Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

64

ON WHAT PRINCIPLES TO BE EXPOUNDED.

v. 23, 31, as to the duties of husband and wife, they being thus held to be one person and consequently affinity and consanguinity are in this question one and the same thing; in other words, the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith is true and authoritative, viz., "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own." There can be no manner of doubt that in this chapter the principle of affinity is recognised as constituting a ground of prohibition as much, at least, as that of consanguinity. Every one but those who wilfully shut their eyes has noticed the remarkable fact, that in the seventeen instances of prohibited degrees given in the chapter, eleven are cases of affinity, and only six are cases of consanguinity. So far, then, our argument is clear and, I think, unassailable on any ground of reasons derived from Scripture.

Section V.—On what principle, as applicable to the present question, the 18th Chapter of Leviticus is to be expounded.

The next thing we have to notice is the principle of the prohibition applicable to all the cases. It is found in verse 6,-" NONE of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." This prohibition is universal-" NONE of you." If this principle be applicable to the man, it is applicable to the woman to the same extent, otherwise there is no general principle applicable to the woman in this respect at all. Besides, it springs from the general principle of identity or unity of person, in interest and relation, and of responsibility in the husband and the wife. It is enjoined on the authority of Jehovah, God over all, blessed for ever. Taking the fact that eleven degrees by affinity, as well as six by consanguinity, are prohibited after this general principle is announced, they must be held as instances and examples both of the principle of the prohibition, and what nearness of kin is. I have met with one curious instance, in which a hired official-who says he is intrusted with the "hopes" of the very virtuous parties who, to gratify their passions, have, without even the plea of a false conscience, and in disregard of God's Word, which enjoins obedience to "the powers that be," broken the law of their country, and are fighting hard to get quit of it by squaring the law of God to suit their case as every criminal secretly, if not avowedly, tries to do-attempts to prove that nearness of kin is applicable only to the nearest blood relations, and so leaves the door wide enough. He assails the Bishop of Exeter with as much flippancy as insolence for misquoting Scripture on the point. Let us see if he is quite honest in quoting it himself. In a letter to the Bishop of Exeter on the subject, Mr W. Campbell Sleigh rates the Bishop very roundly for misquoting Jeremy Taylor. With this part of the controversy I do not intermeddle. But Mr Sleigh says:

66

6

Pray, my Lord Bishop, turn to your Bible, and open Leviticus xxi. 2, 3. Your Lordship did not think it prudent to trouble the House of Peers with this passage, containing, as it does-not indeed any mere ‹ rule of interpretation-an explanatory declaration, in clear, lucid, and unambiguous terms (as it were in anticipation of modern dogmatists and polemics) of those relations which were to be considered as coming within the definition of near of kin to a man.' But for his kin that is near

unto him [the very words used in Leviticus xviii. 6], that is for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his

MEANING OF THE PHRASE

NEAR OF KIN."

65

brother, and for his sister,' &c. These relations, my Lord, are those which the Lawgiver declared to be near of kin to a man.'

Now, it so happens that the words "that is" in the 2d verse are not in the original at all, and to show this, they are printed in our Bibles in italics ; but Mr Sleigh quotes them in good round and broad type of the Roman character, as if they were a divine definition, and proceeds on this false quotation to rate the Bishop very sternly for an alleged similar iniquity. Any one looking to the chapter, Lev. xxi. 2, 3, will see that it has no bearing on the question; and the passage would read better without the italic. It is as follows:- "And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people: but for his kin that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother, and for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled." It will be perceived that the passage refers to the ceremonial defilement of the priest with a dead body, and has no reference whatever to the present subject, but has a permissive clause, in the case of the relations specified, to a priest, who is forbidden in other cases to defile himself with a dead body, one of which excepted cases is in favour of "a sister a virgin, who hath had no husband." Does this man mean that, when she has had a husband, she ceases to be near of kin to her own brother? All that the phrase indicates here is, that with certain near relations the priest might touch their dead body. It will generally be found that men's insolence is in proportion to their ignorance, and of none is this more true than of the writers of this class.

I have often thought how remarkable it is that, of the strangest and most fanciful inventions of error in regard to Bible truths, you find the contradiction in the Bible itself. We are not without one in the present instance. That the phrase, 66 near of kin," does not denote blood-relationship alone, is clear from the following passages:-(Ruth ii. 20), “And Naomi said unto her daughter-in-law (Ruth the Moabitess), ... the man (Boaz of Bethlehem-Judah) is near of kin to us, one of our next kinsmen." Again (iv. 14, 15), “And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel: and he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age; for thy daughter-in-law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him." Here is Naomi, who, in virtue of her marriage to Elimelech, the kinsman of Boaz, called, chap. i., “a kinsman of her husband's," calling herself kinswoman of Boaz, and Boaz kinsman of her Moabitish daughter-in-law; while the child of Boaz and Ruth is called by the women her "kinsman;" and among the whole party there is no blood-relationship whatever, except with the parents and the child. They are kindred by affinity. So much for this ingenious rule of interpretation, or rather "clear, unambiguous explanatory declaration" of Mr Sleigh. Nothing can bring out more clearly the principle of nearness of kin by affinity than this instance in the book of Ruth. The special degrees of "nearness of kin" prohibited are to be next ascertained by the special texts included under it.

