8. c. 16. wherein those Degrees are said to be limited and declared in the Act made for establishing the Kings Succession which is 28 H. 8. c. 7. wherein the Degrees expresly mentioned and set down in Leviticus are exprest and none other and if we add any other but what are included in the Degrees mentioned either by Parity or Potiority of Reason there can be no end of Prohibitions while the World stands but they may be heap'd and piled in infinitum upon one another without any other Authority to make them good then what either prejudice or fancy shall create I demand therefore if the Marriage Table had quite altered the Degrees mentioned in Leviticus and substituted others in their stead whether it would have obliged or no notwithstanding the Act of Parliament expresly saith that No Reservation or Prohibition God's Law except shall trouble or impeach any Marriage without the Levitical Degrees which Degrees by another Act are limited and declared as aforesaid I believe no Man will be found so hardy as to take upon him the Patronage of this Doctrine and since the reason is the same in all there can be no Prohibition in any one Case and consequently not in ours neither where the Law of Moses allows a Dispensation P. 58. And all such Marriages were pronounced Valid It is true this Act of Parliament so far as concerns Precontracts was repealed 2 Ed. 6. 23. and that Repeal confirmed 1 Eliz. 1. but it was for the greater inconveniences which were found by experience by nulling of real Contracts then by pretending of Contracts where there were really none which was the reason of the Act in Henry the Eighth's time and is a plain instance in both Cases for the Repeal was not founded upon Right but Convenience that Laws in many Instances do not so much regard Quid fieri jus fasque sit as Quid expediat vel intersit Reip. ut fiat vel non fiat P. 72. Being only the half Sister by the Father's side the Daughter of the Half-Brother by the Father's side which is a double Paternal Consanguinity so that our Case is more favourable than that of St. Ambrose which made him notwithstanding hesitate a little in spite of all his Rigour and Severity in these matters I suppose no Man will say that the Half-blood and the Whole are the same and Abraham's Case with respect to Sarah his Wife is an unanswerable instance for the Fathers side that it is more favourable and more allowable in Marriage than the Mothers Ib. Cannot without Ignorance or Wickedness and in either Case without palpable injustice be vacated or dissolved This ought not and I hope it will not be interpreted as any disrespect to any Court of Justice for I honour the Seats of Justice with all my Heart and will do as much as any Man to the utmost of my Power to assert their just Authority and Reputation for as much therefore as I am given to understand that there is a Sentence passed in this Cause to the prejudice of the parties in in whose behalf I have pleaded I do hereby declare that these Papers were written a good while before the passing of that Sentence and that they were actually Printed before it was possibly for me to know any thing of it besides that a wrong Sentence may sometimes be pronounced not only by an Upright Judge but a Wise and Learned one too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 AN ADDITION Of some other CONSIDERATIONS Not hitherto suggested FIrst As to the Half-Blood the Talmudical Doctors were of opinion that though it were forbidden for a Man to Marry his Brother's Wife in any Selden Uâ— Hebr. L. â— c. 2. Case but only where the Brother died without Issue yet this was to be understood only of the Brother by the same Father but that it did not hold in the Frater Vterinus Which Opinion of theirs was founded upon this Reason That the Inheritance which was the Reason of such Marriages in default of Issue did not descend from the Mother but the Father so that the Law of the Leviratus was not concerned in the Case of a Frater Vterinus who was reputed of another and a distinct Family from his Half-Brother by another Father though the Mother on both Sides were the same I confess I am very clear and positive against the Rabbins in this For whatever becomes of the Inheritance it is certain that in case of Issue the Brother by the Father's Side was forbidden upon account of nearness of Kin but that nearness for the Reason already mentioned more than once is certainly greater in construction of Law on the Mother's Side than on the Father's But I bring this Determination of the Rabbins whether true or false to shew that they did not think the Half-Blood so sacred and so indispensably prohibited as the Whole and that the Half-Blood on one Side may possibly in some Instances be more severely prohibited than the other And if this Doctrine will hold in any Case it will certainly in ours the Father's Side being certainly as to Legal Construction the weaker Consanguinity of the two Secondly Though my Lord Vaughan â—ill and â—â—od 's â—se p. â—2 in Hill and Good 's Case be very inconsistent with himself if we compare him with himself in Harrison and Burwell's where he speaks very favourably of the Marriage of a Man with his Wives Sisters Daughter for in