Commentary on Numbers

WHereas Moses had spoken before of the dividing of the inheritance in general among the tribes: in this place a certain special case is propounded by the Manassites touching the right of inheritance before assigned to the daughters of Zelophehad, to wit, how provision might be made y ^t the same portion might remain in that tribe, and not be conveyed or translated to some of the other tribes. For they propound these 2 as repugnant one to y ^e other, the right of succession which these women had obtained, and the privilege of the year of Jubilee, which they thought was weakened by this means, if happily these maids should marry to any other husbands then men of their own tribe; neither did they know how to clear this doubt. But Moses, instructed of God, setteth down a Law, that inheritance should not pass from tribe to tribe, and that such as were inheritrixes might not marry any of other tribes, but among their own only, which was carefully observed by these women. This is the sum of this chapter, wherewith the whole book is concluded. In this observe three points; first, the question of the Manassites; secondly, the resolution of Moses; thirdly, the marriage of the daughters of Zelophehad. Touching the first, it is handled in these four verses. The question was moved by the chief heads of the tribe of Manasseh, how the inheritance might rest: without a manifest detriment to their tribe? For if they should marry in another tribe, it was as much as to cut off an arm from the body. And by this means it might come to pass in process of time, that the chief portion assigned to one tribe might be possessed by men of other tribes, which would breed great confusion and disorder. This practice and proceeding of theirs teacheth, first, that the Magistrate is and ought to be the supreme Judge in causes of inheritance. Secondly, no man ought to be Judge in his own cause. Thirdly, we see how they come to Moses, not in contempt or with a commotion, as if they meant to gain that by force which they could not obtain by favor, but they bear themselves lowly and dutifully as became them to the Magistrate, when they say, The Lord commanded my Lord: and again, My Lord was commanded, &c. From hence we learn, that it is the duty of all inferiors to reverence the superiors in gesture, in word, & in deed. We might also show that Magistrates must acknowledge themselves to rule under God, and to be Lord's under that highest Lord. But we will only handle this point, that inferiors must use speeches of reverence, such as betoken subjection; this we saw before, chapt. 11, 28, and 32, 5, 25, 31. 2 Kings 5 13, 1 Peter 3, 6. Nehem. 2, 5. Esther 7, 3. 2 Sam. 24, 3. 1 Kings 1, 23, 24, 31. 2 Kings 2, 12, and 13, 14. Mal. 1, 6. 1 Sam. 25, 24, 25, 26 27, 28. Gen, 16, 9.

The grounds first, because superiors bear [Reason 1] the image of God, and are to their inferiors in God's place, as Moses was to Aaron, when the Lord saith, Exod. 4, 16. Thou shalt be unto him instead of God.

Secondly, it is the express law of God, To honor father and mother, that is, all superiors, Exod. 20, 12. Psal. 82, 6. 1 Tim. 5, 3. They are set over inferiors for their good, not for their own, 1 Tim. 2, • . where the Apostle teacheth, that Princes are appointed unto eminent place, not to lift up their hearts against their brethren, and to maintain themselves in all riot and excess, but that the people may lead a quiet & peaceable life under them. Fourthly such do adorn the Gospel.

This serveth to reprove such as are so far [Use 1] from giving of good words, and using soft & gentle speech savoring of Christian modesty and subjection, that they revile them, rail at them, and speak all manner of evil against them; which they ought not to do unto any, much less to their fathers, or masters, or Magistrates, to whom they are bound in a nearer band, and tied to a farther duty. Hence it is, that Moses saith, Exod. 22, 28. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. It is delivered as a general precept, binding all that will be the children of God, Bless them that persecute you; bless I say, & curse not, Rom. 12, 14. I am. 3, 9, 10. It is a thing acceptable to God, to speak evil of no man, Titus 3, 2. It is therefore a thing detestable, to speak evil of our superiors, unto whom all dutiful language is due that savoreth of peace and love, nay of submission and subjection. The Apostle exhorteth servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them in all things, not answering again with stout and unseemly words. Such then must learn by the fear of God to bridle their tongues, that they offend not that way, I am. 3, 4.

Many there are, who in their service are reasonable, but they have no rule over their tongue: they will not only mutter and murmur, but give cursed and cutted answers. It is the fruit of an evil servant to be evil tongued, and to take liberty to taunt in unseemly manner against those that are set over them. This was the sin of Agar, that despised her mistress, not only in her heart, but likewise in speech, Ge. 16, 4. Let such consider y ^e words of Solomon, Prov. 15, 1. A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger, James chap. 1.20. Judge. 8. verses 1, 2, 3. 1 Sam. 25, 32.

Secondly, we see the place of subjection is [Use 2] not an unlawful calling • , neither must we think that Christianity hath abolished Magistracy and civil authority, but rather ratifyeth and establisheth it, Titus 3, 1. 1 Tim, 6, 1. And it is lawful for good men, and especially for Magistrates & Ministers to have servants, as Abraham had many, Elijah one & likewise Elisha. Joseph had a Steward of his house, Jacob had men-servants and maid-servants, Gen. 14, 14, and 15, 2, and 44, 1, and 32, 16. Mephibosheth had a servant, and that servant had twenty servants, 2 Sam. 9, 10. This overthroweth the damnable sect of the Anabaptists and Libertines, who teach that Christians may not be subject unto any. [Objection.] They object, that they are the Lord's free-men. I answer, [Answer.] it is true, but this freedom is inward and spiritual, from sin and Satan, and condemnation.

[Object.] Again, they allege, that we are forbidden to be the servants of men, [Answ.] 1 Cor. 7. I answer, the meaning is, we are not to be addicted unto them servilely, in things unlawful and dishonest, or in obeying their traditions as God's Commandments. [Objection.] But Christ saith, Call no man master upon earth, Math. 23, 10, because one is our Master, [Answ.] even Christ. I answer, this must be understood as the former, when Christ forbiddeth to call any father, to wit, to hold him in chief, and not subordinate to Christ and for Christ.

[Objection.] Again, it is objected that sin brought in servitude and slavish subjection of man to man. For albeit in the innocent estate, there should have been teacher and scholar (though not by office and calling, to preach the word, or to teach schools) and governors, and the governed, [Answer.] yet not master and servant. I answer, sin was the occasion of sundry things in their nature good, or at least through God's mercy and blessing bringing good out of evil. For it brought into the world upon man a necessity to marry, for the avoiding of fornication: yea sin may be said to have caused a necessity of Christ's coming, as also to cause a necessity of preaching, and of laboring in the sweat of our brows, and a necessity likewise in relieving the poor. Besides, every kind of subjection is not against the law of pure Nature, as might be shown by the subjection of the wife to the husband, and of the children to their parents. So then, servitude is no new invention of cruel men in these latter days, neither is a faithful servant to be accounted a perpetual asse, crouching under his burden. No man must be ashamed of that calling, neither reprove it as evil and unlawful, but rather labor to adorn the Gospel in it, by serving, not with eye-service, but dealing faithfully as the servants of Christ.

[Use 3] Lastly, all superiors must so carry themselves, as that they may deserve reverence, and draw not contempt upon themselves, 1 Tim. 4, 12, Prov. 16, 31, and 21, 30. Leuitic. 19, 32. 1 Tim. 5, 1, 2. And those duties are of diverse sorts which are to be performed by them, whereof they are put in mind by the names whereby they are called.

The first degree of this superiority concerneth parents, to whom it belongeth to teach, to correct, to defend, and to provide for their children, as we have shown already, chap. 30. This reproveth such as are careless what become of them, such as pamper them to much, and suffer them to do what they list, till they shame their fathers & mothers, their friends, and the Church of God, and grow obstinate and incorrigible. Touching masters, it lieth upon them to order their servants and families aright, they must require of their servants no more then is just and equal, Col. 4, 1, remembering that they have a Master in Heaven, who requireth only things just and equal at their hands: they are to provide for them food and raiment, and such like necessaries, or else they are worse then infidels, and have denied the faith, Prov. 31, 21. 1 Tim. 5, 8. Likewise it behooveth them to teach and instruct them, as faithful and believing Masters have done, and found a great blessing upon their labors, Acts 10, 7. Gen. 24, 12.

And if Masters desire to have their houses dutiful & subject unto them, they must choose such as are religious, or be careful to make them religious, that so they may obey for conscience sake. If at any time they shall make conscience to serve the Lord, they will not be slothful to serve their Masters. But there are many Masters, that are always threatening their servants, Ephes. 6, 9, and never speak kindly unto them, to encourage them in well-doing; there proceedeth nothing but fire out of their mouth, and smoke goeth out of their nostrils. And not so only, but they command hard and cruel service at their hands, and after a sort suck out their heart blood, by over-burdening and over-bearing them beyond their strength, like the cruel task-masters of the Egyptians, who gave the Israelites no straw to make them up the tale of their bricks, but made them gather it themselves, and yet would diminish nothing of the work, Exodus 5, 7, 8.