In the meantime, I am tempted to give one other instance of their style of *Lord St Germans, in his authorised published speech, uses the same argument. Whether his Lordship held his brief from Mr Sleigh, or Mr Sleigh held his brief from his Lordship, I cannot say; but their argument is evidently coined in the same mint,

is the same coin.

-or rather

E

66

SPECIAL TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.

argumentation on this point. This advocate holds that the proof is clear that " nearness of kin" has respect only to consanguinity, because in Lev. xviii. 6 the phrase is "near of kin to HIM"-the man. He says

"I invite your Lordship's serious attention to the peculiar phraseology here made use of near of kin to HIM;' there is no opportunity to misapprehend the meaning of the Lawgiver; he prohibits the approach' of a man to any who is near of kin TO HIM, or, in popular language, nearly related to him by blood. And it is well worthy of remark, that the prohibition is addressed specially to the man, and not generally to male and female, as the prohibitions of the decalogue; and further, no mention is made of any not so related TO HIM; nothing from which we could deduce a prohibition to approach any near of kin to a wife. Thus, then, with the literal meaning of the phrase 'near of kin' (flesh of flesh-consanguineous relationship) before us, I apprehend we dare not, my Lord Bishop, consider the prohibition as applicable to any but to those consanguineously related to the husband. A wife's sister most clearly is not so related to her sister's husband; rgo, the prohibition in ver. 6 cannot possibly apply to her, or her relations.

66

I do not now call more special attention to the cases of affinity prohibited in the chapter. But I call attention to the phrase, as the prohibitions of the decalogue." Of course he affirms that these prohibitions are not addressed to the "man;" though the passage is so constructed that it may or may not mean this. Without dwelling on the word "thou," which certainly is somewhat different from "ye," and cannot, but by the implication of the man being "the head of the woman," apply to both, what, on this assertion, are we to make of the command in the decalogue, Exod. xx. 17, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife?" I suppose, on the method of interpretation followed by these men, a wife may covet her neighbour's husband, because the command is only addressed formally to the MAN; and this will be held an exception to the general law, and the woman, they might hold, is free from it. Really it is difficult to believe that any man from whom such a statement proceeds can look upon the Bible in any other light than that in which he looks upon any material thing which he may shape or form as suits his fancy or convenience; and it is sad to see such men spreading their wretched perversions of the Word of God over the land, by the funds of the wealthy breakers of the law both of God and man.

Another point is still general, viz., that a man is undeniably prohibited from marrying his own sister, either full or half, (Lev. xviii. 9); and by the general principle, already proved, he is equally forbidden to marry the sister of his wife, for he and his wife are one flesh. This, we have seen, is the doctrine of the Reformers, and of our civil as well as ecclesiastical law.

Section VI.-Special Texts of Scripture.

I come now to a consideration of the special texts. Our general principles, so far as we have gone, are unassailable on any ground of Scripture principle or fact. Let us now come to the particular texts. Here it is of some consequence to observe carefully where the strength of the argument founded on, on this part of the subject, lies; because it is a trick of the adversary to divert attention from this, and to run away with discussion on a text, which, even on their own showing, does not have directly on the point at all, and which, as I think we can show,

[blocks in formation]

bears on it neither directly nor indirectly, exceptively nor otherwise, but bears on the subject of polygamy-I mean, Lev. xviii. 18. There is nothing more painfully discreditable than the constant recurrence of this practice, in several instances, in the evidence of several of the witnesses, even clerical witnesses, before the Royal Commission appointed in 1847. It betokens a degree either of culpable ignorance, or of wilful perversion and concealment, most reprehensible. In the meantime, let us attend to Lev. xviii. 16, and see if we can ascertain its fair import and bearing on the present question in harmony with the principles already ascertained. It is as follows:- "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness." See also Lev. xx. 21, "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing; he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness: they shall be childless," as threatened in the case of the man who uncovered the nakedness of his "uncle's wife," or aunt by affinity. That this was deemed no light punishment, we learn from the doom pronounced on "Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah," when driven into captivity, and the "earth" is thrice called to listen to it—Jer. xxii. 30,-"Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”

I take for granted that the expression "shall take" has reference to marriage. The expression "brother's wife" means brother's widow, in the ordinary language of men, as we have seen it uniformly did in the early laws and canons, both of the church and of the state; and as in fact it does in all laws and languages. I cannot do better, on this point, than give the following extract from Mr Dwight, pp. 60, 61:

"Fifthly, Where the law of incest forbids marriage with the wife of an individual, it really forbids it with his widow.

