LITTLE NON-SUCH: OR, Certain new Questions Moved out of ANCIENT TRUTHS.  
I. Concerning the words, Let us make man after our own Image.  
II. Whether that was a material Apple which Adam did eat.  
III. Whether the forbidding of marriage be not a Popish injunction only, and not rightly grounded from the Scripture.  
Newly published with intent to find out the truth, if it be not here already.  Magna est veritas & prevalent. 
London, Printed for H. P. 1646.   

Advertisement.  
IF any will prejudicated, or have not patience to examine a truth, how long soever concealed or obscured; or if he be fantastical and will laugh at his shadow, not discerning from whence it proceeds, let him put a part this serious (though little) discourse; it is intended for better judgements.  
Since these late eruptions in Church and State the minds of men are become much distracted; and no marvel, seeing the various opinions concerning civil Government in the first place, whether Monarkia, Aristocratia, or neither but a mixed; and some perhaps affecting Oligarchia, which is the worst. Then as touching the rents in the Church, what shall suffice to be said? since many both grave and learned Divines do avouch, that all the heresies fomented at several times, informer ages, and condemned by several Counsels, are now extant, attended with as many more; and how shall it be otherways? when both Fathers and Counsels are derided and contemned (without control) by the very offscouring of the people; yea, even such as settled and confirmed our Christian faith (by refuting errors and heresies the first 400 years) which till now the Christian world hath received for Orthodox: yet is it no wonder to see the Scripture abused and misinterpreted by every Mechanic, mis-applying the sense to their fantastic humours; seeing there was never heresy broached, but came with verbum Dei Scripture in the mouth: the devil himself could find no fit way to vent his impostury, when he came to tempt our Saviour. Although it may be doubted whether or no there be any thing new, that never was; for nihil dictum quod non dictum prius, nothing said that was not said before; yet many matters are daily opened, which have been shut up and clouded by the Romish Church since the time of Phocas the Emperor when that Hierarchy begun to usurp upon the rest: And likewise many errors and heresies that seem to be new are but the same in substance, they were in former times, yet perhaps with some additions as absurd as the principal. Now to reduce the Primitive purity will be a work too hard for man's capacity; it must be God only in his good time, who for our pride, vainglory, hypocrisy, and perhaps infidelity, hath suffered us to fall into these fractions and distempers. But in the mean time if some grave and learned man will a little trouble himself to resolve a few following questions, it may give comfort to weak consciences that are in doubt, and perchance afflicted.  
And herein we detest to be curiously inquisitive in things not necessary, but only covet the health of our souls, and the bettering of our understandings.   

BEginning then with the first Book of Moses called 
* Ch. 7. v. 26.  Genesis. And God said, Let us make man after our likeness, V 27. in the Image of God created he him, male and female created, etc. Some then (seeing the shape and form that man bears in his personal appearance) do conceive, that God the Creator beareth the same form in shape and person: some others say, this Image is meant, in the likeness to our maker in soul and spirit; and therefore blame them that imagine, or set him forth in the likeness of any humane shape: To that is answered again, that the Text formerly cited cannot be meant of soul and spirit, because at that time man was not a living soul; for proof they say that God finished his work in six days, whereof the making of man was part, and rested the 
* Ch. 2. v. 3.  seventh, and hallowed it: but after the seventh day he breathed life into man, and made him a living soul, Chap. 2. v. 7. Therefore he was made according to the likeness of God in personal shape, because at his first making he was not a living soul, till after God had rested the seventh day, and then breathed life into him, as is formerly proved: And long after his transgression, God said 
* Ch. 3. v. 22.  the man is become like one of us; so it seems at first he had not a spiritual understanding: It is likewise said, God shown unto Moses his back parts, but his face should not be seen 
* Exod. 33.23. ; therefore if he have back parts, and a face, he hath a shape, which when he pleaseth he can make visible, as than he did. And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend 
* Ch. 33. v. 7. : Moreover what were the three men that appeared to Abraham as he sat in the tent? if not the Trinity 
* Ch. 18. v. 2.  which did afterwards eat of the Cake that Sara made, and the Calf which Abraham fetched from the fold, as appears, v. 8. Now though it is, and must be acknowledged, that God is so infinite in wisdom and power, that therein he cannot be circumscribed nor comprehended; yet (say some) that doth not hinder a personal shape or proportion: But some others (notwithstanding those plain seeming proofs, do not allow that God hath any bodily shape at all; which if it be so resolved, and these things reconciled, to better proofs and reasons out of Scripture by one that is wise and learned it will satisfy.  