this latter Case of Hill and Good citing all the same Precedents he had done before he concludes By all these Cases the Marriage of the Husband with his Wives Sisters Daughter is a Marriage prohibited within the Levitical Degrees for nearness of Kindred to the Wife Yet afterwards he makes us a sufficient Amends if a flat positive and deliberate Contradiction can do it For within a very few Pages afterwards he puts the same Case and resolves it as follows A Man before ib. p. 326. the third of November 26 H. 8. by Dispensation from Rome had married his Wives Sisters Daughter which Marriage was prohibited by the Canons of the Church and no Divorce had been attempted in the Case until after 1 Eliz. and the Reviver of the Statute of 28 H. 8. c. 16. which made void all Dispensations from Rome It is plain that this Marriage being not prohibited by God's Law limited and declared in the Act of 28 H. 8. c. 7. was by the express Words of the revived Act of 28 H. 8. c. 16. a Marriage to continue good without Separation notwithstanding all Dispensations from Rome were null'd because it was no Marriage excepted out of the Grace intended to be given by that Act to the King's Subjects Married by Dispensation before November the third 26 H. 8. and not then separated And now from this Determination of my Lord Vaughan's the Inference is plain That our Case must stand a fortiori For Consanguinities and Affinities in these Cases are the same and prohibited to the
ADDENDA MVTANDA In the Late DEFENCE OF THE MARRIAGE OF AN UNCLE with his NIECE Being the Daughter of the Half-Brother BY THE FATHER's SIDE By the Author of that Defence LONDON Printed Anno Dom. 1686. Addenda Mutanda In the late Defence of the Marriage OF AN UNCLE with his NIECE â—eing the Daughter of the Half-Brother by the Father's Side PAge 20. And they take no manner of notice under the second of these Heads of the Marriage of the Uncle with his Brother or Sisters Daughter This I confess is not very agreeable to what I have written in my Resolution of Three Matrimonial Cases p. 3. Where to prove that a Parity of Reason ought to be allowed in Matrimonial Prohibitions I appeal to the Practice of the Jews and I did it with reference to this very Case of an Uncle marrying his Niece though it appears the Jews have no where forbidden it And the Reason of the Mistake was That in general I remembred very well that the Jews did prohibit several Degrees which are not expresly set down in the Law of Moses and the Marriage of an Uncle with his Niece seeming to me at that time to have so exact a parity of Reason with that of an Aunt and her Nephew though now I am unalterably of another Opinion and I presume I have shewn very good reason for it I took it for granted without consulting the particular Authorities which I there mention and being in very great hast as will appear by comparing the date of my Resolution with the time when those Questions were proposed to me which will appear by the Preface to those Cases that the Marriage of an Uncle with his Niece was forbidden by the Jews themselves P. 35. Fratres patrueles consobrini amitini c. To this it belongs what my Lord Vaughan saith in his Reports Harrison and Burwells Case p. 241. in the British names of Kindred my Fathers Cousin German hath the Appellation of my Vncle and again in the very next Paragraph The word Uncle is an equivocal Expression and in several places signifies several Relations as in the British the Father or Grandfathers Cousin German is accounted an Vncle to the Son But this was for no other reason but because Cousin Germans in antient esteem were look'd upon as Brothers and unless when they express it by a Periphrasis the Hebrews have no one word to signifie a Cousin German unless you will grant it to be included under the name of Brother which as it belongs in its utmost latitude to the Nation of the Jews and then more restrictively to all of the same Tribe the same Family or Kindred so next to its most narrow and proper acceptation it belongs most peculiarly to a Cousin German especially when the Declarative Circumstance is added of his being born abroad P. 39. The Jews interpret this place of two real and proper Sisters c. That is the Rabbinical Jews for the Karraites understand it as I do as a prohibition of Polygamy and in this they are followed by Franciscus Junius and his Fellow-Partner in the Translation of the Bible Emanuel Tremellius a converted Jew P. 42. This was not at first deny'd to Clergy-men themselves this is thus far true that being married before hand did not hinder a Man from entring into Holy Orders but after he was once entered he could not Marry though I confess I did not consider this when I wrote this Paragraph but this is an Observation though natural from the Premises yet foreign to our purpose and it is no matter as to this particular business whether it be true or no. P. 48. That Marriage cannot be divorc'd by virtue of any Law which is neither expresly forbidden in it self nor stands in the same rational parity with that which is This is no more then what my L. C. J. Vaughan saith in the Case already mentioned p. 209. If Marriages neither prohibited in terminis in Leviticus nor