| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- DonnaAckermann - 30 Oct 2009 | | | Before discussing how the colonial government actually addressed incest, one must first establish that the colonial government had the power to do so, given that Massachusetts was an English colony. In both the Massachusetts Bay Colony Charters (of 1628 and 1691), the English monarchy gave Massachusetts the power to make the laws necessary to protect the public’s welfare, as long as those laws were not in conflict with English law. Although the charters explicitly provided that the colonists could establish necessary laws, the colonists consciously rejected the charter in its modification, repudiation, and additions of practices, procedures, and laws which conflicted with English law. For example, the colonists departed from English law by having the civil government assume jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. Indeed, the King cited the colony’s regulation of religious laws as being in conflict with English law as a reason to revoke the original colonial charter. Thus, although the charter allowed the Massachusetts colony limited power to enact laws, Massachusetts believed it had its own independent power to do as it saw fit.
Notes
:
:
:
:
| |
<
< | The governor of Massachusetts made the colony’s view very clear when he informed Mr. Edward Randolph, a representative of the monarchy, that Massachusetts was not required to follow the laws of England and that the colony, and only the colony, had its own legislative power (derived from the charter) to make laws. Massachusetts believed it had the first, only, and final say on its laws. As a result of that attitude, the colonists established idealistic and practical laws, based on English law and God’s law, that reflected the colony’s holy purpose of serving God.
Notes
:
:
:
| >
> | The governor of Massachusetts clearly articulated the colony’s view when he informed Mr. Edward Randolph, a representative of the monarchy, that Massachusetts was not required to follow the laws of England and that the colony, and only the colony, had its own legislative power (derived from the charter) to make laws. Massachusetts believed it had the first, only, and final say on its laws. As a result of that attitude, the colonists established idealistic and practical laws, based on English law and God’s law, that reflected the colony’s holy purpose of serving God. | | | | |
<
< | English common law, English statutes, and English ecclesiastical law all influenced American law in the Bay Colony, but English law was not adopted outright. On the contrary, the colonists carefully considered and selected the English law they wanted to enact. The colonists had a similar mindset with respect to Biblical law: it served less as binding precedent and more as persuasive authority. But that persuasive authority carried great weight, as ultimately, for a law to be valid, a man-made law had to comply with divine law. The colony’s laws on incest reflect the characteristic influence of both English and Biblical law. As previously discussed, the colonial government was responsible for punishing ecclesiastical crimes, which was also the system employed in England. And the laws on incest in England were based on the prohibitions found in the Bible, all of which influenced the laws that Massachusetts ultimately adopted.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | English common law, English statutes, and English ecclesiastical law all influenced American law in the Bay Colony, but English law was not adopted outright. On the contrary, the colonists carefully considered and selected the English law they wanted to enact. The colonists had a similar mindset with respect to Biblical law: it served less as binding precedent and more as persuasive authority. But that persuasive authority carried great weight, as ultimately, for a law to be valid, a man-made law had to comply with divine law. The colony’s laws on incest reflect the characteristic influence of both English and Biblical law. As previously discussed, the colonial government was responsible for punishing ecclesiastical crimes, which was also the system employed in England. And the laws on incest in England were based on the prohibitions found in the Bible, all of which influenced the laws that the Massachusetts Bay Colony ultimately adopted. | | | | |
<
< | The colonial government based its incest law on the prohibitions included in the Bible, and debate in colonial Massachusetts about the proper incest law was directly attributable to the Bible’s omissions. The Bible includes a prohibition against seeing the nakedness of one’s kin and includes the forbidden degrees. Relationships between first cousins are not explicitly addressed. The Bible addresses marrying one’s wife’s sister, but only to say that it is prohibited to do so while one’s wife is still alive. By not addressing whether first cousins may marry or whether a man may marry his wife’s sister once his wife is dead, the Bible lays the groundwork for the debate that flourished in seventeenth century colonial Massachusetts. Leviticus chapter 20 establishes the appropriate punishments for having a relationship within the forbidden degrees. The death penalty is only appropriate when someone marries his step-mother or daughter-in-law; otherwise, excommunication or remaining childless is the appropriate punishments. In total, the Leviticus chapters provide approximately sixty rules to define and regulate incestuous relationships.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | The colonial government based its incest law on the prohibitions included in the Bible, and debate in colonial Massachusetts about the proper incest law was directly attributable to the Bible’s omissions. The Bible includes a prohibition against seeing the nakedness of one’s kin and includes the forbidden degrees. Relationships between first cousins are not explicitly addressed. The Bible bans relationships of affinity, including marrying one’s wife’s sister but limits the prohibition on marrying one's wife's sister only where one's wife is still alive. By not addressing whether first cousins may marry or whether a man may marry his wife’s sister once his wife is dead, the Bible lays the groundwork for the debate that flourished in seventeenth century colonial Massachusetts. | | | | |
<
< | There were three phases in the development of the law in colonial Massachusetts. At first, the Court of Assistants established colonial law through orders and decisions, making the law the result of judicial process. There are no available cases of incest from this time period. During the second phase of colonial law, there was a concern that the magistrates had too much discretion in making their decisions, and as a result, there was a movement for a written code of laws, transferring power from the judiciary to the legislature. Two main written compilations of laws emerged from this movement, the Body of Liberties of 1641 and the Code of 1648. Neither code includes a prohibition against incestuous marriages. Interestingly, in the first draft of a written code of laws, which was never enacted into law, John Cotton directly drew on the Old Testament and required the death penalty in cases of blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, murder, adultery, sodomy, bestiality, incest and others. One of the reasons given why his draft was never enacted was that “many of its capital provisions were thought too severe.” Upon rejection of Cotton’s draft, Nathaniel Ward’s draft was eventually edited and formatted into 100 laws, referred to as the Body of Liberties. The Body of Liberties includes capital crimes, which directly reference the Old Testament, and were based on Cotton’s original draft. Idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, bestiality, adultery, and more are all included as capital crimes. No mention of incest is made even though it is a capital crime in the Bible, and the Body of Liberties cites the Bible within its text as support for its other capital laws.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | There were three phases in the development of the law in colonial Massachusetts. At first, the Court of Assistants established colonial law through orders and decisions, making the law the result of judicial process. There are no available cases of incest from this time period. During the second phase of colonial law, there was a concern that the magistrates had too much discretion in making their decisions, and as a result, there was a movement for a written code of laws, transferring power from the judiciary to the legislature. Two main written compilations of laws emerged from this movement, the Body of Liberties of 1641 and the Code of 1648. Neither code includes a prohibition against incestuous marriages. Interestingly, in the first draft of a written code of laws, which was never enacted into law, John Cotton directly drew on the Old Testament and required the death penalty in cases of blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, murder, adultery, sodomy, bestiality, incest and others. One of the reasons given why his draft was never enacted was that “many of its capital provisions were thought too severe.” Upon rejection of Cotton’s draft, Nathaniel Ward’s subsequent draft was eventually edited and formatted into 100 laws, referred to as the Body of Liberties. The Body of Liberties included capital crimes, which directly referenced the Old Testament, and were based on Cotton’s original draft. Idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, bestiality, adultery, and more are all included as capital crimes. Incest was not mentioned in the Body of Liberties, even though both the previous draft and the Bible provided capital punishment for incest; the Body of Liberties even cited the Bible within its text as support for its other capital laws.