THe second question ariseth out of Genesis. And the Lord 
* Gen. 2.16, 17  said, of every Tree of the garden thou mayst eat, but of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Now some make a question whether it were a material Apple that Adam did eat at the instance of his wife Eue. And if the question be of the Species, it may well be doubted, for it doth not appear in the Text to be an Apple more than a Fig, or other Fruit; only in general terms it is called the fruit of the 
* Ch. 3. v. 2, 3.  Tree in the midst of the Garden: But I suppose the question is not of the Species, but whether it were a material fruit, and so to be understood in literal sense. It seems it should be so understood in the sixth verse, When the woman saw the tree was good for food, and to be desired to make one wise, she did eat, and gave unto her husband, etc. What can be plainer for a literal construction? yet some will have the whole matter to be an Allegory; and understand by the Serpent in this place no other than concupiscence, and by the fruit of the Tree in the midst of the Garden, some other thing then the eating of a material Apple, because of some other words in the story that seems to carry a spiritual sense, as vers. 15. I will put enmity betwixt thy seed and the woman's seed; shall this be understood of the old serpent the Devil? we suppose that he and his Angels were cast out of Heaven before the creation of man; but in this Chapter the Serpent here is expressly called a beast of the field. But if by this beast 
Vers. 1.  you will understand concupiscence, it may perhaps in a spiritual sense be said to be the seed of the Devil, because it works in the flesh by his instigation. The day thou eatest thereof, saith the Lord, thou shalt surely 
* Ch. 2. v. 17.  die. And the Serpent said, ye shall not surely die, Chap. 3. v. 4. Now we see in the verses following, they did not die the day they did eat, but had mulcts, and punishments threatened, as the Serpent to go on his belly, and lick the dust; the woman to bring forth children in sorrow; the man to get his living by the sweat of his brow, the earth to be cursed, etc. And Chap. 3. v. 22, 23. Lest he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life, and live forever. Therefore the Lord God sent them forth of the Garden, etc. This seems also to have some other sense, for we are not taught to live for ever by carnal eating. Resolve if you please the doubt of this question with the former.  
THe next question is of marriage, Genesis 
* Ch. 2. v. 18. . And the Lord God said it is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a help meet for him. verse. 21, 22. God took one of Adam's ribs, made a woman, and brought her unto him, v 23. Adam said, this is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, which is one flesh, v. 24. How comes it then that there are forbidden degrees in marriage? or is it not so in truth, but a Popish injunction for their profit? for in that respect they have given their dispensations ad infinitum to the nearest kindred. To recite particulars in a matter so well known (as the houses of Austria, Bourbon, and many others) where profit or State policy is at stake) were only to spend Ink and Paper. Then if it may be done by dispensation, and for money, which is but an Ordinance of man; why may it not much more be done without, seeing it is the Ordinance of God himself? You know what Peter said to Simon Magus, Thou and thy money perish, because thou thinkest that these things may be bought for money. And here we see the woman is not of the man derivatively, and by descent, but of his own proper substance; then in regard there can be no more matches of this nature, the very next of kin were to join in marriage, and that both by custom and command. For example, we find that Sara was Abraham's sister, whom he took to wife; a better precedent we can not have, for he was the father of the faithful; his seed should be multiplied as the Stars in Heaven; all the Nations of the earth be blessed therein 
* Gen: 22. 17, 18. , etc.  
