OPINION OF THE LORD ADVOCATE FOR SCOTLAND. 49 hurst's Act do not, I believe, refer to Scotland, and according to the Lord Advocate, the law of Scotland is not very explicit on the point. It incorporates the Confession, forbids all marriages condemned in Scripture, but as it does not specify them, it leaves us all in uncertainty." This is a very strange assertion, whether it relate to the law or to the Confession of Faith. "Leaves us all in uncertainty," when it declares that a man "may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than his own!" Does Dr Eadie mean that it is uncertain by the Confession of Faith and the law of Scotland whether a man may marry his own sister? He adds as a breakwater against this conclusion, "There is no doubt, however, that the Confession gives affinity the same claims as consanguinity, and therefore should the law be altered, the church and state would come into collision for a period. Such a crisis has happened in America," &c. The crisis happened when some States changed their law, by the influence of principles already adverted to in these pages. Surely this is not the way in which a grave divine should deal with so solemn a question.* The alleged opinion of the Lord Advocate, as given in one of those claptrap advertisements so widely circulated by the London agitators on this question, is as follows: : "Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister.-Lord Rutherfurd, when Lord Advocate, said, in the House of Commons, that he had before stated his belief, that if the matter came to be investigated before the courts, it would turn out that the marriage contemplated in this bill was, in Scotland, a lawful marriage; and he had good reason for saying that that was the opinion of an honourable Baronet, than whom no person ever stood higher in the Church of Scotland-Sir Henry Moncrieff. For himself, having come to the deliberate opinion that the marriage in question was not forbidden by the law of Leviticus, he came also to the opinion that the connection was not a crime, and that the marriage was effectual for civil purposes." Any of us is as competent to form an opinion on the meaning of Leviticus xviii. and its bearing on the subject as Lord Rutherfurd. And after the proofs adduced, no man in his senses will be disposed to place more reliance on the flying opinion of the Lord Advocate as a politician, than on the express words of a law which any man may read, and the opinions of institutional writers, and the decisions of judges in actual cases *The writer is the farthest possible from wishing to come into collision with Dr Eadie or his brethren on this question; but it would be most unfaithful to what he deems the truth not to say, that when Dr Eadie writes as he does on this question, something more than the very confused statement, made in his letter, on the subject of the Confession of Faith, is necessary to justify both himself and many of his brethren, who have publicly vowed that it is the confession of their faith, in the sentiments they have publicly expressed on this subject. There is no act of forbearance passed in regard to this part of the Confession, and it is most injurious to the Christian ministry, and to Christianity itself, when its ministers profess one thing in their creed, and advocate another thing either in their writings or in the Church courts; and let it be added, such conduct, though it may swell the length of an advertisement, or "help the ungodly," will not add to their authority on any moral question whatever. I must be pardoned, in so grave a question, when I state further, that all true friends of religion in Scotland must lament the very uncertain sound given on this subject by the United Presbyterian Synod in April last, 1853, when an overture was brought before it to have the Confession altered, both as to the marriage of a brother's widow and a deceased wife's sister, and that a motion to let the overture lie on the table to next meeting was lost only by a majority of 62 to 55 in favour of a motion that it was not expedient to discuss the question at present. This should surely open the eyes of the Presbyterian bodies in Scotland to the danger of sleeping while the enemy is busy sowing his tares. Ꭰ submitted to them. The writer has reason to believe that Lord Rutherfurd, consulted as a lawyer in an actual case, would not give such an opinion ; and this belief he will hold till he see an opinion to the contrary, given by Lord Rutherfurd himself, on his responsibility as a lawyer or a judge. But, as usual, the Libertarians are not very scrupulous, even with the Lord Advocate. They had at hand his opinion given in evidence before the Royal Commissioners, but the speech serves them better, and they head their advertisements with it, giving his evidence the slip. The evidence is"1151. You are of opinion that it is not the penalties of the law of Scotland that prevents this marriage, but the feeling of the people themselves? The feeling of the people themselves, certainly; but the main thing that prevents it is the idea of its illegality, which has arisen from the opinions of the institutional writers, that in fact it would not be a marriage: and that, therefore, though they might be married by a clergyman, and go through those forms and declarations which, between persons not within the prohibited degrees, would constitute a marriage, being within the prohibited degrees, it would be no marriage, and therefore a state of concubinage, and that therefore they would sustain the loss of their position in society, which arises from that circumstance." Here it is admitted that the institutional writers declare such marriages unlawful. Their authority is as much to be relied on as the Lord Advocate. Moreover, it has been shown above that the courts have uniformly decided accordingly. What, then, are we to think of these hired agitators or their employers, who pass by the actual evidence of the Lord Advocate, and quote, as his opinion, a mere newspaper report of a speech in Parliament? We have thus the testimony