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | Nor does the Code of 1648 include a prohibition on incestuous marriages. The Code of 1648 is plainly and rationally written so that anyone could understand it; its form resembles a sermon. It was meant to be comprehensive and therefore included the majority of the provisions of the Body of Liberties, those laws passed between 1641 and 1648, as well as new laws. Although the code was comprehensive, it did not claim to establish every law applied in the courts. Indeed, incest was not included in the Code, despite its constant theme of upright and moral conduct.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | Nor does the later written code, the Code of 1648 include a prohibition on incestuous marriages. The Code of 1648 is plainly and rationally written so that anyone could understand it; its form resembles a sermon. It was meant to be comprehensive and therefore included the majority of the provisions of the Body of Liberties, those laws passed between 1641 and 1648, as well as new laws. Incest was not included in the Code, despite the Code's focus on upright and moral conduct. | | | | |
<
< | With respect to punishment, the Code of 1648 follows the principle that the government cannot take someone’s life unless God explicitly allowed for it in the Bible. Therefore, when the code addresses capital crimes, it is not surprising that it cites directly to the Old Testament to provide capital punishment for idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, rape, and more. Even when the Bible allowed for the death penalty, the colonists were sometimes still reluctant to use it and instead provided for more moderate punishments. And when they did allow for the death penalty in law, they did not use it in practice: in reality, there were few convictions under any of the capital laws. What is odd is that incest is not included in the list of capital crimes in the Code of 1648 even though the Bible allows for it, nor is a more moderate punishment included for incest. It is simply not mentioned in the 1648 Code at all.
Notes
:
:
:
:
| >
> | With respect to punishment, the Code of 1648 follows the principle that the government cannot take someone’s life unless God explicitly allowed for it in the Bible. Therefore, when the Code addressed capital crimes, it is not surprising that it cited directly to the Old Testament to provide capital punishment for idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, rape, and more. Even when the Bible allowed for the death penalty, the colonists were sometimes still reluctant to use it and instead provided for more moderate punishments. And when they did allow for the death penalty in law, they did not use it in practice: in reality, there were few convictions under any of the capital laws. What is odd is that incest was not included in the list of capital crimes in the Code of 1648 even though the Bible allows for it, nor is a more moderate punishment included for incest. Incest was simply not mentioned in the 1648 Code at all. | | | | |
<
< | If neither the Body of Liberties nor the Code of 1648 included a law on incest, was incest still prohibited by law? Yes, Massachusetts court decisions and statutes, both influenced by the Bible, addressed incest. On May 13, 1670, the Court of Assistants specifically addressed whether a man might marry his wife’s sister (once his wife is dead) and held that it was unlawful for a man to do so. This decision does not appear to be based on a case, but instead appears to be the court answering a question submitted to it. Two weeks later, on May 31, 1670, there is another court record in which the court addressed a submitted question and held that it was unlawful for a man to marry his first wife’s natural sister. It is unclear if the court soon after addressed the same question, with the same result, or if there was some confusion as to the exact date when the court addressed the issue, as the records come from two different editions of court records. Whether the court addressed the issue twice, or reiterated its original decision, clearly marrying one’s wife sister was considered unlawful. The court never addressed whether marriage with a first cousin was permissible or not.
Notes
:
:
:
| >
> | If neither the Body of Liberties nor the Code of 1648 included a law banning incest, was incest still prohibited by law? Yes, Massachusetts court decisions and statutes, both influenced by the Bible, forbade incest. On May 13, 1670, the Court of Assistants specifically addressed whether a man might marry his wife’s sister (once his wife was dead) and held that it was unlawful for a man to do so. This decision does not appear to be based on a case, but instead appears to be the court answering a question submitted to it. Two weeks later, on May 31, 1670, there is another court record in which the court addressed a submitted question and held that it was unlawful for a man to marry his first wife’s natural sister. As the records come from two different editions of court records, it is unclear if the court twice addressed the same question, with the same result, or if there was some confusion as to the exact date when the court addressed the issue. Whether the court addressed the issue twice, or reiterated its original decision, clearly marrying one’s wife sister was considered unlawful. The court never addressed whether marriage with a first cousin was permissible or not, nor did it explicitly address other relationships of affinity outside of specific cases. | | | | |
<
< | More than twenty years later, in 1692, the General Court or Assembly of Massachusetts Bay Colony passed the first actual statute addressing incest. The statute, “An Act, For the punishing of Capital Offenders,” included incest as one of several felonies that merited capital punishment. Additional capital offenses included in the act are idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, high treason, murder, poisoning, concealment of the death of a bastard child, sodomy, bestiality, rape, arson, and piracy. With respect to incest, the act expressly includes a citation to Leviticus 20:11, 12 in the margin. Incest is the only capital crime where a citation to the Bible is included. The act’s text regarding incest is as follows: “If any Persons commit Incest in any of the particular instances, made capital by the Law of God, they shall be put to Death.” It is interesting that the law not only cites to Leviticus in the margins, but the text of the act itself cites to the Law of God. Clearly, the Bible heavily influenced passing the incest prohibition, as it determined which degrees were forbidden. It is unclear if marriages between first cousins and marriages with a deceased wife’s sister would have been allowed under this statute, as the Biblical text is not explicit with respect to these relationships. However, the issue is moot, as this act never officially became law.