being in the same Degree with a Marriage there prohibited should be unlawful there would be no stop or terminus of unlawful Marriages Now I have proved undeniably That the Vncle and Niece is really a Degree lower when we speak of Marriage than the Aunt and Nephew And besides supposing the Marriage of the Vncle and Niece had been forbidden expresly or by just and lawful Consequence as it is by neither yet here there would two other Questions have arisen First Whether the Prohibition did equally extend to the half Blood as the whole And this St. Ambrose tho' otherwise a rigid Man in these Cases seems to have doubted very much at least he would not absolutely pronounce the Half Blood to be unlawful in the Case of an Vncle Marrying such a Niece but he saith of it Hic autem gradus tertius est qui etiam jure civili a consortio conjugii exceptus videtur doubting as it seems within himself whether the Obligation of that Civil Law which forbad the Marriage of the Sisters Daughter did extend so far as to the Half Blood or no and much more to the Half Blood by the Father's Side which was the Case of Paternus his Son And from hence the second Question arises Whether the Half Blood by the Father's Side be not still a Degree or a Remove further than the Half Blood by the Mothers And this Question after what I have said concerning it I leave to the Adversaries of this Cause to determine for themselves and if notwithstanding that the Marriage of the Vncle and Niece is not forbidden any otherwise than by a Parity betwixt that and the Marriage of an Aunt with her Nephew and if this Parity be no Parity at all no more than Even and Odd are paria to one another if besides this Disparity which I have shown to be threefold in the first Case there be likewise a twofold Disparity arising from the Half-Blood he must needs be a very hardy Man that in the face of five good Reasons against his Assertion will still pretend to say the Case is the same At this rate of arguing any thing may be inferr'd from any thing and we may say very safely and assuredly with my Lord Vaughan That there will be no stop or terminus of Vnlawful Marriages And in another place to assure this Point the more effectually the same Reverend and Learned Justiciary saith We take the Degrees of 240. ib. Marriage prohibited by God's Law to be the Levitical Degrees expressed or necessarily implied by Parity of Reason or a fortiori P. 54. The Argument of St. Ambrose against the Marriage of the Vncle with his Niece presses the hardest of any other upon us My Answer to this Objection of St. Ambrose to the best of my understanding would not be unsatisfactory tho' it had been the Niece by the Whole Blood as it was not But this was Man's Case in Crook's Reports who for Marrying his ut sua p. 247. Wives Sisters Daughter
as when it is said in the Prohibition of the Aunt by the Fathers side v. 12. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Fathers Sister she is thy Fathers near Kinswoman And again v. 13. of the Aunt by the Mothers side Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Mothers Sister for she is thy Mothers near Kinswoman It is plain that though the Niece be at the same distance from me in the descending Line that the Aunt is in the ascending yet when the express Reason assigned in the Law why I may not marry mine Aunt is not because she is mine but my Father or Mothers near Kinswoman this is so far from darting any Prohibition upon my Niece that it is on the contrary plainly favourable and propitious to a Marriage in that Relation because my Niece who is my Fathers Grandchild is plainly at a further distance from him than mine Aunt who is his Sister and that for two Reasons First Because the one is an immediate Relation but the other by the interposition of a Son or Daughter betwixt is a Relation at the second remove and because no Man or Woman can get or bear Children by themselves without the Conjunction of another it is therefore only a Relation by the half Blood and if it be the Niece by the Brother there is not only the Half Blood to be considered but that that Half Blood it self is the more weak and uncertain Consanguinity of the two as hath been already frequently declared so that if the nearness to my Father or Mother be the express Reason assigned in the Law of Moses why I may not Marry mine Aunt no Man can with any shew of Reason infer from thence that I am forbid likewise to Marry my Niece because the distance is manifestly greater from the Fountain of Kindred and the Relation unquestionably more imperfect So also when it is said v. 14. Thou shalt not uncover the Nakedness of thy Fathers Brother thou shalt not approach to his Wife she is thine Aunt Here there are three things manifestly imply'd First That in the Levitical Prohibitions Consanguinities and Affinities are considered as the same and are prohibited to the same Degrees Secondly That the Reason of her being forbidden in Marriage is because she is my Brothers Wife that is in Construction of Law my Fathers Sister or near Kinswoman And Thirdly As in the two former Cases that this is done out of respect and honour to my Father with whom she stands upon the same Level or Horizontal Plane