OLD TESTAMENT AS A RULE OF FAITH.

59

those who support his views on the Marriage Question are prepared to go in order to carry their objects.

It is not surprising that such men advocate the abolition of all Sabbath laws, and laws for the encouragement of religion. If God's eternal laws did not traverse man's wisdom, these men would make life a very pleasant thing, in the Epicurean sense of pleasure.

3. But that the Old Testament is still a rule of faith and manners to man, in his social as well as in his individual relations, is manifest from a variety of considerations, to which I can point only generally. They are such as these: That the law (see Exod. xix.) was addressed to the Israelitish nation, embracing all social relations; that it was founded on universal principles; and that other nations were dealt with on the footing of the same moral principles as the Israelites. God appeared to Moses, and sent him to Pharaoh and the Israelites in Egypt, in the very same character in which he revealed his laws to Israel-as the I AM, Jehovah, having an equal claim on Israelites and heathens before, as after, the giving of the law from Sinai. Jeremiah and other prophets were commissioned to be "prophets to the NATIONS." God spake to the Jews, not as "God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also." Our Lord and his apostles settled questions in dispute on the simple authority of the Old Testament. The New Testament was not the revelation of new truths and morals, but the full development of old. Paul, in particular, established the whole doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews, not by a new revelation, but by the doctrines of the Old Testament, which the Holy Spirit, by him, divinely interpreted. The moral law of the Ten Commandments itself is not in form reaffirmed in the New Testament, but referred to and cleared from the perverse and false glosses of the Jews, and enforced by clearer sanctions; and we have this express declaration of the Spirit by Paul-Rom. xv. 4-" Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were aforetime (with this express design) written for our learning." What things were temporary and to be removed was aforetime declared, as Paul shows, in the Old Testament itself; but the laws affecting man's social moral relations are none of them. Besides, if the Old Testament is rejected as an authority, we have no code of general social duty and morality in regard either to God or man, and particularly in the matters relating to the present question; while on the very point of marriage and its duties, the principles and laws are derived by our Lord and his apostles from the Old Testament. The proof of this will appear in the sequel.

Unless, then, we are to subvert and reject all divine revelation together, it is plain that we cannot, by a mere summary repetition of the words "ceremonial," "judicial,” “Christian," or "Gospel," get quit of the Old Tes

tament.

Section 11.--General Bearing of the Levitical Law.

In regard to the laws revealed from Sinai, and embracing the Levitical law, in so far as it had respect to social and moral relations that exist in all nations by the constitution of humanity itself, they are still binding and have never been repealed, directly or indirectly. I am not disposed to believe that they were made known for the first time only, when revealed at Sinai. I think there are indications and proofs-and in regard to the Sabbath law, referred to in Exod. xvi., as well as in Gen. ii., it is certain-that

60

66

LEVITICAL LAW-LEVITICUS XVIII.

they were binding from the first, not only when directly referring to God, but when referring to man in his social relations. Another proof of this last point is that contained in Leviticus xviii., which, in its sanctions and threatenings, refers to the crimes of the heathen, who, to make them crimes, must have transgressed a law, because "where no law is, there is no transgression." In a word, if the law of God thus revealed is not binding, there is neither law of marriage nor of incest at all. This ought, at least among us, to make men consider what they do or say on such a subject. The whole of this part of the subject, and indeed the whole Scripture argument, is treated of in the most masterly way by the American lawyer, Dwight, in his " Hebrew Wife;" and it is a curious circumstance that the hireling advocates, and vain zealots, who write and speak in defence of those worthies, whose hopes," as Mr Sleigh näively confesses, are "concerned in the issue of the present movement," take special care never to mention Mr Dwight's admirable treatise at all. If it were sufficiently known in this country, it would not be necessary to enter on the Scripture argument. I do not think it can be improved. To abridge it is to injure it. The great difficulty I feel in entering on the Scripture argument, arises from being compelled to exhibit one more brief and defective than one already before the world. But as I am anxious that this work should embrace the general subject, so far as it has hitherto been discussed, I must submit to this disadvantage. While I have formed my own independent judgment, and treat the subject in my own way, I entreat all who wish to have their minds thoroughly settled on a scriptural basis to examine Dwight's "Hebrew Wife" for themselves. I assure the opponents that, until they fairly meet and answer it, point by point, no man who knows anything of the question will give them credit either for sincerity or honesty.

66

Section III.-Argument from Leviticus xviii.