If it be said, that when Abraham went down to sojourn in Egypt because of the famine, he wished his wife to say she was his sister, lest the egyptians should kill him and take her to themselves, for she was a fair woman to look upon 
* Gen. 12. v. 1●, 12, 13. . And from thence you will argue, that to be but simulation betwixt them to save his life; than it will appear in the same book of Genesis that in his return to the South Country, they used the like practice, in saying she was his sister In so much that Abimelech King of Gerar took Sara, but the Lord kept Abimelech from touching her, and reproved him for taking another man's wife; whereupon Abimelech blamed Abraham, saying, What sawest thou that thou hast done this thing? Abraham replied, I thought the fear of God is not in this place, and they will kill me for my wife's sake: yet to let him know that he had not dissembled totally, he said, indeed she is my sister, for she is the daughter of my father, and she became my wife 
* Gen. 20 12. . Moreover Cham 24. v. 4. Abraham caused his servant to swear, charging him to go to his own Country, and to his kindred to choose a wife for his son Isaac. And so naturally confident were the servants of God in propagating by the next of kin, that Lot's daughters (when they fled out of Sodom with their father, where the rest of their kindred perished) did not doubt to raise up seed to their father, saying, There is not a man alive to come in unto us after the manner of the earth, therefore let us lie with him, etc. Now there were thousands (not to be 
* Gen. 19 31, 32.  numbered) left alive, but there was none of their Tribe and kindred, for so the Text seems to infer. We know also that many things are writ for our instruction not for our imitation; and so Lot might justly be blamed for drinking so liberally, that he perceived not what he did (which we ought not to imitate) yet we find no reproof upon the daughters, because (it seems) what they did was only for propagation, according to the institution, and not to satisfy appetite. This appears by their interchange; yet Dr Willet saith they did offend, and brings with him Augustine's opinion, which is, that they should have done far better to have acquainted their father, so then (belike) all had been well enough: But withal in the same Annotations of Levit. 18.) he brings against himself a Jury of Doctors that justifies their intention to be good and lawful in their case, viz. Soto, Lopes, Ledesma, Bellarmine, L●●inus, with three of the Fathers also, chrysostom, Theodores, and Origen, and (we see) God gave a blessing unto their act, for the Text saith, they were with child, and there proceeded from them two great Nations, the Moabites and the Ammonites. And that these children were blessed appears more plainly, where the children of Israel in their warfaring journey were forbidden to distress them, and not to meddle with them, for the Lord would not give them of the Land which he had given to the foresaid children of Lot for a possession 
* Gen. 13. 37, 38. : If you say that notwithstanding they were afterwards smitten and warred against: so was it likewise with the most chosen people (according to the covenant) for their Idolatry, infidelity, etc. The Ephramites fell by the men of Gilead, 
* Deut. 2.18, 19  42000 at one time, and it were supererrogate to cite the several places of Scripture, where the Israelites were punished, and carried captive, and cast off into a reprobate sense, as now they are at this day for their transgression; but that will be no argument to prove that propagating by their nearest kindred (which they were commanded) was the cause: but most certain their hardness of heart, infidelity, and idolatry, which was forbidden. For was not Moses the meekest man, and Aaron, the sons of Amram, who married Jocabed his Aunt?  
The next place that seems to fortify this opinion against all opposition, is that of Judagh and Tamar his daughter in law, which you have in Genesis 38. throughout the whole Chapter; there shall you find the wilful and unnatural trespass of Onan in refusing to perform the kinsman's duty, and therefore the Lord destroyed him: but what shall we think of Judah's intention? can we approve of it? no verily; he took her for 
* Judges 12.6.  a Harlot: yet was the sincerity and integrity of Thamar so sublime, that from her Issue 
Vers. 15.  upon that conjunction came the Saviour of the world; for from Phares descended Boas, David, and consequently our Saviour Jesus Christ according to the flesh: and now old Judah could say, (because I have not performed what I ought of my part) she hath been more righteous then I.  