in the Scheme of Consanguinity or Affinity so that to Marry mine Aunt is to make my Fathers equal my inferiour and to subject her to the mean and servile condition of a Wife to whom I owe the Service and Honour of a Parent And this is the true Interpretation of those Words in this last place She is thine Aunt for every Man knows without the help of Revelation that his Fathers Brothers Wife is his Aunt but there is manifestly included in them an intimation of her Superiority over us by reason of her standing equal in the Table of Affinity with our Father or Mother and therefore she ought not to submit to have her Nakedness uncovered by her inferiour and dependant or put her self into a condition of Subjection to him from whom she may expect and challenge the Duty Service and Allegiance of a Son and therefore the Greeks called the Uncle and Aunt by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding as I suppose in the use of these words to the Antient Absolute and Arbitrary Power which all Parents had over their Children so that as to all the instances to which their Power or Possibility of Action could extend it self they were as absolute and unaccountable as God himself and were his Vicegerents upon Earth in their respective Families and the Vncle and Aunt were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they had as it were Aliquid divini juris in liberos liberasque fratrum sororum they had a right of Reverence and a natural claim of Duty and Respect from their Nephews and Nieces which were accounted but a remove from Children and laid so great a weight upon all their Advices Admonitions and Commands that to disobey them in any thing not very unreasonable was accounted an heinous Crime although their Power of Coercion were not all out so great as that of their natural and proper Parents And now from what hath been just now said it is plain that the Reason of that Law by which the Nephew is prohibited to Marry his Aunt being founded in these two things First In nearness of Kin which is greater to the Father in his Sister than his Grandchild Secondly In the superiority and preeminence of the Aunt over the Nephew I say it is plain that it cannot from either of these considerations be inferred by any Parity of Reason that the Marriage of an Vncle with his Niece is forbidden and with respect to the latter consideration the superiority is not violated by such a Marriage but rather pleased and gratified by it because it still continues where it was that is in the Vncle only by Marriage it is rendred more absolute and perfect so that unless contraries may by Parity of Reason be inferr'd from contraies there can be no inference from the Prohibition of an Aunt which shall debar or obstruct the Marriage of a Niece Fourthly It is certain that Amram took to Wife Jochebed his Fathers Sister and this could not be long before the giving of the Law for of that Match Moses and Aaron and Miriam were descended the thing is mentioned in more places than one of the Scripture without any manner of blame or reprehension and we are not rashly to suppose Persons that were so highly honoured by God with a Prophetick Spirit a gift of Miracles a Priestly Character annexed for ever to the Family of the one and a Legislative Power invested by God himself in the Person of the other to have been Spurious or Illegitimate from whence it follows that whatever reasons of Convenience or Interest there may be to hinder such Marriages From being entred into yet it was not a matter of absolute and indispensable Obligation till after the giving of the Law by Moses and that if it had not been for the giving of that Law it would have remained still in the same prudential indifference which it had before for what is once lawful must always continue so till a supervening Law forbids it and makes it unlawful but if the Marriage of the Nephew to his Aunt were a Marriage good and valid before the giving of the Law by Moses that of the Vncle to his Niece was much more it being shewn in so many and various respects to be so plainly a more favourable Case and therefore not being any where expresly forbidden it must continue still as it was prudential and
indifferent and consequently lawful For when restraints are lay'd upon lawful things there is no inference from the prohibition of one thing to the prohibition of another by Parity of Reason whether pretended or real but the Prohibition stops within it self and extends no further than the Letter as if part of a Common Field should be enclos'd and this Enclosure establish'd and warranted by Law there lies here no Inference by Parity of Reason for the Enclosure of the rest but what is not actually and legally enclos'd is common and must remain open as it did before Besides that Moses by Gods appointment should so severely forbid the Marriage of an Aunt with her Nephew a sort of Marriage of which he himself and his Brother Aaron were descended bringing by that means a sort of Aspersion and something that is at least very like a Reproach upon himself and his Family upon his Brother Aaron and the Family of Priests that were for ever after descended from his Loyns and yet take no notice in the least of