« PreviousContinue »
CONTENTS OF VOL. II.
"The grand queftion to be tried is
refponfibility, of MEN to WOMEN, and of wo"MEN to MEN, even unto death itself, and this "eftablished by INFINITE WISDOM, is not better "calculated to prevent the ruin of the female fex, with all its horrid confequences, both to "the public and individuals, than a SYSTEM of buman contrivance, where neither obligation nor refponfibility are to be found, either of MEN to WOMEN, or of WOMEN to MEN, in in"ftances of the most important concern to BOTH, "but more especially to the weaker sex ?" See Vol. i. Pref. xxiii, xxiv.
The reader is defired to rectify a mistake, p. 144, relative to the King of Portugal's marrying his niece. The fact is this: there was a double inceft in the royal family of Portugal, which, with the help of papal difpenfations, feems to bid fair for arriving at what was antiently practifed in the royal house of the Prolomies, where Ptolomy Ceraunus married his fifter Arfinoe, as did afterwards Prolomy Philadelphus-(fuch incestuous marriages being allowed in Egypt.-See Ant. Univ. Hist. vol. ix. p. 376, 379.)
The princefs of Brazil, eldest daughter of Don Jofeph the Ift-King of Portugal-married her uncle Don Pedro, her father's brother, anno 1760, fhe being in the twenty-fixth year of her age, and he about forty-three.See Lev. xviii. 14.
Feb. 21, 1777, the prince of Beira, their fon, married the infanta Maria Benedicta, his aunt-i. e. his mother's youngest fifter-fhe being then in her thirty-first year, and be in his fixteenth.-See Lev. xviii. 15.
See Ann. Reg. 1777, Tit. Chronicle, 170-and Tit. Hiftory of Europe, 1778
CHIA P. VÌ
TILL on this fubject, as on all the rest, we must keep the holy Scriptures alone in our view; as the will of GOD, touching this, and all things elfe, is only to be known from the revelation which He hath been pleased to make of it in His WORD.
The first marriage we read of, was between our first parents Adam and Eve, and on that occafion, we find the will of THE MOST HIGH, with refpect to the indiffolubility of the marriage, declared by the mouth of Adam, Gen. ii. 23, 24.—This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; fhe fhall be called WOMAN, becaufe fhe was taken out of MAN. Therefore (or, for this caufe) fhall a man leave his father and mother, and fhall CLEAVE unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. These are not to be VOL. II.
looked upon merely as the words of Adam, but of HIM that made them male and female, declared by Adam. See Matt. xix. 4, 5; where CHRIST quotes this primary law of marriage, and abfolute prohibition of divorce, thus-Have ye not red, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and faid, For this caufe fhall a man leave father and mother, and be joined (poononayoyoεTai) unto his wife, and they twain fhall be one flesh. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 15, 16. The conclufion which CHRIST draws from this institution is as follows-Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flefh: what therefore* GOD hath joined (ovveLevžev, yoked as it were) together, let not man put afunder. By this it appears, that when once a man and woman have become one flesh, they, by this act, though two distinct and independent perfons before, are fo indiffolubly one, in confideration of the divine law, that neither the parties themselves, nor any other perfon, or power upon earth, can put them afunder. It is not by the ordinance of man that they are joined together, but by the ordinance of GOD; therefore OUR SAVIOUR faith, What GOD bath joined together (by pronouncing them
*It is to be obferved, that oUR LORD, in his quotation of the paffage, which contains the primary inftitu tion of the marriage-union, introduces not the least hint, as if some outward ceremony of man's device, was neceffary, either to the perfection or indiffolubility of the contract in God's fight-nor is there fuch a thing to be found in any other part of the Bible.