I come now to notice the 18th chapter of Leviticus, which contains the law and the principles of the law. Other portions of the book intimate the penalties of transgression, and other portions of the law regulate certain specific matters which may require to be noticed in their place. No one who has any competent understanding of Bible principles can read this chapter without being struck, in the first place, with the assertion of the authority on which it proceeds, viz., the same as in the law of the ten commandments, which, I must assume, those who can be scripturally reasoned with, admit to be binding on all men. Moses is commanded to speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD (JEHOVAH) your God ;" and the same again, verses 4, 5, "Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD."—All expressions based on the essential authority of Jehovah, the I AM, the eternal God, Ruler, and Judge of the world, besides declaring that the man, not the Israelite merely, who doeth them shall live in them. In the second place, it will be observed that the things condemned have respect, not to things future and ceremonial only, but to crimes committed by the Egyptians, among whom they had previously dwelt, and by the Canaanites, among whom they were about to dwell-crimes then in the eye of the moral law of God, the Governor among the nations, and for which they were punished and exter

PRINCIPLES OF LEVITICUS XVIII. UNIVERSAL.

61

minated; and to talk of either ceremonial or judicial in relation to them, is a manifest rejection of Scripture and common sense. After the crimes, which were crimes before, are enumerated, it is added, in the most solemn and awful manner, Lev. xviii. 24-30, "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you; (for all these abominations have the men of the land done which were before you, and the land is defiled;) that the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God;" once more winding up with the great principle of authority, "I am Jehovah your God." Language cannot more clearly intimate that they were crimes, whether committed by Gentiles or by Israelites, and were and are an abomination to JEHOVAH.

Language could not be devised more universal and comprehensive, either as to the crimes enumerated or the persons included:-"Any of these things,” 66 any of your own nation, nor ANY STRANGER that sojourneth among you.' More awful punishments could not be denounced; and any one who has any reverence for God's Word will be slow indeed to incur the hazard of meriting them on any mere doubt as to the point under debate. Doubt is not admitted as any ground of action where God's law is concerned. Even in a matter of indifference, if a man doubts he must abstain-" for he that doubteth is damned if he eat, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."(Rom. xiv.) And in a matter of God's law, if he sin, whether he doubt or no, he alone must bear it. He incurs the curse denounced upon transgressors. Grotius felt the force of the above considerations; and let it be observed that he is not discussing what is or is not forbidden in Lev. xviii., but what is or is not forbidden by the law of nature; and what can be deduced from Leviticus to solve this latter question. He says, "A question follows concerning all the degrees of affinity and consanguinity in the transverse or collateral line, especially those which are expressly stated in Lev. xviii. For it being even conceded that these were not interdicted by the mere law of nature, they may seem to have come to be forbidden by the command of the divine will; nor that that was a command which binds the Hebrews only, but all men, seems to be collected from those words of Moses, Lev. xviii. 24, 25, 27, (above quoted.) For if the Canaanites and their neighbours sinned by acting thus (contracting such marriages), it must have been that there was a preceding law; which, as it was not the mere law of nature, it remains that the law had been given by God either to them in particular (which is not likely, nor do the words bear it), or to the human race, either at its first constitution, or at its restoration after the deluge. But such laws as were given to the whole human race do not seem to have been abrogated by Jesus Christ, but those only which served to separate the Jews from other nations were removed. Besides that, Paul so severely expresses detestation of the marriage of a step-son with his step-mother; while, never

62

PRINCIPLES OF LEVITICUS XVIII. PERMANENT-GROTIUS.

theless, no peculiar precept of Jesus Christ concerning it remains, nor does he use any other argument than that such connection was held impure even among the heathen." Grotius then gives proofs from heathen writers. He argues that among the heathen there must have been some old tradition of their being prohibited, since they were styled "crimes." In further illustrating the question of natural right, he does not say that the marriage of two sisters in succession is not forbidden in Lev xviii., but that it does not seem to be forbidden of natural right, and that this seemed to have been the idea of the " very ancient apostolic Canons," because all the penalty which they imposed on a man who married two sisters in succession, or a niece either by brother or sister, was exclusion from being a clergyman.