the Marriage of an Vncle with his Niece in which he was not concern'd but might have forbidden it without any manner of reflection upon himself or his Relations if God had intended to prohibit them both alike is a thing to me so incredible that nothing can be more and I presume it will appear so to every indifferent Person that shall reflect upon it Fifthly There is also the Case of Achsah and Othniel in the Books of Joshua and Judges in which if we understand the Text so as that Othniel who was the Son of Kenaz shall be the Half Brother of Caleb by the Mothers side for Caleb was not the Son of Kenaz but Jephunneth then here is another Instance after the Law of the Vncle Marrying his Niece the Daughter of his Half Brother by the Mothers side the Words of the Text are these Jos 15. 17. Othniel the Son of Kenaz the Brother of Caleb took it Kirjath-sepher and he gave him Achsah his Daughter to Wife And again Judg. 1. 13. Othniel the Son of Kenaz See also g. 3. 9. Calebs younger Brother took it Kirjath-sepher which words in both places may either be so Interpreted that Othniel had this double Relation he was the Son of Kenaz and he was likewise Calebs younger Brother by the Mother's side and then Achsah the Daughter of Caleb will be Othniel's Niece and his Niece by a nearer Consanguinity than that in the Case before us or else that Othniel was the Son of Kenaz which Kenaz was younger Brother to Caleb and so Othniel and Achsah will be Cousin Germans Both of these Interpretations if there were nothing else but these Words to be considered are very natural and easie but when I consider that after the Death of Caleb and Joshua the Children of Israel were made Captive by Cushan-rishathaim for the space of Eight Years Judg. 3. 8. that God raised up this Othniel to be their Saviour and Deliverer out of the Hands of this Oppressor v. 9 10. and that the Land had rest afterwards under the Government of this Othniel for the space of forty Years no Man will ever think that Caleb and Othniel in that Age of the World could probably be the Sons of the same Mother when it is so plainly demonstrable that there was at least Forty nine or Fifty Years differance between their Ages for to this Fourty eight we must add one or two more because before this period began they were both Cotemporary and Caleb if he were Brother to Othniel was then the elder by a Year or two at the least But this is not all c. 2. 8. we have an account that Joshua dy'd and v. 10. That all that Generation of which Caleb was one were gathered to their Fathers and then before this Revolution of Cushan-rishathaim we have an account of several other Oppressions which the Jews for their many Sins and Provocations laboured under so that the distance between the Age of Caleb and Othniel is still considerably greater than what hath been represented It remains therefore that Achsah and Othniel were Cousin Germans that is Brothers Children who in their Circumstance might lawfully Marry for it appears that Achsah was an Heiress otherwise her Father could not have given her the Southland as he did and added afterwards to it the Vpper and the Nether Springs all which by the Mosaick Platform of Inheritance would otherwise have devolved upon the Male Issue If you ask how any Woman can be called an Heiress while her Father is yet living I answer That in strictness she could not yet be called by that name there being no Inheritance necessarily devolved upon her but her Father was now so old that he was past the hope or expectation of any more Children For at the first entrance of the Children of Israel into the Wilderness he was one of the Heads of the Tribes Numb 13. 6. and one of those who together with Joshua and others v. 17. were sent by Moses to spy out the Land of Canaan after this they remained in the Wilderness Fourty Years and Joshua who seems to have been much of the same Age with Caleb soon after his entrance upon the Land of Canaan dy'd being at his Death of the Age of an Hundred and ten Years Josh 24. 29. Judg. 2. 8. And if we allow ten or twenty Years by which Joshua without any reason that appears shall be supposed to be older than Caleb the Age of Caleb at the Marriage of his Daughter Achsah will be an Hundred or Ninety at the least wherefore being so old and unfit in Person to be at the Head of a Vigorous Assault he propounds the taking of Kirjath-sepher to some other with a reward He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher and taketh it saith he to him will I give Achsah my Daughter to Wife not that any one Man could take a City or Town by himself or that every Man was fit to Command a Party or that the Inheritance which was to go along with Achsah could be legally diverted from Othniel who was the next Heir Male of that Family only by these general words he propounds the Conduct of the Expedition to Othniel with Promise upon Success that he should immediately be Married to his Daughter which the Old Man during his Life time was not obliged to permit and have part of the Inheritance in hand before hand And this is the true State of this Case which though in it self it be nothing to our purpose yet there is an use that may be made of it and that is this That it would be very strange if God had intended equally to prohit the Marriage of an Vncle with his Niece as of an Aunt with her Nephew not only that he should no where expresly prohibit the former of these as he hath done the latter but that the Holy Spirit in this particular Case of Achsah and Othniel should speak of the Marriage of Cousin Germans