Thus were the people scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt, to gather stubble instead of straw. And Sampson being a servant, or rather slave to the Philistines, was not only made a laughing-stock, but compelled to grind in the prison-house, Judge. 16, 21. Such masters are they also that are immoderate and excessive in correction, & know no measure, as if their servants were beasts, and not their brethren. Nay Balaam the false prophet is reproved of the Angel for his cruelty toward his asse, but these respect men no better then if they were asses or horses; for the whip is never from their backs, or the bridle from their mouths, or the fist from their ears, or the staff from their sides. Thus also did the task-masters beat the officers of the children of Israel without any cause or desert. Now touching Magistrates, they are the fathers of the country and common-wealth, they must be careful to plant sound religion among the people, and be careful that God be served in the first place, because they must rule for GOD and not for themselves. And thus did the godly Kings of Judah. They must establish peace and tranquility, that men may sit under their vines and fig trees, that there be no invasion nor going out, nor crying and complaing in the streets. And they must publish and prescribe such wholesome Laws, as may serve to keep men in obedience; and when they are once enacted and established, they must not suffer them to rust for want of execution, but remember they are the Ministers of God to take vengeance on him that doth evil, Rom. 13, 4. If then they suffer men to do what they list, as if there were no king in Israel, if they be careless of God's service, if they do not defend the innocent like Ahab; nor punish the transgressors, or command unjust and unlawful things, or spare offenders that ought to dy, like Saul; they provoke the wrath of God against themselves, as we have shown already in the former chapter.

The second part of the Chapter followeth, which is the answer of Moses to the former question, where he commendeth those that made this demand, and then he setteth down first a particular Law touching the daughters of Zelophehad, that they should marry to whom they thought best, howbeit within their own tribe; and secondly a general Law binding perpetually all daughters among them that possessed any inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, that they shall be wives to one of the same tribe; thus everyone should quietly enjoy his own, and the inheritance should not remove from one tribe to another. Out of this division we might observe sundry instructions. First Moses commendeth that which these chief fathers had well spoken and well done, teaching that we ought not only not to dispraise that in which others have well deserved, but we should praise and commend it.

Thus he did to these daughters before, Chapter 27, 7, when they sued for an inheritance. Secondly, in that they are directed to marry to whom they think best, we see that none are to be denied marriage which is the ordinance of God. It entered into none of their hearts, to remedy the alienation of inheritance by restraining any from marriage when daughters fell to be inheritrixes, but it was left free to them, according to the precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7, 2. Again, it teacheth that marriage is not to be enforced upon any, either by the Magistrate, or by the parents, or by any governors, Gen. 24, 57. 1 Corinth. 7, 39. For this were to exercise tyranny over our children.

For as children ought to have the consent of their careful parents, and not to dare to bestow themselves without their advice, which practice we see in the very Gentiles, as appeareth in Euripides, where Hermione answereth Orestes, desiring of her a promise of marriage,

That is,

So likewise parents ought to have the consent of their children, & not bestow them upon others against their wills; for that were to lay an evil foundation, and to fill the house with jars and dissensions. Thirdly, observe that Moses saith, Every daughter shall be a wife unto one of the family; teaching us, that howsoever the marrying of many wives was practiced among the Patriarchs and people of God, yet this is the Law of Nature, that one man should have one wife, & not wives, Gen. 2, 24. Mat. 19, 5. But to come to the main point, we learn that the inheritance of the children of Israel must remain and continue in one and the same tribe, and never pass from tribe to tribe.

The reasons of this Law given unto them are, that the Israelites might enjoy, every man the inheritance of his fathers, verse 8: and for this cause are the borders of every tribe so carefully assigned afterward.

Secondly, that it might certainly he known that the Messiah came of no other tribe then of the tribe of Judah, according to the promise and prophecy of Jacob, Genes. 49, 10. The tribe shall not depart from Judah, till Shiloh come. Thirdly, that peace might be preserved, and confusion avoided among them, whereas if the inheretrix had not been restrained by this Law, but left at liberty, the bounds of every tribe in process of time would have been abolished. These Laws did only bind the Jews touching inheritances, & not impose a necessity upon others, as we have shown before, chapt. 27: as likewise that the eldest must have his double portion, and that no man might lawfully sell the fee simple of his inheritance; which precepts, with sundry others, if they should be brought into all Christian commonwealthes, would turn upside down the very foundation of them, and alter all Laws and customs general and particular, and bring in an horrible confusion. For other nations do hold their lands by see simple, but God holdeth the Israelites as his farmers, Levite. 25, 23, The land shall not be sold forever, for the land is mine, for ye were strangers and soiourners with me: he would not have them as owners, neither to be as purchasers of that land. Now let us come to the uses.

[Use 1] First, it is the ordinance of God that every man keep his proper inheritance, to have and to hold the same as his own. Distinction of inheritance is agreeable to his word, whatsoever the mad spirits of the Anabaptists do teach. [Object.] It will be said, that this is a fruit of man's first sin and disobedience, and that if he had stood in his innocence, there should have been a community of all things. But man's transgression brought in this private possession. [Answ.] I answer, we will not reason what should have been, forasmuch as we see what man hath done, and how he is fallen. It is in vain for a man to think how rich he should have been, if his house had not been burned, when he seeth it is consumed stick and stake to the ground, and he become a poor beggar. So likewise, it is needless to debate and dispute what should have been if Adam had stood, seeing God made man good, but he sought out many inventions, Eccles. 7, 29. For inasmuch as man is wholly corrupted by sin, that communion (if any should be) cannot in this estate take place, but every man must know what is his own, and what is not his own.

[Use 2] Secondly, this should teach parents to provide for their daughters as well as for their sons, and not to leave them to the wide world, especially in these our days, wherein more enquiry is made what they have, then what they are: and what goods are without them, then good things are within them. But God showeth by this Law, that he hath no less care of them then of sons. Men are to consider that their daughters are their children, as well as their sons, and therefore even they must be provided for also. The Apostle teacheth, that parents should lay up for their children, 2 Cor. 12, 14, not for one child only, or for his sons only. Nature teacheth, that if any member be weak, it is chiefly to be strengthened. The woman is the weaker vessel, and needeth to be supported: and it encourageth them in obedience when they see themselves respected. And what a shame is it to parents to bring them into the world, and then to leave them as it were destitute to the wide world?

Thirdly, there are some that extend this [Use 3] Law to all the Jews in general, as if they were all forbidden to take a wife anywhere save in their own tribe. But if we mark the words of the Law, we shall find that they are not to be understood of men, but only of women; and not of all women neither, but of such as are heirs, and receive a possession for want of issue male. These might not marry out of their tribe; but others which had none inheritance, were left free to marry where they pleased, whether in their tribe or out of their tribe: because this is rendered as a reason of the Law, that the inheritance might not remove from one tribe to another, verse 9. It was lawful for them to take a wife of the nations round about them, that was not of the seed of Abraham, when there was no danger by a contrary religion, as appeareth by many examples, Matthew 1, 3, 5: so was it permitted to them to make choice of a wife out of another tribe, that was not to inherit her fathers possession.

And this was neither forbidden in the Law, nor yet observed by the Jews. The Law did not restrain their marriage, because it meddleth only with those that were heirs, and forbiddeth the possessions of the tribes to be confounded and mingled together. If then the Law did not abridge them, we may well suppose and presume that they did not observe it. For, not to speak of former examples, Moses married not a wife of his own tribe, neither of any tribe, but a Cushite, that is, one of the Midianites, which inhabited Arabia, of which see before, chapt. 12. Aaron also his brother married Elisabet; she was the daughter of Aminadab, and the sister of Naasson, which was of the tribe of Judah, Numb. 1, 7, and 7, 12- Ruth 4, 20.

So Iosabeah the daughter of the king Jehoram of the tribe of Judah was married to Jehoiada the high Priest, 2 Chron 22, 11. Elizabeth the wife of Zachariah the Priest, the father of John the Baptist, was of the daughters of Aaron, Luke 1.5, and was the cousin of Mary, Luke 1, 36: but it is certain and without all controversy, that Mary was of the tribe of Judah, Luke 5.

But it will be objected, [Objection.] that the Levites being dispersed among the other Tribes had a dispensation from the former Law, and therefore they might marry wives of diverse tribes from themselves, but it was otherwise with the rest.

[Answ.] I answer, first it is vain to distinguish against the Law, where the law doth not distinguish: if then they had any privilege, let them bring forth the charter, and show their evidence, or else we cannot believe them.

Again, albeit the Levites were scattered here and there, yet many of them dwelt together, and there were whole Cities in a manner of the Priests, 1 Sam. 22, 19. and therefore if they had pleased, or had thought themselves charged in this case, they might have had choice of wives of their own tribe. Lastly, this was no better observed by other Tribes, then by the Levites. For David of the tribe of Judah married Michal the daughter of Saul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin, 1 Sam. 18, 20, 27. & 9, 1. Likewise the eleven tribes having in a manner destroyed the Benjamites in a battle, profess among themselves that they might not give them of their daughters, because they had sworn, Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin, Judges 21, 18. declaring thereby, that they were not restrained by any law, but by their oath: and to what end did they make such an oath, if they had been before forbidden by the law of God without their oath? Many such like examples might be brought forth, to show that this Law did not simply restrain the marrying in other Tribes.