Notes
:
:
,:
:
| >
> | More than twenty years later, in 1692, the General Court or Assembly of Massachusetts Bay Colony passed the first actual statute addressing incest. The statute, “An Act, For the punishing of Capital Offenders,” included incest as one of several felonies that merited capital punishment. Additional capital offenses included in the act were idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, high treason, murder, poisoning, concealment of the death of a bastard child, sodomy, bestiality, rape, arson, and piracy. With respect to incest, the act expressly included a citation in the margin to Leviticus 20:11,12. Incest is the only capital crime in the act where a citation to the Bible is included. The act’s text regarding incest is as follows: “If any Persons commit Incest in any of the particular instances, made capital by the Law of God, they shall be put to Death.” It is interesting that the law not only cited to Leviticus in the margins, but the text of the act itself cited to the Law of God. Evidently, the Bible heavily influenced passing the incest prohibition, as it determined which degrees were forbidden. It is unclear if marriages between first cousins and marriages with a deceased wife’s sister would have been allowed under this statute, as the Biblical text is not explicit with respect to these relationships. However, the issue is moot, as this act never officially became law. | | | | |
<
< | England was displeased with this law because of its use of the death penalty for crimes for which the English did not impose the death penalty. In August 1695, the Court at Whitehall, namely the Lord Justices and Privy Council, addressed several laws that Massachusetts Bay Colony had passed, including “An Act, For the punishing of Capital Offenders.” The Lord Justices, after consulting with His Majesty’s Privy Council, “thought fit to signify Their Disapprobation and Disallowance of” these laws. These laws were therefore “repealed and declared void and of none Effect.” Massachusetts clearly heeded the Privy’s Council disallowance of the Capital Offenders act, as, according to a memorandum included in the copy of repealed acts, the colony, in response to the repealed acts, passed several other acts to address many of the crimes that were included in the Capital Offender Act, including acts to address high treason, murdering bastard children, murder, and rape. The inclusion of this memorandum makes it unclear if the Privy Council approved of these acts or was merely recording that they were passed. While incest is not included in the memorandum, the Massachusetts General Court soon passed an additional statute to specifically address incestuous marriages.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | England was displeased with this law because of its use of the death penalty for crimes for which the English did not impose the death penalty. In August 1695, the Court at Whitehall, namely the Lord Justices and Privy Council, addressed several laws that Massachusetts Bay Colony had passed, including “An Act, For the punishing of Capital Offenders.” The Lord Justices, after consulting with His Majesty’s Privy Council, “thought fit to signify Their Disapprobation and Disallowance of” these laws. These laws were therefore “repealed and declared void and of none Effect.” Massachusetts clearly heeded the Privy’s Council disallowance of the Capital Offenders act, as, according to a memorandum included in the copy of repealed acts, the colony responded to the repealed acts by passing several other acts to address many of the crimes that were included in the Capital Offender Act. For example, the colony passed individual acts to address high treason, murdering bastard children, murder, and rape. The inclusion of this memorandum makes it unclear if the Privy Council approved of these newly passed acts or was merely recording that they were passed. While an act to ban incest is not included in the memorandum of those laws passed in response to the repeal of the Capital Offenders Act, the Massachusetts General Court soon passed an additional statute specifically to address incestuous marriages. | | | | |
<
< | The Great and General Court or Assembly of Massachusetts passed “An Act to prevent Incestuous Marriages” on May 29, 1695. According to the dates of this act and the order repealing the first act, it seems that the repeal (in August 1695) happened after the new incest act was passed (in May 1695). One possible explanation for that is that the repeal of the first act happened earlier but was not officially recorded until after the second act was passed. Howard suggests there was a “Letter from the Privy Council,” which explained why the Capital Offender act was repealed; perhaps that letter arrived earlier. In any event, regardless of the dates, the later act regulating incestuous marriages became the official law of the colony. The act specifically says it will not determine the breadth of the Biblical commandment with respect to incestuous marriages, but that the statute was being enacted to prevent confusion. It then continues to list the prohibited degrees within which a man may not marry, including brother’s wife and wife’s sister. There is no prohibition of first cousins marrying. Any marriage that falls within the included prohibited degrees is void, and all children resulting from such marriages are unable to inherit.
Notes
:
:
:
:
,,:
| >
> | The Great and General Court or Assembly of Massachusetts then passed “An Act to prevent Incestuous Marriages” on May 29, 1695. According to the dates of this act and the order repealing the first act, it seems that the repeal (in August 1695) happened after the new incest act was passed (in May 1695). One possible explanation for that is that time frame the repeal of the first act happened before the second act was passed, but the repeal was not officially recorded until after it was passed. Howard suggests there was a “Letter from the Privy Council,” which explained why the Capital Offender act was repealed; perhaps that letter arrived earlier. In any event, regardless of the dates, the later act regulating incestuous marriages became the official law of the colony. The act specifically refused to determine the breadth of the Biblical commandment with respect to incestuous marriages and served only to prevent confusion. It then listed the prohibited degrees within which a man may not marry, including several relationships of affinity. While the act specifically forbade a man from marrying his brother's wife or his wife's sister, it did not prohibit marriages between first cousins. Any marriage that was within the included prohibited degrees was void, and all children resulting from such marriages were unable to inherit. | | | In contrast to the first act that addressed incest, this | |
<
< | act does not provide the death penalty. Rather, those who are convicted of marrying or having carnal relations within the prohibited degrees will be whipped, forty lashes at the most. All convicted persons will also “for ever after wear a Capital I of two inches long” on the outside of their garments; failure to wear the letter on their clothing subjects them to an additional fifteen lashes. Additionally, those couples whose present marriage is void because of this statute may no longer cohabit together as man and wife.
Notes
:
| >
> | act does not provide the death penalty. Rather, those who are convicted of marrying or having carnal relations within the prohibited degrees were to be whipped, forty lashes at the most. All convicted persons were also “for ever after [to] wear a Capital I of two inches long” on the outside of their garments; failure to wear the letter on their clothing subjected them to an additional fifteen lashes. Finally, those couples whose marriage was void because of this statute could no longer cohabit together as man and wife. | | | | |
<
< | England was satisfied with the later act that specifically addressed incestuous marriages, and it remained in effect throughout the colonial era (and even became the law in New Hampshire and Connecticut, too). On November 24, 1698, at Whitehall, England considered the Massachusetts Colony laws passed between 1694 and 1697, and the Lord Justices of England, after consulting with the King’s Privy Council, approved those acts, probably because the incest statute no longer provided for the death penalty.
So while there was court and legislative support in preventing marriages with one’s deceased wife’s sister, there was no mention of marriages between first cousins.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | England was satisfied with the later act that specifically addressed incestuous marriages, and it remained in effect throughout the colonial era (and even became the law in New Hampshire and Connecticut, too). On November 24, 1698, at Whitehall, England considered the Massachusetts Bay Colony laws passed between 1694 and 1697, and the Lord Justices of England, after consulting with the King’s Privy Council, approved those acts, probably because the incest statute no longer provided for the death penalty. Thus, there was court and legislative support for preventing marriages with one’s deceased wife’s sister, but the court and legislature did not address, or even mention, marriages between first cousins. | | | The third and final phase of colonial law included a return to judge-made law, where judges decided cases based on the written laws. The Court of Assistants, the source of these case records, was established under the authority of the 1628 charter. The Court of Assistants addressed both civil and criminal matters, and, at the beginning, it exercised executive and legislative authority, as well.