Well, yet let us object Levit. 18. the prohibition there, with the gloss upon the Text, entitled unlawful marriages; but we suppose it is a Popish gloss, and of purpose misinterpreted to increase his coffers: for it will appear hereafter that the uncovering of nakedness there mentioned, is meant of fornication only, and not of marriage: yet the Pope's purse upon that pretence hath picked up many large fees, especially where the joining of Kingdoms or Dukedoms together hath been sought more for politic ends, (and chief if his own cause hath been interested) then the parties own particular liking. But now who is so ignorant to believe that any sinful man can dispense with what God hath commanded or forbidden. In the beginning men gave gifts and presents for fit wives of their own Lineage; as appears, 
* Gen. 24.22.  where Abraham's servant gave Rebecca the Earring and the Bracelets: now since men's own covetousness, or the Popes, have forbidden such wives as is most natural; the custom is to barter and exchange for strangers so much money, so much land, etc. as you do for other things in fair or market.  
But to return, the Answer to the foresaid prohibition in Leviticus 18. is, that the many Laws given in that book were not perpetual, but only given to busy the minds of the children of Israel for that present, and to divert their inclination from Idolatry, unto which they were so subject from their deliverance out of Egypt, in their march to Canaan, and perhaps for some other reasons known to men of learning: for who doth believe it is not lawful to eat Hare or Coney, Swine's flesh, etc. or to wear linen and woollen, plough with beasts of several kinds; with many other prohibitions, whereof that Book is full, as well as in the degrees in kindred: They were also peculiar to that people, and therefore not binding elsewhere, especially to Christians under the Gospel. But to make the matter more clear, let us see how we can prove the prohibition in these degrees, to be meant of Fornication, as is formerly mentioned, and not of the holy institution of marriage, for instance in the foresaid, 18 ch. & 16. ver. it is said, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife, it is thy brother's nakedness: uncover the nakedness, mark that; though the Pope and ambitious men would delude us, the holy Ghost is very wary; the Text here speaks not of marriage, but uncovering nakedness: and now repair to Deut. 25. vers. 5. There you shall find that if a brother die the wife of the dead shall not marry unto a stranger, her husband's brother shall go in unto her, take her to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. The rest of the verses following shows how disgracefully, and with what reproach he was to be used that refused to perform this duty. So you see there is a vast difference betwixt uncovering of nakedness, and taking to wife; for else did not these two Texts controvert each other pointblank, if they were meant of one and the selfsame matter? what is then the right exposition? no other than this; by uncovering of nakedness is meant fornication, as is formerly said, which in kindred is utterly forbidden; but the other Text in Deutronomy speaks expressly of marriage, and taking to wife, which is likewise in kindred as directly commanded. One other gradation may here be added, to wit, that the taking of strange women was sometimes in custom, for it was no wonder before nor after to see men have children by concubines, which they kept besides their wives. And the children of Israel were commanded to kill all the males among the Midianites, but to keep the women to themselves 
* Num. 31.18. : we likewise read the Levite had by him two Asses saddled, his concubine was also with him, Judges 19 10. but in regard that marriage is honourable, and the free woman more Noble than the bondwoman, that great duty we ought to perform to our next of kin; for so did Abraham to Sara that was his wife and sister; but his coneubine was Hagar the bond woman, which Sara afterwards dealt hardly with, and caused her to fly 
* Gen. 16. 6. . Here we are to note, that Sara the kinswoman was a Type of the true Church, and Hagar the contrary: Moreover you shall find what curses were threatened to such as married with strangers (out of their Tribes) as namely, they should be snares and traps unto them, 
* Jesh. 23. 12, 13.  scourges in their sides, and thorns in their eyes, with many other of this kind, which whoso please to study may find at large. And that this practice of marriage with kindred was in use, not only before the prohibition in Leviticus, already answered, but eversithence, and never forbidden, in the Law or Gospel, for aught we can find, is the next thing we shall endeavour to prove: alleging then some precedents after the foresaid book of Leviticus, (perhaps omitting many) we will begin with the marriage of the daughters of Selophabad, who married with their kindred by the Lords special appointment 
* Num, 36. . Then the foresaid Text in Deutronomy, touching the marriage of the brother's wife, Ch. 25. v. 5. And Othinel the valiant man was rewarded with Achsah his next kinswoman, who also obtained a further boon of her father 
* Judges 1. 13. . The story of Boas and Ruth is worthy our observation, it is so full of goodness and charity, conducing also to our argument; first, we see that Naomy, ruth's mother in law instructed her how to behave herself towards Boas, that she might not be unprovided, as knowing, (it seems) the inflexible nature of her very next kinsman: whereupon (after Ruth had uttered these words unto Boas, Spread therefore thy skirt over thy handmaid, for thou art a near kinsman) Boas replied, Blessed be thou of the Lord, for thou hast not followed young men, whether poor or rich. Then Boas called into judgement the next kinsman, who out of covetousness suffered the accustomed disgrace, for refusing to perform the duty he ought to have done: And Boas (as the next in degree) took Ruth to be his 
* Ruth 4.10.  wife. In this story we discern the many virtues of Ruth; it is to be observed also that she was a Moabitesse, of the line of Lot, and of the issue he had by his daughters of this offspring, shortly after came the Prophet David, from whom also in process of time) proceeded the Saviour of mankind.  