[Use 4] Fourthly, from hence we may conclude an argument against the vulgar edition of the Scripture, which in this place doth manifestly corrupt the text, and bringeth into manifest error; for it readeth the text thus, All men shall marry wives of their own tribe and kindred, & all women shall take them husbands of the same tribe: both the which being generally taken, may well be taken for untruths. Whereas the original never speaketh of men marrying out of their tribes, neither of all men generally, but of those only that are their fathers heirs. Bellarmine that must help at a dead lift, answereth, That these two are all one, and do not differ; which argueth an hard forehead rather then a sound answer: for he blusheth not to affirm anything when he is put to his shifts. We cannot therefore receive that interpretation for authentic and canonical, which is directly repugnant unto the doctrine of the Scripture, and the continual practice of the Jews. And as for those that would have the Hebrew text amended by the Latin translation, it is no better then to go about to be mad with reason. For where the truth is, there can be no error; and where no error is, what need any correction? To conclude this point, I will oppose the testimony and judgment of Paul de Sancta Maria, a great bishop and sometimes Chancellor unto the King of Castile, directly against Bellarmine, one Papist against another, whose words are these: In this precept our translation swerveth very much from the Hebrew verity, &c: and the reason of the Law beareth witness to the truth of the Hebrew, for this was the end thereof, that the division of inheritances that was to be made might remain perpetually amongst the Tribes, so that nothing of the land which fell to be in the lot of the Tribe of Judah, might return at any time to the lotte of Benjamin, and so of the rest. Therefore the Law was given of those only (which did succeed in their fathers inheritance) that the Tribes should not be shuffled or mingled together, because thereby the inheritance would pass from one tribe to another, which was against the ordinance of God: but other women which had brethren, and consequently did not succeed in the inheritance of their father, were not forbidden by this Law, but that they might marry with whom they would of any other tribe, because it appeareth evidently, that from hence would not follow the confusion of the lots. Neither do we read of any dispensation that the Tribes of Levi and Judah had to join in marriage one with another: for there needed no dispensation, where was no prohibition, &c. This testimony is cited by Drusius.

Lastly, observe touching the Jewish inheritances, [Use 5] that at the year of Jubilee, the inheritance sold or mortgaged, returned again to the owner, as we may read Levite. chapter 25, verses 8.9. This fell out every fiftieth year: then the Trumpet of Jubilee sounded, & they proclaimed liberty and freedom throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof: then servants were set free, then debts were forgiven, then every man returned unto his own possession and family, Verse 10.

This solemn and sacred time was instituted for these causes: First, to moderate and bridle the covetousness of such as hoped and gaped after other men's possessions, and to teach every man to be content with his own estate, and not enter upon the possessions of others, as Ahab did upon the vineyard of Naboth.

Secondly, to keep a true Chronology, & a certain computation of time, which is very necessary and profitable in the reading of histories, to know where and at what time everything was done.

Thirdly, to maintain a distinction of the Tribes, until the exhibiting of the Messiah, according to the prophecy of Jacob, Gen. 49, 9, The Tribe shall not depart from Judah, till Shiloh come. For howsoever many do understand the word (Shebet) in this place of the Scepter, yet I do not remember in all the books of Moses, wherein it is often used, that once it is used in that sense, albeit it be in other books afterward. Lastly, to figure out the redemption of Christ, who indeed brought a true Jubilee and freedom when the fullness of time came. He proclaimed liberty with his own voice from the tyranny of sin, of Satan, and of hell, Isaiah 61, 1, 2, 3, c. Luke 4, 18. He purchased a full discharge from all our spiritual debts, trespasses, and transgressions, John. 8, 34, 36, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 committeth sin, is the servant of sin: but if the Son shall make you free, then are you free indeed. Through him it is come to pass, that Satan hath no power to exact any debt at our hands, Christ hath cancelled the bill and hand-writing that stood in force against us, 1 Cor. 6, 20 Gal. 4.5, 1 Pet. 1, 18, 19. Col. 1, 13, 14. Rom. 8, 2. This Law pertaining to the ceremonies of Moses, the Papists have taken up, and horribly abused, and brought into use in the times of the Gospel, and under color thereof sell their pardons and indulgences, and abuse the people, and make sale of their souls. For as God had his Jubilee, so the Pope hath his; howbeit, it is in an apish kind of imitation, and can neither be accounted this Levitical Jubilee, neither yet received for Christian. It cannot be the Levitical, because in it no servants are freed, no debts are remitted, no possessions of land are restored, as it was in the Jubilee of the Jews. And if the Pope himself would allow this, why doth not he begin and give good example to others, & restore Rome to it self, and others lands of the Church to the Emperor, he being the right and lawful owner, and that proud Bishop only an usurper? Again, in the year of Jubilee the Jews did neither sow nor reap: but at Rome it is nothing so, for then the Popes are most busy & the best husbands, then they sow their indulgences thick & threefold, & reap a plentiful harvest by such merchandise. Hence it is, that whereas at the first this solemn feast, (which now keepeth the Popes kitchen hot for many years after) was rare, now it is grown more common, that it might be more gainful. The invention of it was altogether unknown for more then twelve hundred years after Christ, and never heard of in the purer times of the Church. The first father of it was Boniface the eighth, who promised full remission of sins to all those that would repair to Rome, and pay soundly for a pardon, and this was to be done every hundred years. This time was thoght too long, & was afterward abridged by Clement the sixth (who got the papacy in the year 1342.) to 50 years, after the manner of the Jew. After him came Sixtus the fourth, in the year of our Lord, 1473, who thinking the times to come to slowly about, and finding the sweetness of the former device, cut it off again in the middes, appointed every 25 year for a Jubilee, and promised like pardons to all comers and goers: whereas before him Urban the sixth, had brought it to 33, years: and lastly, it is come to ten years, because they would be sure to lose no profit. See what the desire of money worketh in these holy fathers, who oftentimes sell pardons so fast to others, that it is to be feared they never obtain pardon themselves. Neither can this Jubilee be holden for Christian, in that poor pilgrims resort to Rome, and visit the Churches of Peter and Paul, but rather superstitious & blasphemous. For this is to tie grace to a certain time and place, w ^c is not tied, Isaiah 2, 5. John. 4, 23. Math. 28, 19. Secondly, this is to worship God with our own works which he hath not commanded nor required, Isaiah 1, 12, Math. 15, 9, and to make sinful men to merit the grace and favor of God, whereas all such kind of service is abominable in his sight. Lastly, they make sale of the grace of God, w ^c is much more precious then gold and silver, & take money for remission of sins, which that proud Prelat is not able to give. Thus are men pitifully deceived, and God is horribly dishonored. And howsoever the good of the people is pretended, yet this Jubilee is nothing else but the Popes market and harvest: his market day to sel his wares and commodities, and his harvest to gather in his pardon-money, whereby he emptieth the purses of others, but filleth his own coffers. True it is, he claymeth a power to dispense the treasure of the Church, that is, the merits of the Saints, and the ouermeasure of their works and obedience, he hath in store for all such as lack; but this is most injurious and derogatory to Christ. It is proper to him to redeem others, and to satisfy for them, who is made of the Father to be our redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30. Again, the Scripture expressly excludeth the sufferings of the Saints from the work of redemption and remission of sins, 1 Cor. 1, 13. Acts 4, 12. 2 Cor. 5, 21, Acts 10, 43. Thirdly, if the satisfactions of the Saints were of so great worth & value, that they can take away and blot out the sins of others, then they might be truly called the Mediators of the New Testament; howbeit this is proper to Christ, Heb. 9.13, 14 15. Lastly, the Saints themselves are not able to pay their own debt, much less the debt of others, and they that want the mercy and mediation of another, cannot be mediators for another. But the best Saints that ever were, or shall be, do say, Forgive us our debts, & therefore they are not able to pay them. How then can they have any works of supererogation, or the measure of their works running over, that have not enough for themselves?

The third part of the chapter remaineth, to wit, the marriage of these five daughters: what God had appointed, and Moses had published, they approve and allow. For Moses setteth down, both where they married, and to whom. They matched in their own Tribe, to wit, into the families of the sons of Manasseh, and particularly it is said, They were married to their fathers brothers sons, that is, to their cozen germans. From hence we learn, that the marriage of cozen germans, that is, the children of brothers and sisters is lawful. In the proof of this point, no man must look for any express law or commandment to marry in this manner, because no man was ever commanded to do so: it is enough to show that it is left free and not prohibited; & that will appear by sundry examples of all sorts. The marriage of Esau the son of Isaac, is recorded to have been with Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Isaac's brother, Gen. 28, 9, so that he married his fathers brothers daughter. And albeit he were a wicked man and profane, yet he is not reproved for marrying so near of kin. And Jacob himself is charged by his parents to take a wife no farther off, and therefore he being the son of Rebecca matched himself with Rahel the daughter of Laban Rebeccaes brother; thus he married his mothers brothers daughter, as Esau before him had married his fathers brothers daughter. In like manner we see the same in a sort between Isaac Abraham's son, the son of promise, and Rebecca the daughter of Bethael, son to Nahor, Abraham's brother, Gen. 24, 15, whereof the one is cozen german, the other is cozen german but once removed.