Notes
:
| |
<
< | Gradually, the court came to focus solely on judicial actions, forgoing the executive and legislative authority, so that by 1673, the court was only a judicial body. It was the highest court of original jurisdiction for criminal and civil matters that existed in the colony. The Court was governed by English Common Law, customs acquired by those trained in England, the charter limitation that all laws comply with English law, the Bible, the enactments of the General Court, and the advice of Church Elders. Magistrates, the judges who sat on the Court of Assistants, were known less for their extensive legal learning and more for their common sense and experience.
Notes
:
:
,:
:
| >
> | Gradually, the court came to focus solely on judicial actions, forgoing the executive and legislative authority, so that by 1673, the court was only a judicial body. It was the highest court of original jurisdiction for criminal and civil matters that existed in the colony. The Court was governed by English Common Law, customs acquired by those trained in England, the charter limitation that all laws comply with English law, the Bible, the enactments of the General Court, and the advice of Church Elders. | | | Based on these court records, it does not appear that incest was a crime that happened often. For example, in the Massachusetts Court of Assistants records covering 1630 – 1692, every crime that was committed during that time period is included in the index. Incest is not mentioned at all. It appears that there were only three cases involving incest during the relevant time period: Elisabeth and Nicholas Maning, Samuel and Rebekah Newton, and Hannah and Josiah Owen. All three cases pre-date the acts that were passed by the legislature, so the only “law” in effect at the time was the court’s general prohibition against such marriages.
Notes
:
:
| |
<
< | In the first case, from 1683, Elisabeth Maning petitioned for divorce from her husband Nicholas because their marriage was incestuous. The court granted the divorce because Nicholas “was guilty of Incestuous practices with his sisters of which they were convicted and punished.” It is unclear what exactly was incestuous about their marriage. It does not appear that Nicholas and Elisabeth were within a forbidden degree of relationship; rather, it seems that the incest involved was between Nicholas and his sisters. There is no other court record that references Nicholas or his sisters being convicted of incestuous practices. The record states that Nicholas fled the jurisdiction to avoid punishment and had not been financially supporting Elisabeth. He even renounced Elisabeth as his wife – “he will not owne her for his wife or haue any thing to doe with her.” The court therefore granted Elisabeth’s divorce petition. Based on the hazy details of the incest involved in this case, it seems that Nicholas’ incestuous practices were not the main grounds for divorce, but rather, the divorce was granted because he deserted his wife when he fled the jurisdiction to avoid punishment. In a chart delineating cases of divorce in Massachusetts between 1639 and 1692, Howard lists the cause of the Maning’s divorce as being both incest and desertion. It is the only case during this time period where “incest” was the grounds for divorce, as opposed to “affinity,” which is the grounds for divorce in the other two instances. Interestingly, Howard notes that the Maning’s marriage was dissolved, not voided, but if the court had considered incest to be the primary reason for divorce, the marriage should have been voided, as it was in the other two cases.
Notes
:
,,,:
,:
:
| >
> | In the first case, from 1683, Elisabeth Maning petitioned for divorce from her husband Nicholas because their marriage was incestuous. The court granted the divorce because Nicholas “was guilty of Incestuous practices with his sisters of which they were convicted and punished.” It is unclear what exactly was incestuous about their marriage. It does not appear that Nicholas and Elisabeth were within a forbidden degree of relationship; rather, it seems that the incest involved Nicholas and his sisters. There is no other court record that references Nicholas or his sisters being convicted of incestuous practices. The record states that Nicholas fled the jurisdiction to avoid punishment. He had not been financially supporting Elisabeth and even renounced her as his wife – “he will not owne her for his wife or haue any thing to doe with her.” The court therefore granted Elisabeth’s divorce petition. Based on the hazy details of the incest involved in this case, it seems that Nicholas’ incestuous practices were not the main grounds for divorce, but rather, the divorce was granted because he deserted his wife when he fled the jurisdiction to avoid punishment. In a chart delineating cases of divorce in Massachusetts between 1639 and 1692, Howard lists the cause of the Maning’s divorce as being both incest and desertion. It is the only case during this time period where “incest” was the grounds for divorce, as opposed to “affinity,” which is the grounds for divorce in the other two instances. Interestingly, Howard notes that the Maning’s marriage was dissolved, not voided, but if the court had considered incest to be the primary reason for divorce, the marriage should have been voided, as it was in the other two cases. Unfortunately, the court record does not provide enough detail to determine the incestuous relationship involved in the case. | | | | |
<
< | In the next case involving incest, dating to March 17, 1690/1, it appears that the court itself, “being informed,” took action – the record does not seem to be an action (for divorce, e.g.) brought by one party or another. According to the record, Samuel Newton married Rebekah, his late uncle’s widow, and had two children with her. Both Samuel and Rebekah confessed that the account offered was the truth. The court ruled that their marriage was forbidden by the law of England and the laws of God because they were related by affinity. It is interesting that the court did not consider its own 1670 precedent but rather cited to the Law of England and the Laws of God. Since their relationship was incestuous, the court forbade them from living together or acting as husband and wife in the future. The marriage was void. The couple faced “the severest penalty” if they did not comply, although the court did not specify the exact penalty.
Notes
,:
| >
> | In the next case involving incest, dating to March 17, 1690/1, it appears that the court itself, “being informed,” took action – the record does not seem to be an action (for divorce, e.g.) brought by one party or another. According to the record, Samuel Newton married Rebekah, his late uncle’s widow, and had two children with her. Both Samuel and Rebekah confessed that the account offered was the truth. The court ruled that their marriage was forbidden by the law of England and the laws of God because they were related by affinity. The court did not cite its own [http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/pub/AmLegalHist/IncestInMass/Ct_Records,_Vol_3.pdf 1670 precedent]] that a man may not marry his deceased wife's sister, probably because this case involved a different relationships of affinity; instead the court cited the Law of England and the Laws of God. Since their relationship was incestuous, the court forbade them from living together or acting as husband and wife in the future. The marriage was void. The couple faced “the severest penalty” if they did not comply, although the court did not specify the exact penalty. | | | | |
<
< | Finally, in the case of Hannah Owen, also from 1691, the court again voided the marriage because of the relationship of affinity between the couple. On Christmas Day, Hannah Owen was sent to prison in Boston for marrying Josiah Owen, her dead husband’s brother. She appeared and confessed to be Josiah’s brother’s widow. Because that relationship is forbidden by “the Word of God & Statutes of England,” the court held that she and Josiah are no longer allowed to cohabit or be considered man and wife. She is also required to “make a publick [sic] acknowledgement of her sin & evil before the Congregation.” Their marriage is thus voided.