Next we observe the passage betwixt Ammon and Tamar, where it is said, that Ammon loved Tamar in an unlawful manner, which the maid as discreetly reproved, desiring him not to force her, but to ask her of the King for a wife, in that sense she knew the King would not withhold her 
* 2 Sam. 4.13. ; but Ammon after his lust was satisfied, despised her, which act turned to his confusion, and was the occasion of his slaughter. Still we see the sister did not doubt to be her brother's wife, but did detest the act of fornication, (which certainly is the thing meant in the forbidden degrees formerly mentioned. And assuredly also that act proceeding from lust in kindred, is the highest degree of fornication, and of some perhaps not improperly termed incest, if there be such a distinction: But for the holy institution of marriage with the next of Kindred. We see (by all examples before and after, it hath not only been permitted but commanded.  
Neither do we find any thing to the contrary in the whole progress of the Gospel, but still reproof of fornication, and especially amongst kindred, which seems to confirm what is formerly said; for so St. Paul, It is reported commonly that there is fornication 
* 1 Cor. 5.  amongst you, and such as is not used among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. But the same Saint Paul hath these following words in the same book, Ch. 7, v. 3. touching marriage. To avoid fornication, let every man (excepting no degree or profession) have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. And in verse 4. the wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; nor the husband power of his own body, but the wife, in the singular number. From hence may be inferred, that men since the Gospel ought not to have plurality of wives; but neither there, nor in any other place where the like precept is given, is there any exception to the next of kin, but in case of fornication aforesaid. Then let every man have his own wife; this doth most and best represent the mystery betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church; else where it is said, the man and his wife is one flesh, not the man and his wives. Although the Patriarches and Prophets (under the Law) had plurality of wives for the greater increase of a good Tribe, or for other reasons and mysteries, which here we have not time to discuss. And though the Turks and other Nations do allow themselves plurality of wives (perhaps alleging the foresaid custom of the Patriarches) as also to uphold the vastness of their Empire, having such use for unmerous Armies, yet we take their reasons to be more sensual and politic then religious; for we that live under the Gospel ought to conform ourselves unto that rule; Let every one have his own wife, in the singular number aforesaid; but then (seeing there is not one word in the Gospel to the contrary) that any Popish Ordinance or other should bar a man to choose that single woman he liketh best to be his wife (if she be also consenting, and of ripe judgement) seems to be both against the law of nature and reason. Wherefore we conclude this point with the Apostles words, that the forbidding of marriage is the doctrine of devils. Again, marriage 
* 1 Tim. 4.3.  is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge, Heb. 13.4. in all; mark this: here's no exception; yet it would have been here or somewhere if it had been unlawful, either in kindred or Ministers, as the Popish doctors teach, for lucre's sake, as is formerly mentioned. But we are to beware of such as would spoil us through vain deceit, that follow the traditions of men, the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ 
* Colos. 28. , so then the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditious heresies envyings murders, drunkenness, with many others, etc. But as touching 
* Gal. 5.19,20.  the holy institution of marriage intended, according to the Ordinance with true love and sincerity of heart; we find no exception in any degree or profession. And if the prohibition in the law formerly mentioned, were meant of marriage, as it is fully and amply proved to intent fornication only, because of the practice in marrying with their next of kin, as well after as before, formerly proved also: yet were it not binding now, for we understand the Law contained in Ordinances to be 
* Ephes. 2.15.  abolished. And again, blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us, nailing it to the Cross, Colos. 2. 14. for the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity also a change of the Law, Heb. 7. 12. observe also the second of the Corinthians, There is a veil in reading of the old Testament, which veil is taken away in Christ, and 
* Ch. 3. v. 14, 17.  where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But how, what liberty? to do the works of the flesh, formerly touched; no, God forbidden, The holy Ghost will witness with those that the Lord hath made his Covenant with, he will put laws into their hearts, and in their minds will he write them, their sins and iniquities will he remember no 