To these examples it will be objected, that they were all before the law, and therefore they might be lawful: but the matter stood otherwise after the law. Let us see therefore how the case stood after the law. And first, observe the example of these daughters of Zelophehad mentioned in this place, of whom it is said, that they married their fathers brothers sons, verse 11. But it will be said, that by brethren we must understand, nor natural brethren, but others farther off. But if it were so, then it had been sufficient to have called them their fathers brethren without any addition of sons, or their own brethren, and then indeed the marriage had been left doubtful and uncertain: but the addition of sons to brethren doth rightly and readily distinguish the cozen germans from all the rest of their kindred. And to make the matter more clear and apparent, it is evident that Zeloph • had had brethren of his parents that had store of sons; for what man of any understanding will exclude those that most properly may be meant, and run to others that may improperly be termed his brothers sons? Now that Zelophehad had brethren, and they also sons, is no way doubtful, because out of the loins of his brother Hepher came a great family, called in respect of the multitude of them, The family of the Hepherites, Numb. 26, 32. as of Gilead, the Gileadites. Furthermore, we read in Joshua, of the marriage of Othniel the son of Kenaz, with Achsah the daughter of Caleb, Kenaz brother, so that they were brothers children, Josh. 15, verses 16, 17.

If any here also dally with the ambiguity of the word Brother, as suspecting and surmising that it is there taken for some kinsman farther off, and not properly for a brother of the same immediate parents: this may easily be disproved by the term after given to Kenaz, of younger brother to Caleb, Judge. 1, verse 13, which plainly noteth the age and order of brethren in one family and from one parent, and not any order of kindred among those that are of diverse families and parents, according as the eldest son noteth the order of children in one family, as may appear in the order of Genealogies, 1 Chron. chap. 2, verse 13, where the sons of Jesse are so distinguished and known by the eldest, the second, and so forward of the rest. And there also it appeareth, that Caleb had other brethren, as Ierameel in the ninth verse, and the two and fortith verse, yea even that Caleb which had Achsah to his daughter, as we may read verse 49: and therefore in respect of those elder, Kenaz might well be so called, his younger brother: nay having elder, we cannot without great confusion of speech, and very much uncertainty of meaning, refer the younger unto any other of his kindred whatsoever.

Thus we have seen diverse and sundry examples of the marriage of cousin germans recorded faithfully in the Scriptures, both of the godly and the ungodly, both before the Law and since the Law, and we never find that any of them were reproved or gain-said; which may induce us to hold them lawful, and not against the Law of GOD and godliness.

Let us pass from the Jews to the ancient Romans, and other Nations, and from the Romans to our selves. The Apostle Paul teacheth us in the second chapter of the Romans and the fourteenth verse, that the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law: and it were not hard to show out of diverse and sundry profane writers, such at were Liuy, Plutarke, Cicero, Tacitus, Historiographers, Philosophers, and Poets, an infinite number of examples of such matches frequented among them: whereupon Calvin a most judicious Divine, and one of the foundest interpreters of these latter times saith plainly, Tam Lege Mosis, quam gentium iure id semper licuit, that is to say, As well by the Law of Moses, as by the common law of Nations, the marriage of cousin germans, was always lawful.

True it is, sometimes for fear and sometimes for flattery; they have been induced to consent to incestuous marriages. Claudius Caesar the Emperor had concluded a marriage between himself and Agrippina his brothers daughter, yet they durst not celebrate the solemnities of their unlawful love openly, (for it was incest) neither was it practiced before, that the brothers daughter should be brought into the vnckles house as wife: whereupon he commanded the Senate to pass a decree, by virtue whereof, marriage between the Vncles and Neeces, daughters to their brothers, should from thence-forward be accounted just and lawful. This they did readily & willingly to gratify his desire, and yet for all that there was one only Gentleman of Rome that followed that president, who also was thoght to do it to win the favor of Agrippina. So likewise when Cambyses fell in fancy with his own sister, and was desirous to marry her, which was never used amongst the Persians before, He called together his Judges, and asked of them, whether there were any law to permit a man to contract matrimony with his own sister: They knowing the kings disease as well as if they had felt his pulse, made answer, That they could find no such law that suffered the brother to marry the sister: yet they had met with another law, that the Persian King might do whatsoever he pleased. Thus partly for fear & partly for flattery they resolved, respecting more their own security then they did the Kings honor and honesty. Plutarch in his Roman questions showeth, that a statute was enacted among them, by virtue whereof it was made lawful for all men from • hat time forward to marry as far as to their cozen germans, (including them also) but in any higher or nearer degree of consanguinity they were utterly forbidden. This statute was no other but the very law of God and nature, which restrayneth and forbiddeth to marry nearer, but other degrees it leaveth free. Nevertheless I confess, that he saith, It was long before this statute was enacted, & that one was endighted and like to be condemned for marrying with his cozen german, if he had not been in special favor with the people, whereby it came to pass, that the bill of indictment was suppressed. But who this was, or when it was, he concealeth, and I must needs say, I much suspect the truth thereof: because the forbidding of this degree could not be ancient. For many brethren desired to match their children this way, & thought they could not be better bestowed. Ligustinus, as Liuy reporteth ( Decad. 5. lib. 2.) showeth that his father gave him to wife the daughter of his uncle. Tully reporteth that Cluentia was married to M. Aurius her cozen german. (Cicer. orat. pro Cluent.) And before Rome was built, at the coming of Aeneas into Italy, a marriage was entreated off between Turnus and La ••• ia, who were borne of two sisters. This confirmeth that which S. Augustine writeth, ( De ciuit. dei. lib. 15. cap. 16.) that before his time such marriages were lawful among them.

But to leave these foreign examples, let us come home to our selves. In the 32. year of the reign of Henry the eight, chap. 38, all persons are adjudged lawful to marry, that are not prohibited by God's law: which statute being afterward repealed and made void by Q. Mary, was in the first year of the late Queens happy reign restored to his former strength and virtue: and hereupon by the ecclesiastical authority in the Land, a Table was made and put in print; containing all the degrees unlawful in marriage by the law of God, and so holden unlawful in our Land; among which, cozen germans are not mentioned, and therefore are holden by the judgment of our Church to be lawful.

Thus we have the continual practice of the [Reason 1] marriage of cozen germans in all ages, among the Jews and Gentiles, and our selves, which showeth the lawful and laudable use thereof: let us now see a few reasons farther to manifest this point. And first, this is a sure foundation laid by the Apostle, Rom. 4, 15. Where no law is, there is no transgression. But there is no law that forbiddeth these to marry, either expressly, or by implication. For albeit we find in the book of Leviticus a perfect direction touching marriage, & all other titles of kindred noted by the persons to whom they appertain, to wit, father and mother, son and daughter, brother and sister, grandfather and grandmother, and the grand-children, uncle and aunt, nephew and niece; yet not any cozen in any degree, third, second, or first degree: and therefore these are to be excluded from the former, and no way to be sorted and ranged among the unlawful marriages. Secondly, sundry of these degrees forbidden, are not only once expressed, but again reiterated in the very letter of the law, and that in a diverse manner to note out the greater efficacy: as for example, the fathers wife, first in the 7. ver. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father: and again in the 8. verse, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers wife. Likewise her sister, in the 9. verse. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father: which is repeated again, verse 11. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers wives daughter, begotten of thy father, for she is thy sister. Lastly, thy aunt, noted in the 12. verse. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers sister: then he addeth in the next verse, nor of thy mothers sister, and again in the 14. verse, nor of thy fathers brothers wife; touching all which three (being everyone thy aunt) the prohibition of any one had debarred the rest.

The law then being so copious and plentiful to repeat much forbidden before, it is certain it would never have omitted the mention of one whole degree, and the same also the greatest of all the rest, to wit, cousin germans, if the matching of them together had been utterly unlawful, as all the rest are which are mentioned in the Law. This is the prerogative of the word, that it is a perfect word: & as the Law is in no point superfluous, so it is in no case defective.

Thirdly, among all the titles of kindred mentioned in Leviticus, there is not any whereunto cousin germans may in any sort be referred: and therefore as they are not expressed, so they are not included under any degree prohibited.

For if they might be comprised under any of those heads, it should be under the title of brethren and sisters, which indeed in a general sense do often in Scripture contain not only cousens in the first degree, but in the second, third, fourth, and farther also. But by this extent of the words, we should bring under the prohibition of marriage, as well the one as the other, which I suppose few will admit.

Wherefore the Lord to prevent this generality of brotherhood, and mistaking of the Law contrary to the true meaning thereof, the sister is limited by determinate notes of difference from the cousins, that she is termed the daughter of thy father or mother, Levite 18, 9, and begotten of thy father, verse 11: and therefore the titles of brother and sister, cannot be extended so far as to cousin germanes, and if not they, much less any other.