after such a manner that many and those very Learned Men too have been induc'd to believe it was the Marriage of the Vncle with his Niece for of this Opinion were most of those whom I have already cited as Asserters of the meerly positive Obligation of the Mosaick Law Sixthly and lastly Though I am far from disputing the Kings Power in dispensing with a Statute in Cases of necessity of which he is the Judge yet in ordinary Cases he is never supposed to intend it and it is certain that when among other Articles presented to him by the Convocation he gave his Royal Assent to the Matrimonial Table in which the Uncle is prohibited to Marry his Niece the Convocation themselves were of Opinion that this Degree was some way or other prohibited by the Law of Moses and the King agreed to this Prohibition among others upon that supposition but now since it appears so plainly that this sort of Marriage was never actually forbidden by the Law of Moses nor so much as intended to be forbidden either nothing but Gods Law can impeach any Marriage and by consequence this cannot be impeach'd or else an Act of Parliament may be Repealed by an Act of Convocation which yet hath no Power to make any Laws or Ordinances whatsoever but what the Parliament it self hath given it and the Parliament can never be supposed to put a Power destructive of their very Constitution into the Hands of the Clergy met together in a Convocation nay they have expresly provided with the Kings Royal Assent who without necessity which cannot here be pretended will never break his Word with his People and then the breach of it is the truest Justice that no Convocation shall exercise any such Power FINIS AN Additional Advertisement Concerning the HALF-BLOOD DEut. 13. 6. It is provided in case of Idolatry If thy Brother the Son of thy Mother or thy Son or thy Daughter or the Wife of thy Bosom or thy Friend which is as thine own Soul entice thee secretly saying Let us go and serve other Gods c. v. 8. Thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him neither shall thine Eye pity him neither shalt thou spare neither shalt thou conceal him v. 9. But thou shalt surely kill him thine Hand shall be first upon him to put him to death and afterwards the Hand of all the People The meaning of this Law is that Idolatry should certainly be punished with Death let the Relation be never so nigh or the Endearment and Friendship never so great as appears by those Words Or the Wife of thy Bosom or thy Friend which is as thine own Soul and when it is said Thy Brother the Son of thy Mother without mention of the Brother by the Father it is imply'd that the one is nearer of kin than the other in the Interpretation of the Levitical Law this best answering the intention of this Law of Moses which did oblige them not to conceal even their nearest Relations and in this Prohibition the Brother being the Son or supposed Son of the Father is included a fortiori Books written by the same Author and Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Pauls Church-yard 1. ANimadversions upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in a Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor October 19th 1679. 2. A Discourse of the Divine Omnipresence and its Consequences in a Sermon Preached before the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn the first Sunday of Michaelmas Term 1683. 3. A Sermon Preached before Sir P. W. 1681. with Additions To which are annexed three Digressional Exercitations I. Concerning the true time of our Saviours Passover II. Concerning the Prohibition of the Hebrew Canon to the Ancient Jews III. Concerning the Jewish Tetragrammaton and the Pythagorick Tetractys Quarto 4. Two Discourses Introductory to a Disquisition demonstrating the unlawfulness of the Marriage of Cousin Germans from Law Reason Scripture and Antiquity Octavo 5. A Letter of Resolution to a Friend concerning the Marriage of Cousin Germans Octavo 6. A Resolution of Three Matrimonial Cases viz. I. Whether it be lawful for a Man to Marry his disceas'd Wives Sisters Daughter II. Whether the Half-Blood makes Kindred III. Whether such a Marriage being made it ought to be dissolv'd or no. 7. Boaz and Ruth A Disquisition upon Deut. 25. 5. concerning the the Brothers Propagating the Memory of his Elder-Brother deceas'd in which the Antiquity Reason and Circumstances of the Law are Explain'd the Mistakes and Impositions of the Jewish Rabbins in this and other matters detected and a fair way opened for a clearer understanding of the most obscure and dark places in the Law of Moses together with a discovery of several things as well in the Eastern as Roman Antiquities never yet explained or understood by any 8. An Argument in defence of the Marriage of an Uncle with the Daughter of his Half Brother by the Fathers side Octavo