Grotius here finds himself met by his own preceding statement as to the law of nature, as indicated by Lev. xviii. 24, 25, 27. But he adds that it is not difficult to meet that objection, as that statement, although universal, might be held to apply to some of the more atrocious crimes, and that, after the manner of the Hebrews, other prohibitions were added as outworks, " præmunimenta,” as the Hebrews say, against these. And he adds, that one proof that this must be so is, that Jacob was "married to two sisters," which he does not believe could have been the case with so pious a patriarch, had it been forbidden by the law of creation. He does not give an opinion that such a marriage is not forbidden by the law of Leviticus, but by the law of the creation; and the reason for the difficulty is his perfect confidence in the character of Jacob,* -a confidence which is not warranted by the whole of his previous conduct. But if Jacob's piety was good to prove one thing, why not to prove another? If his piety is good to prove that he could not have violated the law of creation in taking two sisters to wife at the same time, why is it not good to prove that there is nothing wrong in any other man doing the same? And if so, then the law in Lev. xviii. 18, as interpreted by the Libertarians, is unnecessary, and a wanton interference with natural right, whether as understood of two natural sisters at one time, or of any two other women. At all events, Grotius, whom many others have followed in this, is plainly not warranted to limit the principle of the passage to such special crimes as he chooses to select. The language is too definite to admit of such liberty. It is "any of these things.' It is plain, that whatever things are forbidden in this chapter were crimes among the heathen, and must have been things altogether independent of either the ceremonial or judicial law of the Jews as such, and are crimes by whomsoever perpetrated. If, as many argue on this question, all the acts of the men to whom God had shown favour are to be held innocent, then there will be no such thing as crime at all; and if, on the other hand, God had never conferred his favours on any that had broken his laws, then the whole human race should have been left irremediably to perish. For those who believe in the Word of God, and in the curse denounced upon transgressors of the Christian law even in heart, as interpreted by our Lord in Matt. v., vi., vii., and in other parts of the New Testament, as well as of the Old, will not believe that God entered into covenant either with the Israelites, or their " fathers Abraham or Jacob," for their "righteousness' sake." He Himself told them the very reverse. It is not out of place to remark here, and it is a most instructive fact, that so far are either the interpretations or actings of modern or ancient Jews, in their rejection of any part of Leviticus xviii. as a prohibition of

* See Grotius, "De Jure Belli ac Pacis," lib. ii., cap. v., sec. xiii., xiv.

TO WHOM ADDRESSED.

63

such marriages, from being a proof that they are lawful, that the Jews are, in their present condition-broken, dispersed, and "a hissing and a proverb to all nations". -a proof that "God is true, and every man a liar." In so far as they have followed in the steps of the Canaanites, they have suffered, as God threatened they would, the same punishment, and the land has vomited them out. The condition of the Jews in their present state is no encouragement to follow, but an awful warning to avoid, their example in practising the sins of the heathen, and making void the Word of God by their traditions.

When it suits the writers on the other side to exalt the authority of Abraham and Jacob very high, in order to get quit of an actual decision of God's Word, nothing is heard of them but that they are men of such signal piety that they could not be conceived to do anything wrong. When a different point of view in their character suits their argument, they forget this respect altogether, and turn them into ridicule without scruple. Thus Mr Binney says,"Abraham consoled himself with Keturah, though, at his age, and as the father of Isaac, widowhood would have sat upon him with more dignity."(P. 19.)

I

may notice here, in one word, an argument of Mr Binney against the universality and permanency of the law in Lev. xviii., viz., that as the punishment of death is annexed in Deut. xx. to some of the crimes forbidden in this chapter, if the law be permanent, so must the punishment be permanent also. Be it so; that will not settle the question whether it be permanent law or not. But it does not follow that because forgery is not now punished with death in this country, as it was not long ago, therefore forgery is no crime, and is not forbidden by the law. Besides, the law in Lev. xviii. is laid down on strictly universal principles, which cannot vary. But the punishment is annexed in another place altogether, and may be judicial; but whether it be so or not, we cannot, to escape a consequence which, however severe in our estimation, is not severer than the eternal condemnation pronounced on the breaking of God's law at the first, feel ourselves warranted to reject the law itself. This would make short work with the law of God. But we trust that Christians are not yet prepared to receive Mr Binney's notions of the law in relation to Christians.

Section IV.-To whom, and on what principles, the 18th Chapter is

addressed.

All its laws are addressed to the man, as head of the woman, as I think all the general moral laws applicable to the race of man are in the whole Word of God. This arises from the very first principle of the creation of the race- -the woman being made out of the man; and in relation to marriage, they are << one flesh," and whatever is forbidden to the one is forbidden to the other, and whatever is permitted to the one is permitted to the other. As the whole controversy hinges on this point, it is most important to mark it. It is clearly expressed in verses 8, 16, and 20 of Leviticus xviii., where the nakedness of the one relation, male or female, is held to be that of the correlative male or female. This doctrine of the unity of man and wife pervades the Scriptures. You have it in Gen. ii. 24, Mal. ii. 15. It is reaffirmed by our Lord, Matt. xix. 4-6, and used as a first principle of reasoning in the enforcement of purity by Paul in 1 Cor. vi. 16, and in Eph.