Notes
:
,,:
| >
> | Finally, in the case of Hannah Owen, also from 1691, the court again voided the marriage because of the relationship of affinity between the couple. On Christmas Day, Hannah Owen was sent to prison in Boston for marrying Josiah Owen, her dead husband’s brother. She appeared and confessed to be Josiah’s brother’s widow. Because that relationship was forbidden by “the Word of God & Statutes of England,” the court held that she and Josiah were no longer allowed to cohabit or be considered man and wife. She was also required to “make a publick [sic] acknowledgement of her sin & evil before the Congregation.” Their marriage was thus voided. | | | | |
<
< | It is interesting that the court again did not cite its earlier answer from 1670 but instead relied on the Word of God and English law. Also, it is particularly noteworthy that the Puritans strictly interpreted the Word of God to prohibit a relationship that the Bible actually sanctioned. While uncovering the nakedness of one’s brother’s wife is prohibited, and will result in being childless, once the man has died and has left behind a childless widow, it is actually required that his brother marry her. There seems to be a distinction, arguably applicable to a wife’s sister as well, between those spouses who are alive and those who are deceased.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | Again, the court did not cite its earlier answer from 1670 but instead relied on the Word of God and English law, as its 1670 precedent does not address this relationship of affinity either. Furthermore, although the court cited the laws of God as justification for voiding the Owens' marriage, technically the court was strictly interpreting the Word of God to prohibit a relationship that the Bible actually sanctioned. While uncovering the nakedness of one’s brother’s wife is prohibited, and will result in being childless, once the man has died and has left behind a childless widow, it is actually required that his brother marry her. There seems to be a distinction in the Bible, arguably applicable to a wife’s sister as well, between those spouses who are alive and those who are deceased. | | | | |
<
< | A man marrying his dead brother’s wife is the same degree of relationship as a woman marrying her dead husband’s brother, but the 1695 (future) statute does not expressly prohibit a woman from marrying her husband’s brother as the statute covers whom men, not women, may marry. According to Owen’s case, marrying one’s husband’s brother was already unlawful in 1691 even though it was not expressly recognized four years later. It is confusing that Hannah Owen was the one brought before the court to be punished, when the future incest statute addresses whom men may or may not marry, and the issue of that era was whether men could marry their wife’s sister. That Hannah should be punished for her crime was common, but generally both men and women were punished for incestuous marriages. There is no mention of Josiah Owen ever being brought before court and sent to jail for marrying his dead brother’s wife, which was a degree of affinity determined to be unlawful in both the 1670 inquiry and the future 1695 statute.
Notes
:
:
:
| >
> | A man marrying his dead brother’s wife is the same degree of relationship as a woman marrying her dead husband’s brother, but the 1695 (future) statute does not expressly prohibit a woman from marrying her husband’s brother as the statute covers whom men, not women, may marry. According to Owen’s case, marrying one’s husband’s brother was already unlawful in 1691 even though it was not expressly recognized four years later nor was it specifically considered unlawful in 1670. | | | | |
<
< | From the court records of the colonial government and the acts passed by the colonial legislature, there emerges a consensus that a man marrying his deceased wife’s sister was not allowed. As early as 1670, the colonial government addressed these incestuous marriages and deemed them unlawful. While there was some debate as to the appropriate punishment for such marriages, ultimately, the colonial legislature determined that corporal, not capital, punishment was appropriate, in addition to the restriction on future cohabitation. The civil government never addressed marriage between first cousins, thus presumably making them lawful. The church, which was very active during this time period, had similar views of marriage between a man and his dead wife’s sister, but also believed first cousins should not marry. The church’s views undoubtedly influenced the civil government in formulating the colony’s laws and in deciding cases.
Notes
:
| >
> | It is confusing that Hannah Owen was the one brought before the court to be punished, when the future incest statute addresses whom men may or may not marry, and the issue of that era was whether men could marry their wife’s sister. That Hannah should be punished for her crime was common, but generally both men and women were punished for incestuous marriages. There is no mention of Josiah Owen ever being brought before court and sent to jail for marrying his dead brother’s wife, even though Hannah was sent to jail for marrying her dead husband's brother.
From the court records of the colonial government and the acts passed by the colonial legislature, a consensus emerges that it was unlawful for a man to marry a woman to whom he was related by affinity. As early as 1670, the colonial government addressed one such relationship, i.e. whether a man could marry his dead wife's sister, and deemed them unlawful. The court records and statutes also demonstrate that other relationships of affinity were prohibited in marriage, including marriage between a man and his dead uncle's widow as well as a marriage between a woman and her dead husband's brother. The civil government never addressed marriage between first cousins, thus presumably making them lawful. While there was some debate as to the appropriate punishment for incestuous marriages, ultimately, the colonial legislature determined that corporal, not capital, punishment was appropriate, in addition to the restriction on future cohabitation. The church, which was very influential during this time period, had similar views opposing marriage within relationships of affinity but further believed first cousins should not marry. The church’s views undoubtedly influenced the civil government in formulating the colony’s laws and in deciding cases, although the church's influence was limited to the extent that the colonial government never addressed marriage between first cousins. | | |
III. The Church’s View of Incest | |
<
< | While the colonial government had the power to address incestuous marriages, because the church played such a prominent role in society, ministers and religious figures also did not hesitate to contribute their opinion to the debate. And because the Bible was ambiguous, and perhaps because incest was not included in either of the written codes, there seemed to be some question as to whether incest—including both marriage with a first cousin and marriage with a deceased wife’s sister—was prohibited. Increase and his son Cotton Mather were both ministers who believed that both forms of incestuous marriages should be prohibited. Samuel Sewall, a devout Puritan who was also a judge, also believed such marriages should be prohibited. Sewall kept a diary and wrote letters that have since been published and serve a useful historical purpose. Apparently, it was common for Puritans to keep diaries as a way to keep their souls in check. They would record acts of faith in order to prove to themselves that they were holy; they would also record lapses in faith—along with asking for forgiveness and repentance—to further prove their holiness. Sewall’s diary is unique, however, because of the abundance of material he provides during fifty-five years, 1674-1729. (There is a seven-year gap in his diary because of a lost volume from 1677 to 1684.) He discusses the people, their clothes, religion, government, special events (including weddings and funerals), as well as the colonial daily routine. By doing so, Sewall provides a glimpse into the social history of colonial Massachusetts, with a friendly, devout, and sincere tone.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | While the colonial government had the power to address incestuous marriages, because the church played such a prominent role in society, ministers and religious figures did not hesitate to contribute their opinion to the debate as well. And perhaps because the Bible was ambiguous, incest was not included in either of the written codes, and there was no valid incest statute until 1695, there seemed to be some question as to whether incest was prohibited, and if it was, what relationships were forbidden. Samuel Sewall, a devout Puritan who was also a judge, believed marriages based on affinity and those based on the relationship of first cousin should be prohibited. Sewall kept a diary and wrote letters that have since been published and serve a useful historical purpose; his diary is particularly helpful because of the abundance of material he provides during fifty-five years, 1674-1729. He discusses the people, their clothes, religion, government, special events (including weddings and funerals), as well as the colonial daily routine. By doing so, Sewall provides a glimpse into the social history of colonial Massachusetts, with a friendly, devout, and sincere tone.