Fourthly, the bringing of cousin germans within the compass of the degrees prohibited is to leave the matter at uncertainty, and the Law of God to determine nothing. For how far shall we have such cousins restrained? once only removed, or twice, or how many degrees? And if any answer, only the first degree: I would know why the first more then the second; or the second more then the third? seeing that the one is no more to be proved out of the Law of God then the other.

As for those that allege the words of the Law, Levite. 18, 6, None of you shall approach to any that is near to him, to uncover their nakedness: if they be rightly weighed, they give no color to such interpretation, nor liberty of such extension, but rather serve as a bar to seclude them out of the prohibition. For if any other degrees then are after expressed should be meant, then all cousin • • n any degree, though never so far off, even an hundred times removed, should be included within the former prohibition, which no wise man will affirm.

Neither may we imagine, that the Lord would give such a Law, not to come near any of the kin, and never express what kin he meaneth, but leave us at randon, every man to conjecture, and every man to hold what he pleaseth.

So then it is evident, that the words are not to be stretched so largely, but are to be gathered into a more narrow compass, and to a more strict senfe, such as may be inclusiue to all the degrees afterward in particular rehearsed and recited, and exclusive to all others.

Fifthly, the Law of God setteth down sundry threatenings of most horrible judgments upon the heads of such as break the bounds of Nature, and are pursued with the censure of abomination, of wickedness, of villainy, of filthiness, committed, and with the sentence of blood, of death, of cutting off, of fire, and of barrenness, not only upon the one party, but upon the other, neither only upon the man, but upon the beast: nevertheless, among all these, the cousin germans are no more touched in the punishment, then they were before in the prohibition.

Lastly, as the threatening is noted, so also is the execution of the threatening, remembered. For there is no incest committed against the holy Law of God mentioned in the Scripture, but it always carrieth a note of reproof, and a brand of God's judgment with it: but in the examples of the marriages of cousin germans (which are many in Scripture) not the least touch of any reprehension or correction. Reuben went up to his fathers bed and defiled his concubine, Gen. 35, 22, & 49.4, 1 Chron. 5, 1, and he is punished with the loss of his birth-right.

Abshalon went in unto his fathers concubines which he had left to keep the house, 2 Sam. 16, 21, and he is punished not long after with a violent death, and lived not out half his days, 2 Sam. 18, 14. The incestuous Corinthian committed fornication with his fathers wife, and he is censured by the Apostle with excommunication, and delivering him o •• r to Satan, 1 Cor. 5, 1. Lot in his drunkenness committed incest with his own daughters, and is plagued with the birth of obstinate enemies of God's Church, the first fathers of the Moabites & Ammonites, Gen. 19, 33. Judah defiled his daughter in law Tamar, indeed in ignorance, yet duly reproved by himself, & effectually repented, so that he never lay with her Gen. 38, 16. Amnon fell in love with his sister Tamar, and lay with her, and immediately after his lust he is punished with lothsomnes in himself, & hatefulnes in Absalom toward him, & plagued with a sudden and violent death in the end, 2 Sam. 13, 14, 15. & 28, 29. Lastly, Herod took his brothers wife, and he is reproved for it by John the Baptist, Mat. 14.4, 10. & John the Baptist is taken away from him and the unthankful world, who was as a shining candle in y ^e darkness of the world, which was no small plague. And if we may give any credit unto ecclesiastical histories, touching this Herod who was called Antipas, he that defiled his body with most filthy Incest, and embrued his hands with h • rmelesse and innocent blood, and abused his tongue to mock Christ our Savior with his cursed Courtiers, felt not long after the vengeance of God: For as he gaped after honor and sought ambitiously to be entitled with the name of a king, he and his proud minion with him were in the second year of the Emperor Caligula condemned to perpetual banishment, and at Lions in France they ended their days in shame, contempt, reproach, and misery. A fit death for such a life, Joseph. Antiq. lib. 18. cap. 9. Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 4. In all these examples we see that although the Magistrate leave these sins of incest unpunished, yet good men do not pass by them without reproof even in the greatest personages; and God doth not let thē alone without a judgment, and the Scripture doth not record them without a due note and censure of the abomination. And may we then in reason think, that God, and good mē, and the Scripture it self would be silent, and have let pass so many marriages of Cousen-germans without any one check or chastisement, if they had been against the law of God & godliness? Nay rather we may well think, that seeing they go away so clearly without any the least note of reproof, yea and some of them with no small approbation and commendation at the hands of GOD and good men, they are not at all incestuous & impious, but most lawful and allowable.

[Use 1] Now let us come to the uses. First, this serves to reprove the Church of Rome, w ^c as it is corrupt in the chiefest parts of Christian religion, so is it in none more corrupt thē in the matter of marriage, because they restrain that which God hath left free, and they leave that free which God hath restrained: an evident proof among other things, that the Roman Church is an Antichristian Church. And first it is plain, that they maintain the lawfulness of marriages within the degrees expressly forbidden. For whereas by the law of God, Levite. 18, touching consanguinity, they which are placed in the transuerse unequal line, cannot marry at all, because they are to be holden as parents and children: yet if they be distinct four degrees from the common stock, they may lawfully marry by the Popes laws and canons; which is filthy, incestuous, and abhominable. And as they are loose when they should be strict, so they are strict when they should be loose: For whereas cozen germans are left free by the law of God (as we have already shown & proved) they do condemn the same for no other cause, but to make way for popish dispensations. Again, they teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with the degrees directly and expressly prohibited in Leviticus, and that many of them are only judicial & positive constitutions, not grounded upon the law of nature, but serving peculiarly for that commonwealth of the Jews. Hence it is, that that Antichrist of Rome did dispense with King Henry the eight to marry Katherine his late brothers wife. So Philip the second, Duke of Burgundy, had a dispensation to marry his uncles wife, as Ferdinand King of Naples had the like to marry his own aunt.

Thus he that hath brought Kings and Princes under his feet, challengeth authority above the Scriptures, and taketh upon him to dispense with the word of God, and thereby usurpeth power above GOD and his word. For this is one of their own rules, In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior, that is, The inferior may not dispense with the commandment of the superior ( Anton. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 6.

If then the Pope dispense with the laws of God, doth he not make himself above God? and is not this the Antichrist? or shall we foolishly look for any other? Can anything be more filthy and vile then incest? and yet he hath not spared for filthy lucre to tolerate and allow that in the Church, which the Philosopher Plato an heathen man was ashamed off in his commonwealth, lib. 8. de leg. For he dispensed with Philip the second, late king of Spain, to marry his own Niece. Pope Martin the fifth dispensed with a certain brother that married his own sister. Nay Clement the seventh for a great sum of money licensed Peter Aluaradus a spaniard to marry two sisters at once. Thus also he dispensed with Immanuel king of Portugal against the law of God, to marry two sisters, as Osorius testifieth, ( Dereb. gest: Immanuel. lib. 2.) thereby verifying the saying of the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2, 4, that the man of sin shall oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God. These marriages did GOD hate and punish in the Gentiles, and for the foulness and filthiness of them did God spew out the Canaanites, Deut. 18, 24.

Thus John the Baptist telleth Herod, that it was not lawful for him to have his brothers wife, Math. 14, 4: so that the former laws were in force in the time of Christ as well as in the days of Moses,

Again, the Apostle reproveth the incestuous person among the Corinthians that had taken his fathers wife, 1 Cor. 5, 1. & therefore the former laws remained firm under the Gospel, as well as under the law: and he showeth that such fornication is not so much as named, much less practiced among the Gentiles, and therefore he willeth him to be excommunicated from the Church: & where was this forbidden, but in the Law of Moses?

But to leave this point at the present, as impertinent, let us consider the degree we have in hand, how the Popish Canons and constitutions do restrain it. True it is, sundry Councils in former times, debarred the first degree of cousins, to the intent the divine prohibition might be kept with the more regard and reverence, and others afterward added thereunto cousens in the second degree. But when the Roman Antichrist sat in the Temple of God, and had brought both Kings and Councils under his check & commandment, then he began to domineer, and all cousens to the seventh degree were forbidden. But because this was thought too hard, and to savor of covetousness and cruelty joined with pride and presumption, it was brought at length in the time of Innocentius the third, to the fourth degree, and sod take it the matter standeth unto this day, that the Canons forbid four degrees from coufen germans as unlawful. But the reason which they use is no less sophistical, then the law it self tyrannical, drawn (forsooth) from the proportion of the four physical humors in man's body. But what have we to do with the Canons of this ambitious man, sitting in men's consciences and ruling over their faith, who have turned out that beast to grass long ago? Or why should we make any reckoning or account of his supereminent and omnipotent power which he claymeth in his dispensations, allowing that which God disalloweth, and disallowing that which he alloweth? Thus he playeth fast and loose with the law of God, as luglers do to deceive. For if the laws of God cannot bind him, why should his papal laws bind us and our consciences? The Collegiats of Douay in their heretical Annotations upon Leviticus, set forth in their late translation of the Old Testament, are not ashamed to maintain this assertion, that all marriages in the right line, and in collateral the first degree, as between the brother and sister, are only forbidden by the law of nature, and that all other degrees depend upon positive laws, which have been and may be altered: which opinion, how gross & vile it is, we have before declared. So then I will conclude with the saying of Beza in his 8. Sermon upon the Cant. Touching the observation of holy marriage, I will not stay any longer in this horrible filthy stench, which neither the Sun can abide to see; nor the darkness of the night can cover, nor the earth bear and endure. Alas, O Lord, how long!

