extent of it but are examples only of another or second degree of kindred comprehended under the general Law of not approaching to those near of kin and which are particularly specified by the Karait Rabbies That all persons near of kin strictly to any the six persons first interdicted are likewise interdicted by that Law None shall approach to any near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness within the meaning of the words near of kin is further proved by these Reasons 1. When the Law hath denominated the Relations to be accompted near of kin as is done in this case none comprised under that denomination can be more or less near of kin than others so denominated As when the Law denominates a man an Attorney Serjeant or the like no Attorney is more or less an Attorney and no Serjeant more or less a Serjeant than any other Attorney or Serjeant And so is it in all orders of men of the same denomination Therefore it appearing by the Law to be the reason of interdicting a person because near of kin to a mans father or mother and none of those six Relations being more or less near of kin than the other the nearness of kin to any of them is as much reason of interdicting as the nearness of kin to the father or mother or any other of them instanced in Another reason is because the Law forbidding the approach to any near of kin forbids in that expression the near of kin to any of the six persons strictly denominated near of kin as well as those six persons themselves For in Leviticus a man is interdicted his wives daughter and his wives sons daughter and her daughters daughter because they are his wives near kinswomen whereas her daughter only is the near kinswoman to the wife in the strictest sense and the other but near of kin to her near of kin that is to her daughter yet all of them are said to be the wives near kinswomen So Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mothers or fathers sister Lev. 20.19 for he uncovereth his near kin before they were said to be the near kin to the mother and father and here to be the sons near kin The third General Law The third prohibiting Rule drawn out of Leviticus is A man is prohibited to take a wife and any other near of kin to her which is grounded upon these words Lev. 18.17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter neither shalt thou take her sons daughter or her daughters daughter to uncover their nakedness for they are her near kinswomen None of the wives near kinswomen are here clearly instanced in but her daughter not her mother not her sister who are equally her near kinswomen and comprised in this prohibition and in the reason of it as well as the daughter For the reason of prohibiting these persons instanced in being 1. Because they are the wives near kinswoman it is evident that the wives mother and the wives sister are by the same reason prohibited for they are her near kinswomen in the strictest sense of nearness His wives daughter is literally forbidden the husband and so is but not so obviously his wives mother For example If he marry the mother the words forbid him her daughter and if he marry the daughter he is prohibited the mother else he would marry a woman and her daughter which the words forbid and accordingly by the Karaits Doctrine grounded upon clear exposition as I conceive of the Levitical prohibitions the husband is forbidden as near of kin to his wife Her mother Her daughter Her sister And as the mother and daughter of his wife are expresly forbidden him in that
constancy speak of such Laws as given to all mankind in this particular matter of marriage and carnal mixture and derive them traditionally through all antiquity as binding all Nations and People by Gods Precept and therefore call them among others so given Leges Noachidarum or the Laws of all the Sons of Noah by which men were from the beginning prohibited 1. Marriage or Copulation with their Mother 2. With the Fathers wife 3. With a Sister by the same Mother or with a Soror uterina 4. With the Wife of another man 5. Man with man 6. Man or Woman with Beast From these Laws they justifie Abrams marrying his Sister by the same Father Amrams marrying his Fathers Sister Jacob marrying two Sisters at the same time Thamars endeavouring to marry her Husbands brother as not prohibited before the Levitical Law or any other marriage those before mentioned excepted And as to Adams Sons marrying their Sisters by the same Mother the Law was given in the beginning prohibiting it but God dispens'd with it until the World was competently peopled as they receive it And it is observed by Mr. Selden That upon the Tradition of this general Law 1 Cor. 5. v. 1. St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for permitting among them such a Fornication that is such an Incest as was not named among the Gentiles That a man should have his Fathers wife Some Examples of which were in Syria as in Antiochus and Stratonice In this sense it is said A man is a natural Subject when he is so born and is bound by the Law of his Allegiance as soon