Notes
:
:
| | | Because Sewall’s diary and letters are such helpful sources in addressing incest, it is necessary to give some background information on who Samuel Sewall was. Born in England in 1652, he came to Newbury, Massachusetts, at the age of twelve and entered Harvard College only three years later. After graduating from Harvard in 1671, he soon married Hannah Hull, daughter of John Hull. John Hull, the treasurer of Massachusetts who coined the New England shillings, helped launch Samuel Sewall’s career as a merchant and a judge.
Notes
:
:
:
| |
<
< | At the age of twenty-five, in 1677, Sewall became a member of the Old South Church of Boston, of which his father-in-law had been a founder. Sewall was made a freeman a year later. To even qualify for church membership was an impressive accomplishment. There was a specific procedure involved in being admitted as a church member. The candidate had to demonstrate his sainthood, by publicly confessing his sins and professing his faith, and the church elders reviewed his life and his experiences. It was not about the candidate’s actions but about his state of mind. The church elders needed to determine if the candidate had received the word of God and been converted. A church was exclusive in its membership; only visible saints were allowed as members. Thus, becoming a member of a church and a freeman helped to solidify Sewall’s role as a religious leader of the colony.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | At the age of twenty-five, in 1677, Sewall became a member of the Old South Church of Boston, of which his father-in-law had been a founder. Sewall was made a freeman a year later. To even qualify for church membership was an impressive accomplishment. There was a specific procedure involved in being admitted as a church member. The candidate had to demonstrate his sainthood, by publicly confessing his sins and professing his faith, and the church elders reviewed his life and his experiences. It was not about the candidate’s actions but about his state of mind. The church elders needed to determine if the candidate had received the word of God and been converted. A church was exclusive in its membership; only visible saints were allowed as members. Thus, becoming a member of a church and becoming a freeman helped to solidify Sewall’s role as a religious leader of the colony. | | | At the age of thirty one, Sewall became a deputy – a member of the colonial legislature – representing Hampden County. Sewall was an active businessman, and at one point, he managed the Boston Printing Press. He was later appointed Judge of the Superior Court, of Probate, and, at the age of sixty-six in 1718, he was appointed as Chief Justice of the Superior Court. As a Superior Court Judge, he traveled to court sessions in Plymouth, Springfield, Bristol, and Ipswich. By traveling so often, Sewall was aware of local news and traditions beyond Boston, and his familiarity with many Massachusetts towns makes his diaries even more valuable. At the age of seventy- six, after forty years on the bench, he resigned as Chief Justice of the Superior Court and Judge of Probate. He died in 1730 at the age of seventy-eight and was buried in the Sewall/Hull Tomb in the Granary Burying Ground in Boston.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
| |
<
< | While Sewall is best known either for his judicial role in the Salem Witch Trials or for his 1700 anti-slavery work, The Selling of Joseph, his writings about incestuous marriages are helpful to determine and analyze the opinion of those who were educated and religious in colonial Massachusetts. While Sewall is technically a judge (on the Superior Court, not the Court of Assistants), his personal diaries do not reflect court precedent or colonial law; rather, they reflect the views of a devout Puritan, who prayed regularly and had private fast days. In fact, he often acted like a minister, visiting the old and the sick to pray with them. While Sewall served as a Superior Court Judge, his personal religious practices demonstrated that he was qualified to represent the Puritan point of view, and I therefore rely on Sewall’s personal writings to illustrate the church’s opinion of incestuous marriages. Additionally, his judicial background only makes Sewall’s writings all the more helpful because he was educated in the law and certainly familiar with the laws governing the colony.
In addition to Sewall, both Increase Mather and his son Cotton Mather viewed first cousin and deceased wife’s sister marriages as unlawful. Increase and Cotton Mather were both well-known, Harvard-educated ministers. Both suffered from physical ailments during their lives, which may have contributed to their moody dispositions. Increase was born in 1639, married in 1662 to Maria Cotton, and died in 1723. Cotton was born in 1663, married three times, was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by the University of Glasgow in 1710, and died in 1728 at the age of sixty-five. During his life, Cotton Mather had a personal library of about 2000 books, and he himself published about 388 works. One of his most famous works was the Magnalia Christi Americana, which details the history of New England in about eight hundred pages. Published in 1702, the Magnalia was based on many sources, including diaries, letters, manuscript histories, interviews, and sermons.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | While Sewall is best known either for his judicial role in the Salem Witch Trials or for his 1700 anti-slavery work, The Selling of Joseph, his writings about incestuous marriages illustrate the opinion of those who were educated and religious in colonial Massachusetts. While Sewall was technically a judge (on the Superior Court, not the Court of Assistants), his personal diaries do not reflect court precedent or colonial law; rather, they reflect the views of a devout Puritan, who prayed regularly and had private fast days. In fact, he often acted like a minister, visiting the old and the sick to pray with them. Thus, despite Sewall's judicial profession, his personal religious practices demonstrate his qualifications to represent the Puritan point of view, and I therefore rely on Sewall’s personal writings to illustrate the church’s opinion of incestuous marriages. If anything, his judicial background only makes his writings all the more insightful because he was educated in the law and certainly familiar with the laws governing the colony. | | | | |
<
< | Sewall and the Mathers knew each other and were close friends. In fact, Sewall served as a pallbearer at Increase’s funeral. Sewall often refers to the Mathers in his diary and considered Cotton Mather’s visit to be an honor. One diary entry, that of April 13, 1711, illustrates the extent to which Cotton Mather and Sewall not only were friends but were also colleagues who shared the same view on incestuous marriages. According to the diary entry, Cotton Mather visited Sewall, and Sewall returned Mather’s book after copying the Case of Conscience against a man’s marrying his brother’s sister (which is discussed below). While the entry dates to shortly after the relevant period of inquiry, it is useful to cite the diary entry for proof that Cotton Mather and Sewall clearly relied on each other for support in their beliefs and even for actual sources. It even appears that Sewall and Cotton Mather were working together to an extent to ban incestuous marriages. In Sewall’s entry from June 14, 1695, he discusses a conversation he had with Cotton Mather in the past, “that if we could pass the Law against Incest, might help to finish our Testimony.” Evidently, Sewall and Cotton Mather were united in their beliefs and discussed those beliefs with each other.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | In addition to Sewall, both Increase Mather and his son Cotton Mather viewed marriages within a relationship of affinity and marriages between first cousins as unlawful. Increase and Cotton Mather were both well-known, Harvard-educated ministers. Increase was born in 1639, married in 1662 to Maria Cotton, and died in 1723. His comprehensive work, The Answer of Several Ministers in and near Boston, to that Case of Conscience, Whether it is Lawful for a Man to Marry his Wives Own Sister? illustrates the church's consensus as to one relationship of affinity, namely whether a man can marry his dead wife's sister. His son Cotton was himself a minister who signed the Answer. | | | | |
>
> | Cotton was born in 1663, married three times, was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by the University of Glasgow in 1710, and died in 1728 at the age of sixty-five. During his life, Cotton Mather had a personal library of about 2000 books, and he himself published about 388 works. In addition to being part of Increase's Answer, one of Cotton's most famous works was the Magnalia Christi Americana, which details the history of New England in about eight hundred pages. Published in 1702, the Magnalia was based on many sources, including diaries, letters, manuscript histories, interviews, and sermons. | | | | |
<
< | a. Church's View of Marriage between First Cousins | >
> | b. Church's View of Marriage between First Cousins | | | | |
<
< | In his “Propositions Concerning the Marriage of Cousin-Germans,” published as part of the Magnalia Christi Americana, Cotton Mather discussed his views on Cousin-Germans—first cousins—marrying each other. Mather recognized that the Bible did not prohibit first cousins from marrying but still opposed such marriages, based on Biblical principles. He believed that the degree of consanguinity considered to create an unlawful marriage is based on the positive moral law of God. Therefore, he felt that a marriage between first cousins “may be very inexpedient; it borders as near as is possible to what is unlawful. There is no need of coming so near, while we have such a wide world before us.” Drawing on how historical religious figures in the past viewed marriage between first cousins, Mather therefore recommended that the best way to proceed was to abstain from marrying one’s cousin. In addition to the unlawful Biblical aspect of first cousins marrying, Mather also recognized the more practical consequence of first cousins marrying each other, namely that a main goal of marriage, to promote and extend alliances, would not be achieved.