of ancient Judaism, of early Christianity, of the Waldensian Churches, of all forms of Christianity till the period of the Reformation, and of all the Reformed Churches and States of Europe and America, against such marriages; and nothing in their favour from any of these sources, more or less limited, till the progress of infidelity and of its loose morality, and the ignoring of divine revelation as a basis of legislation, opened the way to the indulgence of human passion. For let it be carefully observed, that the change of the law in professedly Christian countries HAS ORIGINATED IN THE VIOLATION OF THE LAW, and has been made to cover a PRACTICE, not in deference to eternal truth or morality. All attempts made to disprove the morality of the law are made to cover cases of its actual violation; and the changes in the proceedings of some churches cannot be traced to any more respectable source. Even the Code Napoleon, on this subject, decreed the 17th March 1803, promulgated the 27th of the same month, and therefore at a time when not much regard was paid to Popery or Protestantism either, declares, ch. i. article 162,-" In the collateral line, marriage is prohibited between brother and sister, legitimate or natural, and the affinity in the same degree." In 1832, this law was altered to the effect of giving the king the power of dispensation. Why the power of dispensation either in France or Germany, if there is nothing wrong in such connections in their view? In fact, in whatever country a dispensation is allowed, it is not a proof that they consider such marriages lawful, but a clear proof of the reverse; though they reserve to themselves the somewhat Popish right of dispensing with what is right when they deem it expedient. The testimony of Mahometanism, civilly or religiously, cannot strictly be DOCTRINE OF THE KORAN - CHINESE. 51 brought under the category of that of the Church, or the relative testimony of human legislation. Yet, as it is a fact that Mahomet had the assistance of renegade Jews and Christians in drawing up the Koran, it may be curious to see what the Koran decides on the subject. In chap. iv. of the Koran, on the subject of marriage, it is said, "Marry not women whom your fathers have had to wife (except what is already past), for this is uncleanness, and an abomination, and an evil way. Ye are forbidden to marry your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your aunts, both on the father's and on the mother's side, and your brother's daughters, and your sister's daughters, and your mothers who have given you suck, and your foster-sisters, and your wives' mothers, and your daughters-in-law which are under your tuition, born of your wives unto whom ye have gone in, (but, if ye have not gone in to them, it shall be no sin in you to marry them,) and the wives of your sons, who proceed out of your loins; and ye are also forbidden to take to wife two sisters, except what is already past, for God is gracious and mericful." Sale has this note after the words, "Forbidden to take to wife two sisters,”- "The same was also prohibited by the Levitical law." I do not profess to understand the import of the phrase, "Except what is already past," but it cannot serve the Libertarians in very great stead, as it is applied to the wife of their fathers as well as to two sisters. It will be observed, that the prohibition as to two sisters is express and unqualified, whether in the lifetime of the parties, or otherwise. What, therefore, the Libertarians mean, or what is their authority for one of their so-called "facts!" stated as follows, I do not know : "Fact XII.-The Mahometan law forbids the marrying of two sisters together; but permits marriage with a deceased wife's sister. This marriage is permitted among 90,000,000 of Mahometans." Where the "together" and the "permission" are found, it does not suit them to tell. It is not in this passage in the Koran; neither would it serve their purpose much to tell that each of those said Mahometans may marry, if he can support them, and have a mind for it, as far as any view of morality is concerned, 90,000,000 of wives. As little will it suit their purpose to know that the Chinese, who are about 400,000,000, punish marriage with "a brother's widow with death.” * How do they relish these kind of "facts" when pled as arguments? I find nearly 300,000,000 stated as the number of the population of the countries in which such marriages are allowed, in a petition to the House of Lords, supported by no less illustrious a personage than Lord St Germans, and approved by no less grave a personage than Lord Denman. China is an answer to them all. What is the absurdity or wickedness that may not be pled for, and supported by facts and arguments such as this? I draw this part of the subject to a close by calling on the reader to observe, that whatever weight there is in the testimony of the Church, and the relative testimony of human legislation, so long as legislation proceeded on any respect to the Church, or professed obligation to the Word of God, in its proceedings and acts, it is all on one side: viz., to prove that such marriages were held unlawful. There is a total absence of proof on the other side. It is of more real importance, however, to inquire on what grounds of reason or of Scripture-in other words, of moral obligation-church, or state, or any other, is warranted to hold marriage with the sister of a deceased wife prohibited. This accordingly I now proceed to do. * See Barret's Code Napoléon, Preliminary Dissertations, vol. i. London, 1811. 