* Heb 10.16, 17.  more. And in 1 Tim 4.9. The law is not made for a righteous man, (supposing such a one as contriveth not against a good conscience) but for the lawless, disobedient, ungodly, whoremongers, liars, stealers, etc. And in 2 Tim. 3. we have a large description of such as have no testimony of the good Spirit, but are called perilous, viz. Lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, traitors, highminded, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: And of this sort are they which creep into houses, leading captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as James and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, etc. Then was the chief Magistrate withstood; how is it now; if this portion of Scripture strike not point blank at this very age and time wherein we live, let some that are learned inform us better.  
So then we perceive by this Tract and all the rest, it is fornication, uncleanness, and these forenamed works of the flesh, which is forbidden; but for that excellent and sacred institution of marriage, from which Ordinance the blessed elect of God's children do proceed; that holy Order, we see, is honourable amongst all without exception, as is formerly proved. Now then without all dispute that marriage is most just, which is made without any ambitious or covetous end; and if this liking and mutual correspondency happen betwixt the nearest of kindred, then is it also the most natural, the most lawful, and according to the primitive purity and practice: nor is there now any Popish Canons to restrain it, which perhaps some consciences might boggle at in regard of the precept, you are to obey the Magistrate for conscience sake. And indeed we would not argue any thing here against higher powers that are in true orthodox authority; but only desire that no Law or prohibition should bind the conscience in matters that the Gospel of Christ hath left free unto Christian people: And if we can judge aright all these works of the flesh formerly recited, from several Texts in Scripture, did never so much abound; and no marvel, for what fruit can be expected from bastard Plants? or what match is made amongst a thousand, or perhaps amongst ten thousand without ambition covetousness, inordinate appetite, or some collateral respect; pardon the plainness of the phrase, for I have read of a Law (as I now remember) amongst the Spartans', viz. No man should give a dower in marriage with his daughter; then did the best men seek to acquire the most virtuous women: and who, (than they) flourished more in Arts and Arms? Now if the Patriarches, our forefathers, chose their kindred in obedience to a duty commanded; the Heathens took wives for their virtues; and yet we Christians will have none but for money, the attribute aforesaid deserves the less rebuke.  
Well then, let us avoid communities, which is reported to be maintained by some late sects: let us avoid fornication with all, and by all means, with our kindred; for that is the highest degree of fornication, as is formerly declared: But for holy wedlock, where there is hope of propagation, and hearts consenting, as is proved to be the duty of the next kinsman, so was there never more cause to shake off the Popish thraldom, and to revive that Primitive custom, seeing by these late and common calamities) so many thousand families are forced from their habitations, which they have honestly laboured for, and for aught they know, must starve and perish, at some have already done, if they cannot find a dwelling more remote: therefore we must be of opinion with such as do account mulct and punishments an Antichristian yoke, where they are imposed upon the conscience, but most especially when there is neither act nor intention against the service of God, or prejudice to our Christian brethren; and here we remember the saying 
2 Cor. 13.2.  of Saint Paul, Be of one mind, live in peace.  
Now then, to close up all by ask of a question: If in such a case honest women (that have no portion to bestow them, through the causes aforesaid) should require this duty from the next of kin, whether (upon refusal) their said kinsman deserve not the reproach mentioned in the story of Boas and Ruth; and as touching the 
* Deut. 25.5.  raising of seed from one brother to another formerly recited at large in the beginning of this discourse; surely they do and must answer in their great account for the misearriage of their kinswomen, if so it happen; yet we are not ignorant the Civil law saith, an Uncle to his Niece is in loco parentis, and that they say is a bar in marriage; but (setting Law and evil Custom aside) we demand (in reason) how he can stand her in better steed then to marry her if she be willing, and hath no means to be otherways provided.  