Secondly, this reproveth all such as not only [Use 2] discourage from this marriage, but dare condemn it, both as impious and incestuous. Others that dare not go so far, yet seem to dislike thereof as comprised in those degrees mentioned in Leviticus by an analogy or proportion: howbeit they hold also that such marriages are not to be dissolved, and that the issue of such marriages are not to be accounted illegitimate. And they make a comparison between these, and the marriage of those that neglect the consent of their parents, who may continue together, if they confess their error, & do not justify their fact: so such as are married in this degree of consanguinity either ignorantly or doubtfully, may upon repentance of their error find comfort. But from hence it will follow, y ^t such as do not acknowledge any error, or go about to defend such marriages as being persuaded they are consonant to the word of God, cannot find comfort nor assure themselves they may lawfully have the company one of another, but stand endighted by y ^e law, if not of incest, yet of a great sin against God. Again, I would gladly understand what breach can be committed within the degrees forbidden, w ^c may not justly be accounted incest? Lastly, whereas it is objected, that the vnkles wife which is expressly forbidden, seemeth to be as near as the uncles son, the one being of affinity, the other of consanguinity; it will follow from hence, that all the repentance in the world cannot help nor serve to give comfort to the marriage of cozen germans. For let a man live in incest, and marry any of the degrees expressed in the law, we must know that to live in the sin, and to repent of the sin are contrary one to the other.

As for example, if I marry my uncles wife, and afterward understand I have done against the Law, though I seem to repent and keep her still, Poenitentia non agitur, sed fingitur, as Augustine speaketh in another case, the Repentance is not true but counterfeit: and it may still be said unto me, as John in like case did to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy vnkles wife, Mark 6, 18.

But it will be said, [Objection.] Suppose this marriage be lawful, yet it being in the first degree that is made so, it is good not to come near it, that we may not fall into any that were forbidden; as if we see a dangerous pit, it were no wisdom to play near it, but rather to keep our selves aloof, that so the danger may be the farther from us: as when God had set bounds for the people at the giving of the Law, the people fled even from them, that they might be assured not to transgress them.

But this similitude carrieth more color to move, then force to persuade. [Answer.] For this reason is only an allusion; and if we mark it well, we shall see it is a very unfit and unlike comparison. If Moses had of his own head set any other bounds in the Mountain, then those which the Lord himself had appointed to debar the people from nearer access, it might have been some ground to lead us to the like; as by prohibiting the degrees farther off, to debar from the degrees prohibited by the Lord. But Moses did not so, albeit being supreme Magistrate he had the same power, and being wise he could have seen the same reason so to do as well as we. Now in that the people departed from the bounds which were set them, they did it not to yield obedience unto God, or because they would not transgress, God's Commandment, neither did they it by any direction from Moses, neither is it recorded unto any commendation of them, but it is imputed to the confused multitude of the people; and to the fear that enforced them, not only to shun the bounds of the Mount, but to run back to their own Tents: whereas doubtless they might with more praise & less reproof have holden the bounds prefixed by the Lord, then to have fled from them afar off, Exod. 20, ver. 18.

Let not us therefore seek to be wiser then God, or go about to set other bounds then he hath done. For this is a sure rule, the which we may approve without fear of danger, that the Lord's bounds are sufficient for us, to keep us in every good way. This we see constantly practiced by the Priests and people of Israel: for rhe high Priest did keep y ^e bounds of the holiest place appointed unto him: the ordinary Priests the Tabernacle of the Congregation: the people, the Courts of y ^e Lord's house, none of them for a supposed modesty restraining himself from the uttermost of the liberty given unto him. For the people do not shun the door of the Tabernacle with their sacrifices, nor the Priests the veil of the inner Tabernacle with their daily service, nor the high Priest the presence of the Mercyseat, albeit they were all once driven out of the Tabernacle and Temple also with fear of the glorious Majesty of God which there appeared, Exod. 20, 34. Numb. 16, 42. 1 Kings 9, 11. as the people of Israel were from the Mountain. And if the similitude pretended have any force, we may argue from it with better consequence after this manner; whereas the Israelites are commanded not to approach to the bounds of the Lord's Mountain to touch it under pain of death, and therefore they for fear did fly farther off, lest they should touch the Mountain, and die: even so whereas the people of God are by the Levitical law commanded not to approach to any of the kindred of their flesh therein specified to uncover their nakedness, (Levite. 18, 6,) under the pain & penalty of most grievous punishments; it shall be well and wisely done of us, so far to fly from them, that we do not so much as approach unto them in any inordinate lust of mind, but fly all occasions that may draw us thereunto: which course, if Amnon had holden toward his sister Tamar, he had not perished for presuming so far within the bounds of the Levitical law. For the approaching near to her, in beholding her beauty, and in desiring and enjoying her company in place too private and inconvenient, did draw him on to fulfill his loathsome lust; whereof I see not how there could have been laid by the device of man any stronger bar, thē the express limits of the Lord's commandment, which might have sufficed unto him, & may likewise to us, if any fear of God or of his judgments be before our eyes: & if these cannot prevail with us, what may be hoped or surmised by any new prohibitions devised by men in the degrees otherwise lawful?

[Object.] Again, it will be objected, that such marriages prove unfortunate, and never succeed well, but either parents, or children, or both repent of it when it is too late.

I answer, this is a very weak reason, [Answer.] to argue from the success and the event to prove the lawfulness or unlawfulness of any matter, of which the very heathen saw the incongruity. Thus do some profane persons argue also against the marriage of the Ministers of the word, because many of their children are loose and disobedient; whereas though some prove otherwise then they should, and their parents would, yet do many thousands of their children and children's children live in obedience to God and man. And by this reason might the marriage of any several estate and degree of men be taxed as unlawful. So if we cast our eyes upon the marriages of many cozen germans, we shall see thē live in great unity and amity, in great love and contentment between themselves, and bring forth a plentiful increase of an hopeful and godly issue.

As for those that do ascribe the ill success in families to such matches, it is a plain parologisme à non causa ad causam, to note that to be the cause of ill event, which is no cause at all. And in some particulars, where some of their children have not proved in body or mind, or in both as was expected, as we see the like also in others, so I could allege other causes more to the purpose, if I list to enter so far, or to handle this at large. Thus do some make a man's profession of true religion and a good conscience to walk humbly before God, the cause of his poverty, and decay in his temporal estate: the preaching of the Gospel to be the cause of dearth and famine: never observing how many persons have prospered by serving the Lord; and how great peace, and how long plenty, and what store of blessings the Land hath enjoyed for the plentiful and powerful preaching of y ^e truth among us.

Lastly, it is objected, that such marriages are many ways offensive: and that we are commanded to give no offense to Jew, or Gentile, or to the Church of God, 1 Cor. 10, 32, neither to them that are within, nor to them that are without, But by such marriages, the papists are offended, the ignorant people that know not the law are offended, the weaker sort (that ought to be respected) are offended, and many of the godly brethren are offended, and generally not some few, but the whole multitude.

I answer, [Answer.] here is much a do about offense, and this is in effect as much as to say, that all men take offense at it: howbeit this conceit is over lavish. I confess, if this were true in every part, there were just and necessary cause to forbear our Christian liberty for a time, rather then to give an universal offense. But I neither see nor hear of any such scandals or exceptions taken by the multitude (which also are the ignorant sort) against such matches, which are daily in use and practice before their eyes; neither is there any reason or likelihood that they should take such offense because they were the parties to the law-making in the high Court and Council of Parliament for the lawful liberty of such matches, and they have the tables of degrees in many places hanging openly in their Churches to be seen and read of all, and carry often about them, or at least have in their houses the English Bibles expressing the same in commō use. Touching the offense of the particular weaklings, such as it may be are, or at least may be in any estate, when any such appear and are known, they are much to be respected, and a long time to be borne withal, but yet not always; for there is a time of ignorance to be allowed to such, or rather a time wherein they are to learn and to be instructed, til the Christian liberty be sufficiently made known unto them. This hath been already thoroughly performed, to any that have minds to learn, or hearts to inquire, or ears to hear; and therefore there is no reason that their willful ignorance and causeless offense, should still hold our Christian liberty in perpetual slavery and servitude. This therefore only remaineth further to be performd in regard of their offense, to proffer the means of satisfaction and resolution, by opening to them the truth: wherein, if they will still persist obstinate and stiff-necked against the clear shining thereof in their faces, as the Sun at noon day, then I may well say, the offense is taken by themselves, and willfully holden, rather then given by others: and then they have more need to learn a rule of charity of the Apostles mouth then to teach us one, which is, not to judge their brother, nor to condemn another man's servant, but themselves, seeing he doth stand or fall to his own master, Rom. 14, 4, 10: and every man at the last day shall give accounts for himself to God that judgeth the quick and dead, before whose judgment seat all must stand. And therefore they are not to judge their brother in that which he doth to the Lord with thankfulness, as did those that did eat to the Lord with thankfulness, verse 6. and were not to be judged by their brethren therein: where (if I do not mistake) I take the offense to be the more forcible, then in this of the marriage of cozen germans, because that offense was grounded upon the ceremonial Law of God then buried and abolished, whereas this offense in the marriage of cozen germanes is grounded either upon the rotten post of our own fancy, or upon the ragged pieces of the Popes Canons. Besides, the favoring of the weak brethren in those ceremonies of Moses Law, was only in y ^e time of the infancy of the Gospel, but when once in farther growth and deeper root taken of the Gospel, they were vanished by the clear manifestation of the truth, then they were mightily oppugned by the Apostles, and the offense little favored. In this case do we stand at this day in this matter of marriage between cousin germans, after so long abolishing of those popish Constitutions to the contrary, and sufficient manifestation of the law of God against them, so that the offense of the Papists is little to be regarded, especially seeing it tendeth to the bringing of us back again to their Canonical servitude, that is, the Antichristian yoke, which God forbid. For seeing we are escaped from them, why should we suffer our selves to be entangled therewith again? and why do we not rather stand for the Christian liberty, whereunto the Lord hath called us? And if we will soberly and seriously consider of this matter, we shall find that offense is rather given to a Papist by refraining that Christian liberty of God's Law, then by professing & using of it in such marriages as are against their Canon. And by making scruple of such marriages as are prohibited by the Popes Canon do we not confirm the Papists in the idol subjection to the Popish Canon, and make them still to judge amiss of the Christian liberty given unto us by God's Law, and professed also by our own Laws? To conclude, a Papist (no doubt) would be more offended in his conceit to see any refuse their Canonical obedience by approving or making such matches prohibited by them; whereas by refrayning or not approving such marriages, great occasion is given to make the Papists think well of their Canon, and of him that made it.