as he is and that a Prince is that Subjects natural Soveraign because he is bound to protect him as soon as he can be protected Of which kind of Law of Nature much is said in Calvins Case but confusedly and without clearness of conception For these Laws of a mans subjection as soon as he is born being the immediate means of his preservation and good cannot but be assented to as soon as it is possible to assent and in that are called Natural Laws Of the Natural Laws in this sense given to all Mankind by the Deity from the beginning of time concerning Marriage and bodily knowledge See excellent matter in that incomparable Work of Mr. Selden De Jure Naturali Gentium Juxta disciplinam Ebraeorum And under this sense of Natural Laws hath he titled that Book De Jure Naturali Gentium Juxta disciplinam Ebraeorum for so the Iews accounted the Laws or Leges Noachidarum given in the beginning to all Mankind Natural Laws though they were in truth but positive Divine Laws because with relation to Mankind there was no time wherein they oblig'd not In what sense a man is said to act unnaturally against Civil Laws or Agreement There is a fourth way whereby a man is said to act unnaturally which acting is subsequent to Human Laws and Contracts between man and man which is when after Laws made and Contracts civilly setled a man shall oblige himself diametrally repugnant and contrary to his former Obligation As when A Subject shall by Oath promise or otherwise bind himself to judge or force his King when by his Obligation to his King he is bound to obey him and be judg'd by him When a Servant shall command and compel his Master by whom he ought to be commanded To contract marriage with two Husbands when plenary duty and obedience is to be paid to each and therefore impossible to be performed to both So is it with a Servant who contracts his absolute Service to two Masters at the same time those things are unnatural as not consisting with the nature of the Obligation a man or woman is under whereof much hath been already said The Levitical Prohibitions of Marriage are no general Law but particular to the Israelites 1. All the Prohibitions of the Levitical Degrees were not coeval with mankind as some were viz. Marriage with the Mother the Soror uterina the Step-mother 2. They were not in the restoration of mankind declared to Noah as a Law for mankind Both these appear by the marriages of the holy men before mentioned within many of those Degrees 3. They were undoubtedly deliver'd by Moses to the Jews but not to mankind for Moses neither did nor could publish them as the World was then peopled to mankind And a Law not published is no more obligative than a Law only conceal'd in the mind of the Law-giver is obligative 4. As they were delivered to the Jews only by Moses they bind other Nations no more than other laws of the Jews do concerning other Subjects as the laws of succession and inheriting lands or goods 5. They must then be made obligative if at all to the generality of Christians by the New Testament but by what medium can that be proved 6. They are not obligative to Christians any where as to the Jews which appears by the law of raising seed to the Brother vid. Canon to that purpose de Divortiis And by the marriage of two Sisters successively but not together 7. Were they obligative to Christians as to the Jews then all Christians would be bound to the same punishment as the Jews were for transgressing them which was never heard It remains then that Christians are bound to them upon another account Besides it is manifest in the Fifteenth Chapter of the Acts that when divers taught That if the Gentiles would be saved they must keep the Law of Moses It was upon that very Question resolv'd in a Council of the Apostles It was a yoke neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear It seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and to them to lay no more burthen on the Gentiles than to abstain from some necessary things that is 1. From things offered to Idols 2. From things Strangled 3. From Blood 4. From Fornication Which necessary things are after clearly expounded by St. Paul to the Corinthians not to be things unlawful simply but convenient to keep a Communion between the Jews and Gentiles that is the Old Church and the New It is further cleared That this law was no more than the other Judicial laws given to the Gentiles For when the Gentiles which have not the law Rom. 2. v. 14. do by nature the things contained in the Law What is then the preferment of the Jew or what is the profit of Circumcision Rom. 3. v. 1 2. Much every manner of way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God There is no colour of Argument That the Prohibitions in the Eighteenth of Leviticus were universal laws but that it is said Lev. 18. v. 24. Ye shall not defile your selves in any of these things for in all these things the Nations are defiled which I cast out before you Lev. 18. v 27. For all these Abominations have the men of the Land done c. How could the Land be defiled or the men