Notes
:
:
,,,:
| >
> | Where the church and colonial government seemed to have differed was regarding whether marriages between first cousins were allowed. While the colonial government never expressly addressed the issue, presumably making these marriages lawful, the church not only explicitly addressed the issue but was adamant that such unions were wrong. In his “Propositions Concerning the Marriage of Cousin-Germans,” published as part of the Magnalia Christi Americana, Cotton Mather discussed his views on Cousin-Germans—first cousins—marrying each other. Mather recognized that the Bible did not prohibit first cousins from marrying but still opposed such marriages, based on Biblical principles. He believed that the degree of consanguinity considered to create an unlawful marriage was based on the positive moral law of God. Therefore, he felt that a marriage between first cousins “may be very inexpedient; it borders as near as is possible to what is unlawful. There is no need of coming so near, while we have such a wide world before us.” Drawing on how historical religious figures in the past viewed marriage between first cousins, Mather therefore recommended that the best way to proceed was to abstain from marrying one’s cousin. In addition to the unlawful Biblical aspect of first cousins marrying, Mather also recognized the more practical consequence of such marriages, namely that a main goal of marriage, to promote and extend alliances, would not be achieved. | | | | |
<
< | Sewall shared in Cotton Mather’s opinion that it was not recommended that first cousins marry each other, and Sewall seemed to go a step further, viewing first cousin marriages as actually being unlawful according to the Bible. Sewall’s logic was that “if the Scripture Reckons Grandfathers, Fathers: the Scripture likewise Reckons Cousin Germans among Brothers and Sisters, and so uncapable of Intermarriage.” Sewall unequivocally believed that “[d]egrees of Consanguinity and Affinity do equally affect Marriage,” and therefore, in a letter dated February 23, 1703/4, to his nephew John Sewall, Sewall attempted to prevent his nephew from marrying the widow of his first cousin: “who can think it a comly and pleasant Sight for a Grandfather to see his own Children joined together in Marriage? Who can think it prudent and profitable for Cousin Germans to seek a Marriage-Union?” (It also appears that Sewall re-sent this letter in 1708, but the circumstances are unclear.) As there were so many other lawful choices available, Sewall, as Mather did, advised that cousins should do that which is safe and honorable, namely they should refrain from marrying each other. Sewall compared marriage to land ownership in order to clarify his position. As Sewall explained, when a man buys land, he makes sure that he has the clear title to the land. “Much more ought a man to be concernd, to chuse such a Woman to be his wife, to whom he may have a good, clear, indisputable Title, without the least Flaw or Appearance of it.” It is unclear whether his cousin heeded his advice or not.
Notes
:
,,,:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | Sewall shared in Cotton Mather’s opinion that it was not recommended that first cousins marry each other, as Sewall saw first cousins marrying each other as being the same as marrying a dead wife’s sister: “it is not easy to conceive how a man marrying his Sister, should be a Capital crime; and yet the Marriage of Cousins Germans should be blameless and Commendable, whereas they make the very next Relation of equal degree.” Therefore, Sewall did not distinguish between the different forms of marriage; he treated all blood and affinity relationships the same, in that they all make the marriage wrong in God's eyes. Sewall seemed to go a step further than Cotton Mather by viewing first cousin marriages not only as being doubtful but also as being actually prohibited by the Bible. Sewall’s logic was that “if the Scripture Reckons Grandfathers, Fathers: the Scripture likewise Reckons Cousin Germans among Brothers and Sisters, and so uncapable of Intermarriage.” Sewall unequivocally believed that “[d]egrees of Consanguinity and Affinity do equally affect Marriage,” and therefore, in a letter dated February 23, 1703/4, to his nephew John Sewall, Sewall attempted to prevent his nephew from marrying the widow of his first cousin: “who can think it a comly and pleasant Sight for a Grandfather to see his own Children joined together in Marriage? Who can think it prudent and profitable for Cousin Germans to seek a Marriage-Union?” (It also appears that Sewall re-sent this letter in 1708, but the circumstances are unclear.) As there were so many other lawful choices available, Sewall, as Mather did, advised that cousins should do that which is safe and honorable, namely they should refrain from marrying each other. Sewall compared marriage to land ownership in order to clarify his position. As Sewall explained, when a man buys land, he makes sure that he has the clear title to the land. “Much more ought a man to be concernd, to chuse such a Woman to be his wife, to whom he may have a good, clear, indisputable Title, without the least Flaw or Appearance of it.” It is unclear whether his cousin heeded his advice or not.