Lastly, from hence ariseth comfort to those [Use 3] that are already entered into such marriage as now we justify to be lawful. Howbeit, as they that dissuade marriage in this kind, do notwithstanding profess ingenuously, that they seek not to entangle any man's Conscience that hath so matched: so in like manner, I write not to persuade or encorage any that are free to match this way, neither do I see why any should be discouraged from it, or left comfortless that are already entered into it. Again, albeit I teach the lawfulness of this marriage, yet I would have no man presume to enter and adventure upon the same, with doubt of mind, and perplexity of conscience, because then it becometh sin to him, forasmuch as he doeth it not in faith. Lastly, where the civil Magistrate doth restrain and prohibit this degree, it is meet & reason that the people should forbear the same, as in all other civil ordinances, which are not repugnant to the moral law of God.

True it is, in Geneva and other free Cities there is some restraint of this degree, as appeareth by the Confession of • axony, sect. 18. touching marriage; nevertheless, touching the lawfulness of the marriage of cousin germans, Beza is plain in his observations upon that Confession, when he saith, We admonish the people diligently, that they do not think that this degree is forbidden in it self, that is, by the Law of God, either expressed or understood, which is the Law of Nature. And we are to approve the political laws of Princes touching these things, provided that the conscience be not snared and entangled.

Hereupon Peter Martyr adviseth Magistrates, that they should take heed that they burden not the people too much, and without weighty cause: & Beza to the same purpose wisheth, that all Christian Magistrates would decree this matter for the lawfulness of such matches as the first Council of Paris did, rather then supra Deum ipsum & veteres Leges ciuiles sapere videri, that is, Then to seem to be wiser then God himself and the ancient civil laws, in prohibiting these matches, which are not prohibited either in the law of God, or in the law of the Romans. So then, where there is a law of the Magistrate in force that forbiddeth them, the precept of the Apostle even in all indifferent things must take place, Let every soul be subject to the higher power, Rom. 13, 1. howbeit Christians must be subject thereunto as to a political constitution, not to a divine institution. But with us there is no such positive Law, but the matter is established according to the pure and simple word of God; neither is there any offense taken in our land against such matches, which is the only reason why in many places they are forbidden. As then we have shown before, that this degree hath ground and foundation in y ^e word of God: so let us see what is the judgment and opinion of the learned, that if by the mouth of two or three witnesses every truth should stand, then by a cloud of witnesses, speaking as it were with one voice, we may be moved to give our consent. And albeit no man is to build his faith upon men, which were to set our house upon the sand; yet after the resting and reposing of our selves upon the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets, it cannot but minister some comfort to see the general consent in a manner and approbation of such as have been great lights of the world, worthy instruments of God, excellent Preachers of the Gospel, firm pillars of the church and constant defenders of the faith. [Object.] But it will be objected, That many learned men do condemn this marriage, and that there is great variety, dissention, and division among them, whereupon ensueth much doubtfulness and distraction among the simple people that are not able to judge and discern between the one and the other.

[Answ.] I answer, first touching doubtfulness, there are not many (if there be any) that enter into marriage of this kind, but they ask the judgment of others, and have the opinion of moe besides themselves: and then touching the learned, there are not many that I know of, which simply condemn the same: & among these, some allege Ambrose an ancient Writer, and some produce Tremellius among the later. Touching Ambrose, it cannot be denied, but he holdeth this kind to be prohibited in the Law. For, having in hand to persuade Paternus not to marry his son to his daughters daughter, that is, the Uncle to the Niece, he bringeth this as a reason, that because cousin germans, which are a degree farther off then Uncle and Niece, are forbidden, therefore that of Uncle & Niece must be holden as prohibited. But herein he committeth a double error: one, in that he taketh the one match to be prohibited, which indeed is not; the other, in that he conceiveth not that degree to be expressly prohibited, which indeed is prohibited. It were easy to trace out farther ignorance in this Father, otherwise of great desert: but to omit that, I will oppose against him the authority of Saint Augustine, no way inferior unto him, in well deserving of the Church of GOD, and withstanding Heresies and Heretics that pestered and poisoned with their leaven the purity of the Gospel. Both these were very great Doctors of the Latin Church, and both living at the self same time, about four hundred years after Christ. For he calleth this kind of marriage ( Aug. de Ciuit. Dei lib. 15. Cap. 16.) factum licitum, A lawful act; and saith, Quod fieri per Leges licebat, quia id nec diuina prohibuit, & nondum prohibuerat lex humana, that is, Which was lawful to be done by the Laws, because the law of God had not prohibited it, neither as yet had the law of man.

And whereas it was one cause of the prohibition of this kind, for the multiplying of affinities, Augustine observeth, that the nephews of the first men in the world might marry their cousin germanes, and that they had a religious care that the nearness of their kindred (being pulled asunder by the degrees of propagation) should not go out too far; & therefore by the band of marriage (among cousin germans) they endeavored to bind it up again.

But touching Tremellius the case is not so clear, neither so certain what his opinion is, because he giveth no note, but setteth down certain figures, whereby some gather that he maketh cousin germans a degree as far off as the uncles wife, and therefore therein by Analogy prohibited. Howbeit there is great cause to doubt, whether his judgment swayed that way, forasmuch as we find the father and the son also noted with a like figure, as likewise the brother and sister, as if they were all in one degree, and that in the second degree, which I think no man will affirm. For it is plain and certain, that the son from the father is in the first degree in the line direct, and the brother and sister in the same degree, in the line collateral: and therefore it is very doubtful what his meaning is, having left no full explication thereof.

Again, it is as clear to me as the Sun, and I dare boldly avouch, that the uncles wife and the cousin german are not both in one degree howsoever any man do cypher them with the same figure, or another discypher thereupon: because then the mother and hir son should be holden to be in one degree: for the cousin german may be the Aunts son, which Aunt as from her parent is the first degree, and her son being the cousin german the second: so that the Nephew marrying the Aunt, doeth marry her that is in the first degree, which is prohibited: but marrying her daughter who is his cousin german, he marrieth in the second degree, which is not prohibited expressly, and not be holden to be prohibited by analogy to the Aunt, seeing there is no like reason of proportion between the first & the second, or any diverse degrees in the collateral lines, but always between the same degrees. So then, I hold it for an ungrounded and an untrue assertion, that any degrees are forbidden farther off then cousin germans. But suppose these two were plain and direct against the same, as indeed one of them is, what are these to the stream and current of the learned writers which this age hath brought forth? who, as it were with one mouth (their pens and tongues not divided) do hold and maintain confidently and constantly the lawfulness of this marriage. And first I produce among this cloud of witnesses, John Calvin, whom we named before, who in the interpretation of the precept not to come near any of the kindred of our flesh, hath these words, Non omnes consanguineas hoc nomen complectitur, &c: That is, These words do not comprize all kinsfolks, because it is permitted to the cousin germans either of the fathers, or of the mothers side, to marry his cousin german either of the fathers or mothers side. This matter he maketh so clear, that in the 385. Epistle he saith of it thus, Quod lege dei mandatum est, &c. that is, It is not lawful to call in question that which is commanded in the Law of God (as he taketh the freedom of cousin germans to be: for seeing it is not forbidden, we are commanded and enjoined to account the same to be left free for all men) and thereupon he giveth this resolution, that in this matter our consciences remain free before God: so that in his harmony upon the books of Moses, he termeth it diabolica Papae superbia qui nouos excogitando propinquitatis gradus, supra deum sapere voluit, A devilish pride of the Pope, who devising new degrees of kindred, would make himself wiser then God himself.