We are commanded to fear God and the King, and not to meddle with them that are seditious. Neither are these things moved out of nicety, or by way of paradox, or as St Paul speaks, of 
* 1 Tim. 6.  doting questions, or strife of words, whereof comes envy, and perverse dispute▪ or as some cite Scripture to cloak their deceit and hypocrisy: but only to find out the truth, which if those that are Orthodoxly learned will take pains to resolve, it will be a charitable work, to satisfy the consciences of some less learned, who are likely to seek habitations in foreign Countries, and would in discharge of their duties do that which they conceive to be most just, viz. without ambitious or covetous ends, adventure upon the first Institution.  
Now we know the vulgar sort (that looks no further than the times they live in) will bogle at this doctrine, and think it a Navel. Then here we will put you in mind of what some of you do yet remember; namely, a quality of two eminent men esteemed very wise (especially in the laws) the one would not abide a shoulder of Veal, the other did not love a Duek: what would you have thought these men wise to proclaim it unlawful for any other to eat these kind of meats, because they did not love them? surely no, you would have held them rediculons: So our question is not how any man's appetite likes, or dislikes; we only desire to know yea, or no, whether the matter in itself be unlawful, or where it is repugnant to Scripture, when all places of this subject are compared together. And if it be controverted (not with Heathen fables, or men's bare opinions, but by Scripture proof) by one that is learned, and of a refined wit, it may satisfy; but if it come from a young head not half coddled, or from one that is old and 
Note.  doting, or from any that is popish or illiterate, 'tis ten to one such judgement will be renounced, or at least suspected.  
Some other questions we intended to move, as namely, those at the latter end of Mr smith's Sermon, entitled, The lost sheep is found, which yet we have not heard any answer unto; and why through Popish superstition on the one side, and diversity of Schisms and Sects of the other side, there is yet no certain frame of Discipline settled to confirm the weak and wavering Christian: Or (seeing we have found so much fault with Turk and Pope for their bloody tenants; and that the weapons of the Church are preces & lacrymas, prayers and tears) whether that will prove a good Religion which is settled or maintained by the Sword; but if these be first resolved to be as they are here conceived, or otherwise convinced of error by Scripture proof; we may then have encouragement to move some other things necessary for the confirmation of ourselves and others LAUS DEO.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
1. WE have lately seen a little Book which saith, the sin against the holy Ghost hath hitherto been mistaken.  
2. We have seen another maintain that Independency is no Schism.  
3. We have seen another maintain (out of Scripture) that our Saviour Christ shall live 1000 years with his Saints upon earth.  
4. We have seen books writ against baptising of Infants, though the custom hath been so for 1400 years.  
5. We see the Office of Bishops of no repute, though their Function hath continued since the time of the Apostles; and what Heresies were by them refuted in the first four general Counsels?  
6. We know our own King Henry the 8. married his brother's wife, and put her away, and took another, which we cannot approve of.  
7. We have heard that Martin Luther married a Nun, (which in the Pope's opinion) was a greater trespass than if he had married his natural sister; And in fear of the precedent the holy Father thundered out his Excommunications; but the honest Doctor (to requite him) said he would open a gap that all the bushes in St Peter patrimony should not stop again, and 〈◊〉 as good as his word.  
These things considered, our little Discourse (that maintains nothing positively, but asketh questions, under correction) will not be strange to them that are judicious, however it seem strange to such as will laugh at their shadow.  Salo. Nothing remains certain under the Sun. 
FINIS.