66

"There are four female connections expressly mentioned in the law, as the wives of given individuals: a father's wife, a son's wife, a brother's wife, and an uncle's wife. It has been strenuously contended that, as the word wife is here used, and not widow, that wife and not widow is intended; and, of course, that it was lawful to marry either of these connections, when they became widows. In support of this position it is said, that mere affinity is the sole ground of the several prohibitions, that the affinity ceases in each case with the life of the respective husband, and that the prohibition therefore ceases at his death. Thus, it is said that a stepmother ceases to be related to her step-son as soon as her husband is dead; but why the propinquity then ceases, has not been explained. What, then, let me ask, originally constituted that propinquity? Plainly the fact, that the father-consensu atque concubitu, qui faciunt nuptias-had consummated marriage with her. In the language of the law, she then became one flesh with him, or had his propinquity. As soon as this became a fact, the propinquity was complete. But when this once became a fact, it could never be otherwise than a fact; and, of course, the foundation of the propinquity between the step-mother and the step-son could never cease. Neither the father's death, nor the subsequent marriage of the step-mother, could affect it; because neither could affect the pre-existent fact of their marriage, which was the foundation on which it rested. My sister does not lose the propinquity which she has in common with me, either at my father's death, or at her marriage, because her propinquity is founded on a pre-existent fact, which can never cease to be a fact.

68

WIFE AT LEV. XVIII. 16 MEANS WIDOW.

6

[ocr errors]

"The scriptural writers, in pointing out correlatives by affinity, in all cases use the word wife, and never the word widow, when they are actually speaking of a widow. Ruth iv. 5, Buy it of Ruth, the wife of the dead.' 2 Sam. xii. 10, Thou hast taken the wife of Uriah.' Matt. xxii. 25, 'The first died, and left his wife.' Acts v. 7, Ananias' wife, not knowing that her husband was dead.' Such was the common parlance of the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the Romans; and such is that of the French, the Germans, the Spaniards, and the Italians, as well as of the English. In their versions of the Scriptures they never introduce the word widow in such cases. Nay, those with whom I contend have confessed, in a manner not to be gainsaid, that this is the only fair construction of the law; for, in stating the question now in debate, they always ask, 'Is it lawful for a man to marry his brother's wife?' and never his brother's widow ;it lawful for a woman to marry her sister's husband?' and never her sister's widower.

L'Is

"The language of statutes is chosen with great exactness; yet no law of incest, probably, can be found in any statute-book in which marriage is prohibited with a father's widow, a brother's widow, &c. But the language uniformly is, a father's wife,' a brother's wife.' The other phraseology is rarely, if ever, used, except when logical precision is necessary."

[ocr errors]

I also take for granted that Leviticus xviii. contains the law against incest in its various forms, and has respect to incestuous marriages. The denial of this by some writers on the other side is a strong proof that they cannot make out their case if incestuous marriages be the subject of these Levitical prohibitions at all. Those who attach any weight to the assertion that these Levitical prohibitions do not relate to incestuous marriages at all, must consult Dwight's "Hebrew Wife," in which they will find every point discussed and met, with a minuteness of Scripture reference, patience, and force of argument, which can neither be overthrown nor surpassed, and so briefly that he can hardly be abridged.* But the simple idea that sexual intercourse with the nearest relative, whether by marriage or otherwise, is no worse in the eye of the revealed law of God than sexual intercourse of the same kind with any other son or daughter of Adam, had not writers both in this country and America gravely maintained it, is so revolting, as to make it almost incredible that any one should in either of these countries assert it, and yet profess to be a Christian. It is most certainly, at all events, contrary to the construction uniformly put upon the Levitical prohibitions by the Israelites, and by Christian churches and governments, ancient and modern; and thus of Israelites and Christians for three thousand years. Out of the clear, conclusive reasons furnished by Mr Dwight, I select here only the 10th, pp.

55,

56:

"10. If the law of incest did not prohibit incestuous marriages, its only effect was to weaken the force of the general statute respecting adultery. Every thing is lawful which is not prohibited by some law; and every thing is lawful, so far as a given law is concerned, which that law does not prohibit. And the more particular and circumstantial the terms of a penal law are, as the prohibition of the given offence is less general, so the stronger is the implication that the conduct under different circumstances is lawful. A law forbidding fornication with females under twenty years of age, and assigning their age as the ground of the prohibition, would give * See Appendix B.

« AnteriorContinuar »