Now that which he speaketh farther tending to any restraint of this match of cousin germanes is in respect of the positive Law of the Magistrate, which is the law of man not of God, and of the long use of the contrary: in both which respects offense is taken at the practice of it, and therefore with them to be forborne. Howbeit these things do no way touch us, neither can challenge any place in our kingdom, where we have no law of man to forbid us, no disuse or long discontinuance of it to discourage us, neither any offense of learned or unlearned to dissuade us: & therefore we are no way bound in conscience, equity, or charity, to renounces that kind of marriage. For, the question is not with us, what is at all times, and in all places, and toward all persons convenient, but simply of the lawfulness of it. The judgment of Beza accordeth with the former testimony, and serveth as amply and fully to depose and witness this truth, of which we have spoken before.

Peter Martyr shall be the next, professor of divinity among us in the late days of K. Edward; for howsoever some deliver out that he is a man indifferent, or doubtful and uncertain in his opinion; it is certain & a matter out of doubt, that these men never read him with judgment, but with partiality. For being themselves enemies in this case, and having taught the unlawfulness thereof, they would draw all other also, either to be enemies thereunto, or have them to sit still as silent, and to stand by as neuters. But the truth is, he is as resolute as the former for the lawfulness of such marriages by the law of God: as appeareth by a large discourse in the first of the Judges, out of the law of God & the Romans, and showeth the same not to be unlawful, but to be exempted out of the prohibition. For speaking of the marriage of Achsah with Othniel (of which we have spoken before) he showeth, that if these two were brothers children, their marriage was lawful, Non enim diuinis legibus coniugium inter • stos vsquam fuit prohibitum, that is, By God's law marriage between such was never forbidden. And afterward, reproving the opinion of Ambrose who disliked the same, thee faith, Quod vero Ambrosius, &c. And whereas Ambrose affirmeth, that such marriage is prohibited by the law of God no man can allow thereof, that advisedly considereth either the law of God, or the deeds of the Fathers. Can anything be plainer then this? or can any man deliver his mind more expressly? So then to pass from him, I come to Louis Lauater of Tigurine, a judicious and painful man; he expounding the 15 of Joshua, saith, Si Othniel Achsa consobrinus fuit, &c. If Othniel were Achsaes cozen german, he might marry her to wife, but if he were her uncle, he could not by the law. Thus doth he also speak of the same man and the same marriage in his Commentaries upon the Judges, where he saith. It appeareth by other places, that they were cozen germans, and therefore marriage might be consummated between them by the Law. To him I will add Zepperus Minister of the Church at Herborne, he affirmeth, that the Law of God is so far from forbidding the marriage of cousin germans, that it propoundeth sundry examples thereof; and after he had produced the practice of it in those we named before, to wit, Jacob and Othniel, Gen. 29, 12, 13, 19. Joshua 15, 17. Judge. 1, 12. he alledgeth other also, that Rehoboom took to wife Mahalath the daughter of Ierimoth the son of David, and likewise Abigail y ^e daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse, who was the father of David, 2 Chron. 11, ver. 18. So in the New Testament, Joseph and Mary the blessed virgin were cousin germans, Matth. 1. ver. 15. Luke 3, 23, 24: and so doth Eusebius testify the same in his ecclesiastical history, out of a certain Epistle of Africanus to Aristides. For Matthan begat two sons Jacob and Heli, as appeareth in the places before named out of the Evangelists, Jacob begat Joseph, and Heli • ega • Mary. And thus both Matthew and Luke are fully and fi • lie reconciled: for whereas o • e saith, Joseph was the son of Jacob, & the other saith he was the son of Heli, it is certain he could not be both, in one and the some respect, and therefore it must be taken in a diverse consideration; and that is in this manner, he was the natural son of Jacob, but legal son of Heli; he was the son of Jacob by consanguinity, but the son of Heli by light of affinity; that is, his son in Law, beca • se he married his daughter Mary: as also Naomi calleth her daughters in law her own daughters, and David calleth Saul his father, 1 Sam. 24, 11: and Saul him his son, ver. 16 Neither doth the ancient civil law condemn these marriages.

The Law of Justinian is extant touching marriages, which is this, The children of two brethren, or two sisters, or of the brother and sister may lawfully be joined together in marriage. The same Law was established by Arcadius and Honorius the Emperors, that the marriage of cousin germans shall be allowed, and the children borne of them shall be holden legittimate, and succeed their fathers in their inheritance. And hereunto do the ancient Councils also accord, Epann. Council. about the year of Christ, four hundred ninety seven, & Council. Turon. 2. in the year five hundred and sixty.

Now the first that did forbid the marriage of cousin germans was Theodosius the Elder, as many testify, and that by the counsel and advice of Ambrose, Lib. 8. Epist. 66. which he calleth the Theodosian Law, and in his time Augustine testifieth it was in force. This is wholly, or at least for the most part taken out of Zepperus.

The next witness to be produced, is, Amand. Polanus, professor in the university of Basil, in Syntag. Theol, lib. 10. cap. 53. who teacheth, that the sons and daughters of brethren and sisters may lawfully marry by the law of God, whatsoever the Popes canon law say to the contrary, as Jacob married Rahel his cousin german. Of the same judgment also is Chemnitz in his Examin. For he showeth that the prohibition of this degree is merely human, established for no other cause, but that the prohibitions of God might be kept with greater reverence; and where such prohibitions are, they ought to be observed; which is not denied of us; howbeit that is not our case, where no such prohibitions are. I will annex to these one foreign testimony more, & that is of Zanchius, a man of eminent note, who proving that the incestuous marriages between the brother and sister, whether they be borne of the same father and mother, or of one of them only, are utterly unlawful: as also between the Nephew and the Aunt, and the Niece and her uncle, he hath these words: The marriage between the sons and daughters of natural brethren is lawful, as all the learned and godly agree without any controversy, for as much as we never read the same forbidden in holy Scripture in any place, but rather allowed by many examples which were never condemned by any man. And albeit he wish that in all such places as is a restraint hereof, men should be subject to the Magistrate according to the Doctrine of Christ, yet he spareth not farther to deliver his opinion in this manner: For my part I could wish for many causes, and those of no small moment and importance, that marriages might simply be made by warrant of the word of God, that whatsoever God himself hath left free and made lawful, the same might also be left unto men as lawful. I speak freely that which I conceive of this matter. These are the foreign testimonies which I thought good to allege at this present, to w ^c it were not hard to add infinite others, who because they speak the same things, and run the same course that the former do, I will not trouble the reader and myself any farther in rehearsing of them. I will conclude the whole with one more, & that is our own country-man M. Perkins, a very judicious & godly learned Divine as any that this age hath brought forth, who in a Treatise, proving that a reprobate may in truth be made partaker of all that is contained in the Religion of the Church of Rome, and that a right papist by his Religion cannot go beyond a reprobate, saith thus: To go further, by God's word they which are distant 4. degrees in the transuers equal line, are not forbidden to marry together, as cousin germans: thus the daughters of Zelophehad were married to their fathers brothers sons: This example as I take it, may be a warrant of the lawfulness of this Marriage, howsoever the church of Rome do overthwart the Lord in it. Let me add one thing more, and then I will end. Whereas we are advised by many in this question, to have due consideration of offenses that may arise in making such matches, I would wish also, and desire all those that are contrary minded, to have good consideration of such offenses as may be given by two earnest disprouing the unfitness and inconueniency of such matches, and especially by leaving in doubt and suspense the lawfulness of them, forasmuch as between parties of very good account both in calling and Religion, there have been and are many matches in this Land, of that kind: & that between high and low, rich & poor, noble and unnoble, which have been undertaken and finished by the judgment of the godly and learned, so that it were not hard to produce sundry examples of Emperors, Kings Princes, Dukes, Earls, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, & other of all sorts: which now to bring in question for the offensive conceits of some, were more offensive to the truth, to the Church, to the learned, and to men of all conditions, yea, more dangerous to the state of those parties, and prejudicial to their issue, then any man of judgment or godliness would approve. Thus much of this point, of this chapter, and of this whole book.

The Lord almighty, the author of all number, of whose understanding there is no number, Psal. 147, 5: who hath ordered all things in measure, number, & weight; with whom our days are determined, and the number of our months are set, Job 14, 5: by whose only mercy we have received strength to finish this book of NVMBERS, containing the journeys of the Israelites through the desert, from Mount Sinai unto the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho; and admonishing us of the state of the Church in this life lying under the cross, and at length receiving deliverance from the Ancient of days: grant unto us, that being numbered among the children of GOD, we may have our lot among the Saints, and be in the number of them that are sealed out of all the Tribes of the children of Israel, Revel. 7, 4. and so rest forever in the heavenly Canaan among the souls of just men perfected, and the innumerable company of angels, Heb. 12, 22. Unto him be praise and glory in the Church, Amen.