Notes
:
| | |
In Sewall’s opinion, the Roman Catholic Church was too restrictive in forbidding marriage between cousins, but English law was too permissive. The Roman Catholic Church prohibited marriage between first, second, and third cousins. In Sewall’s opinion, Pope Gregory discouraged first cousins marrying, but subsequent popes outright banned those marriages in order to profit from the dispensations that people would need to obtain before marrying a first cousin. English law, on the other hand, permitted marriage between first cousins. What appears in Sewall’s letter book as a “Memoranda,” wherein he “transcribes the following passage out of Dr. Fuller’s Engl. Worthies of London, p. 202,” seems to be included almost to bolster Sewall’s own opinions. Fuller’s passage suggests that the English Parliament passed a statute approving of the marriage between first cousins because of the relationship between King Henry and Katharine Howard (as Katharine was first cousin to Anne Boleyn.) A month after the statute permitting first cousins to marry was passed, Katharine Howard became queen. Sewall believed that Queen Katharine’s subsequent execution was evidence that marrying first cousins should not be allowed.
Notes
,:
:
,:
:
:
:
| | | b. Church’s View of Marriage between a Man and his deceased Wife’s Sister | |
<
< | Sewall sees first cousins marrying as being the same as marrying a dead wife’s sister: “it is not easy to conceive how a man marrying his Sister, should be a Capital crime; and yet the Marriage of Cousins Germans should be blameless and Commendable, whereas they make the very next Relation of equal degree.” Therefore, Sewall saw both forms of marriages to be incestuous. Sewall’s letter to Mrs. Pease illustrates his view on marriage between a man and his dead wife’s sister. In Mrs. Pease’s case, her first and second husbands both died, and now the brother of her first husband, Samuel Cranston, wants to marry her. In a letter to Mrs. Judith Pease, dated March 19, 1710/11, Samuel Sewall forbids Mrs. Pease from marrying her dead first husband’s brother because it violates the law of England and of God. Sewall rests the prohibition on Leviticus 18:16, which states that one should not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife. As Sewall understands it, if Mrs. Pease was once the wife of his brother, she is always the wife of his brother. Mrs. Pease’s daughters from her first marriage are evidence that she and Samuel Cranston are kin, since he is still their uncle even though her first husband, Samuel’s brother, has died. In his letter, Sewall refers to the case of Governor Blake, governor of South Carolina, to support his position. Apparently, although no corresponding letter is mentioned, fifteen years prior to Mrs. Pease’s situation, Governor Blake wanted to marry his wife’s sister, sought advice on the matter, learned that it was prohibited, and did not marry her. It is unclear from this letter if Mrs. Pease heeded Sewall’s advice or not.
Notes
:
:
:
,,,:
:
| >
> | Sewall’s letter to Mrs. Pease illustrates his view on marriage between a man and his dead wife’s sister. In Mrs. Pease’s case, her first and second husbands both died, and now the brother of her first husband, Samuel Cranston, wants to marry her. In a letter to Mrs. Judith Pease, dated March 19, 1710/11, Samuel Sewall forbids Mrs. Pease from marrying her dead first husband’s brother because it violates the law of England and of God. Sewall rests the prohibition on Leviticus 18:16, which states that one should not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife. As Sewall understands it, if Mrs. Pease was once the wife of his brother, she is always the wife of his brother. Mrs. Pease’s daughters from her first marriage are evidence that she and Samuel Cranston are kin, since he is still their uncle even though her first husband, Samuel’s brother, has died. In his letter, Sewall refers to the case of Governor Blake, governor of South Carolina, to support his position. Apparently, although no corresponding letter is mentioned, fifteen years prior to Mrs. Pease’s situation, Governor Blake wanted to marry his wife’s sister, sought advice on the matter, learned that it was prohibited, and did not marry her. It is unclear from this letter if Mrs. Pease heeded Sewall’s advice or not. | | | In his Magnalia Christi Americana, Cotton Mather specifically addresses whether it is lawful for a man to marry his wife’s sister. Mather relies on the Bible to support his view that marriage between a man and his wife’s sister is prohibited. His reasoning is that a man and his wife’s sister are related within the first degree of affinity and therefore unlawful. According to Mather, whatever degree of affinity exists between a person and a man, that same degree of affinity exists between a person and the man’s wife. “Puritans believed that relations by marriage deserved equal recognition with those by birth, because they understood literally the Biblical dictum that man and wife are one flesh.” It was not uncommon in colonial Massachusetts for people to marry two or three times, and in fact, both Sewall and Cotton Mather each married thrice. But a man’s remarriage did not end his relationships with his first wife’s relatives – they were still considered his kin. Therefore, Mather reasons, if a man is forbidden to marry his own kin, he is also forbidden from marrying his wife’s kin.
Notes
:
:
,:
:
:
:
:
| | |
The ministers cite as the third reason the practices of other nations that have condemned these marriages. Greeks and Romans, who did not even have the Bible to rely upon, banned such marriages, as did Jewish and Christian nations. Furthermore, England itself has prohibited such marriages. The fourth reason is that well-educated, learned, holy men—both in the past in other places and in the present within this nation—agree that such marriages are unlawful. European universities also condemned such a practice.
Notes
:
,,:
:
| |
<
< | Finally, the ministers feared the repercussions of such marriages. The Bible refers to these marriages as “wickedness” and “abomination;” these marriages provoke God to “send enemies upon a People, and to make their Land desolate.” If, after hearing the ministers’ opinion about these marriages, people continue to marry as such, “We may fear what God will do.” Such marriages are a practice for which God punished the Heathen Nations, and “it is a burning Shame, that ever it should be heard of in such a Land of Uprightness as New England once was and ever ought to be.” New England was held to a very high standard, and these marriages were simply inappropriate for such an enlightened place. The “Answer” was so influential that it “led directly to the passage of the celebrated law against incestuous marriages” of May 1695. Clearly, the church and colony government were aware of each other’s views and acted in harmony.
Notes
:
:
:
| >
> | Finally, the ministers feared the repercussions of such marriages. The Bible refers to these marriages as “wickedness” and “abomination;” these marriages provoke God to “send enemies upon a People, and to make their Land desolate.” If, after hearing the ministers’ opinion about these marriages, people continue to marry as such, “We may fear what God will do.” Such marriages are a practice for which God punished the Heathen Nations, and “it is a burning Shame, that ever it should be heard of in such a Land of Uprightness as New England once was and ever ought to be.” New England was held to a very high standard, and these marriages were simply inappropriate for such an enlightened place. The “Answer” was so influential that it “led directly to the passage of the celebrated law against incestuous marriages” of May 1695. Clearly, the church and colony government were aware of each other’s views and acted in harmony. While Sewall did not sign Increase's Answer--he was technically not a minister afterall--he was aware of its existence, and according to his April 13, 1711 diary entry, he even borrowed Cotton's book to copy its text. While the entry dates to shortly after the relevant period of inquiry for this essay, it is useful to cite the diary entry for proof that Cotton Mather and Sewall relied on each other for support in their beliefs and for actual source material. Evidently, Sewall and Cotton Mather were united in their beliefs and discussed those beliefs with each other.
Notes
:
| | | i. When Church Comments on Civil Government’s Actions |
|