52 THE LAW OF NATURE-PUFFENDORF. CHAPTER II. THE LAW OF NATURE-WHAT IT IS, AND TO WHAT EXTENT IT CAN BE A RULE ON THIS SUBJECT. THE law or light of nature, as an authoritative rule or guide in moral conduct, means the law originally written on the heart of man at his creation-in other words, conscience, or the intelligent moral nature of man in harmony with the moral nature of God. Anything else cannot be entitled to the name of conscience as an authoritative rule of morals. It can have no moral authority to bind to what is contrary to the moral nature of God, or, which is the same thing to us, to the moral law of the ten commandments. The very word "conscience" refers to a rule external or objective to itself. As it is not a lord, but a subject of Jehovah, that rule is God's law, expressive of his own holy nature. It would be a waste of labour to prove that that law, in its purity and power, is nowhere to be found but in the Scriptures of truth. The expression "law of nature" is also loosely employed to signify those general notions of right and wrong, to be found among all nations irrespective of divine revelation. The knowledge of these, as traces of God's original constitution, as grounds of appeal on behalf of God and the right, and as some defence and safeguard to social existence, is of great value; but in so far as respect to the authority and law of God himself is concerned, they only point to an authority which is despised; and serve, in regard to the moral nature of God, an end which his works of creation serve to fallen, corrupt men, in regard to his eternal power and Godhead." The invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Any one at all acquainted with the history, customs, manners, religion, and morals of heathenism, knows perfectly how complete and inextricable is the confusion, as tried by the Christian law, of its principles and actings on every point embraced in the law of the ten commandments, and how utterly vain it were to attempt to establish a fixed principle or law as of divine authority, from that source, on any one point of true religion or morals. An inquiry into this source of evidence on the present question can be of little value to determine any thing authoritative on the subject— except perhaps to show that all nations have such traces of the original constitution of God himself, as to prove that there is a law of incest, and that there are at least certain carnal connections with relations by blood and affinity, which all human beings, for one reason or another, abhor. The Apostle Paul, speaking by the Spirit of God, recognises the law of nature to this extent, when he speaks of "such fornication as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife "-the word "fornication" being here used to translate the Greek word which denotes all unlawful and carnal intercourse. To this extent Puffendorf himself goes, though he denies that the law of nature determines the unlawfulness of marriages by consanguinity in the collateral line, or marriages by affinity. He says, as to the other degrees forbidden in Leviticus, that it is still more difficult to give any satisfactory reason to prove that marriages LAW OF NATURE-JEWISH DOCTORS. 53 contracted with blood relations to any of these degrees are unlawful by the law of nature. They are found, however, to be detested by many pagans. He then gives the case here quoted, from 1 Cor. v. 1, and the well-known exclamation of Cicero in his oration "Pro Cluentio," in speaking of the marriage of a son-in-law with his mother-in-law-" O incredible crime, unheard of in any woman before her!" Grotius held views on this head more stringent than those of Puffendorf, and maintains that certain marriages are forbidden by the law of nature, from the detestation in which they were held by all nations, except the very few who were so thoroughly corrupted as to be an exception to the rest of the world. Of this he adduces many proofs from ancient writers, which it is unnecessary for our purpose to quote. Those who are anxious to see what light may be thrown on this particular view of the subject-viz., the law of nature, whether as derived from Jews or Gentiles-may consult such works as Selden, "De Jure Naturæ et Gentium Juxta Disciplinam Ebræorum;" Grotius, "De Jure Belli ac Pacis," lib. ii. cap. v. ; Puffendorf's "Law of Nature and Nations," book vi. ch. i.; and their Commentators. * The writer is of opinion that little more than what he has already indicated can be discovered from the law of nature. As found in existence among the heathen, very little can be authoritatively determined by it as law on this or any other moral subject; because of the universal corruption and deep degeneracy of mankind, of which we have the fearful description in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Whether anything on this subject could be determined as written on the heart of Adam at his creation, I am not prepared to affirm or deny. The Jewish Doctors held that forbidden degrees had been given to Adam to take effect as soon as the human race had multiplied to a certain extent, exactly in the same way as the laws that regulated the worship of God, the administration of justice, and respect for life and property-that is, as soon as the practical case arose. Though not prepared to speak positively on such a point, I think there is a difference in this respect between those relations to Jehovah himself which are eternal and essential to Him, and to all accountable immortal creatures as related to Him, and those relations which created beings hold to one another, physically and externally. This seems indicated by our Lord when he says, in answer to the cavils of the Sadducees, that in heaven men neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels. In respect to marriage, then, the law of nature must be the law of God's first and positive institution; which, we know, was one man to one woman. That God did most certainly interpose His authority at some instant or period of time in a way different from what held in the case of the immediate descendants of our first parents-who, by the command to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, must have fulfilled it in ways which the parties we are now opposing dare not openly affirm is now lawful, though their arguments carry it—is most certain. We can gather little, then, from the law of nature in the absolute, abstract We must therefore have recourse to the Word of God. sense. * See Grotius," De Jure Belli ac Pacis," lib. ii. cap. v. xiii. 5. |