STATE OF THE QUESTION.

and of every duty therein enjoined. Yet, with these same divines, he also holds, that "we may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy Scripture ;" and in like manner, at least, be moved carefully to weigh the opinions that are contradicted by this testimony. He is chiefly, however, induced on the present occasion to have recourse to this testimony, by the somewhat contradictory allegations of the parties who are making such strenuous exertions to unsettle the minds of the Christians of Great Britain on the present question-viz., 1. That the views held by the Reformed Churches, and especially by those of England and Scotland, are only the remains of Popish tyranny; and, 2. That they are traceable to the influence of Henry VIII. of England, which both swayed and corrupted not only the ecclesiastics of his time, but bribed the Universities, both of England and the Continent, to decide in his favour when he wanted a dispensation from the Pope to annul a marriage that stood in the way of the gratification of his desires. Both of these statements cannot be true, and it can be shown that they are both false. Let it be understood, therefore, that the writer enters upon this part of the subject rather as a measure of defence than attack; rather for the purpose of clearing away obstacles unfairly interposed to the free reception of the authoritative decisions of God's Word, than to bring any pretended support to them from the doctrines and commandments of men.

The proper question to be discussed is, Whether a man is morally warranted, on the footing of divine authority, to marry the sister of his deceased wife; or, if not having a positive warrant, is he prohibited from doing so? It is well known to those who have looked into this question, that it has been argued and maintained on grounds that not only justify polygamy, but on such grounds as involve the denial that there is such a crime as incest at all, and wholly destroy the divine authority of marriage in any other sense than that a man is bound to fulfil an obligation he has voluntarily come under to one or more women; and e converso, that a woman is bound to fulfil an obligation she has come under to one or more men-in fact, on grounds that end in pure Socialism. In opposition to this, the doctrine we hold and maintain, so far as necessary to be stated for our present purpose, is contained in the first and fourth sections of the 24th chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which are as follow :

"I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman; neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.

"IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. 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."

At present I am only stating the question, and not arguing it. But in regard to the first section of this 24th chapter of the Confession of Faith, let the reader observe what it does, and judge for himself, whether the statement is warranted. It quotes the original institution, Gen. ii. 24, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE; and they shall be ONE flesh." Matt. xix. 5, reaffirming by

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH.

5

our Lord the same words, is then quoted, with the addition, (verse 6,) "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder ;"-giving us thus the original and the final law on the subject, with which we at least have finally to do. It thus proves very clearly, that the Word of God has determined, as the original law at the creation, and as the Christian law laid down by our Lord, and therefore the perennial, immutable law of God, that marriage shall only be between one man and one woman. The bearing of this on the present discussion will afterwards appear. In the fourth section it says, 66 Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word." In proof of this doctrine, the Confession refers to the whole 18th chapter of Leviticus; and the man is not to be reasoned with who denies that there are degrees of affinity forbidden in it, equally with degrees of consanguinity.

The portion of the Confession of Faith which embodies the subject of the present discussion is the following:-"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.' The passages quoted in support of this general statement are the following:

Lev. xx. 19-21, "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister; for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 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."

These passages are quoted in proof of the general principle, that a wife's kindred are held to be in the same relation to her husband, in reference to the law of marriage, as his own. Cases are given, in which the man is forbidden to uncover the nakedness of parties who have no blood relation to himself, though they have been married to blood relations, and so on account of this affinity he is forbidden to marry them; and the peculiar punishment, for this chapter treats of the punishment,-is the proof that it is a punishment for marrying in this relation, after the uncle or brother is dead; for both the man and the woman are to die childless. They shall not have children, or if any of them have had them before the marriage, they shall be cut off. It is well, then, that we see what the Confession of Faith maintains, and how it maintains it.

Such is the opinion held in the professed creed, not only of the church to which the writer belongs, but in the creeds of all those in Scotland who have a creed, that is, its whole Presbyterian population,-and, also, so far as the writer knows, by all the smaller bodies of Christians who have any title to be considered as holding the true catholic faith. What the opinions of individuals among some of those bodies are, is not now the question.

Section II.-Opinions of the Jews.

Though the opinions of the Jews as Jews are not properly the testimony of the church, yet it is proper under such a head to advert to them. Their opinions merely as opinions are not of very great value; nevertheless, as much use is made of them by those who are anxious to settle this question by the force of names and numbers, and are not very nice in their selection,

6

OPINIONS OF THE JEWS-MAIMONIDES.

it is necessary to know what they are. We are not aware that much can be ascertained as to the opinions of the Israelites, previous to the time of our Lord, on the present question, in so far as they differed from the Scriptures, or went beyond them. Wherein they differed or added, our Lord decides what authority is due to them, viz., that they "made void the law of God by their traditions, and taught for doctrines the commandments of men." They do not seem at any period of their history to have fully recognised in their conduct the revealed will of Jehovah, and it is not very likely they would strictly interpret the law that condemned themselves. God said of them in David's time, "It is a people that do err in their heart: they have not known my ways," Ps. xcv.; and Isaiah in his time, "They rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit." And Stephen said, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." At the time of the captivity of Babylon, the great body of them were idolaters, and though after the return from captivity they never fell actually into the sin of idolatry, yet they fell into the crimes for which the curses were denounced in Deut. xxviii. They crucified the Lord of glory —and these curses were speedily and awfully executed to the letter; and "wrath came upon them to the uttermost." Their posterity approve of their sayings, and have served themselves heirs to their doings.

From what is stated by an American writer on the opposite side of the question, he admits that Maimonides held that the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister was disapproved of by the ancient Jews. This writer says, "As to Maimonides, a learned Spanish Jew, living in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, who states that the ancient Jews disapproved of the marriages in question, it is hard to perceive how his authority respecting the laws of Moses should be preferred to that of a learned German." Hard certainly, if the authority were the question. But the question is only as to a matter of fact, viz., what opinions the ancient Jews held. Grotius held the opinions of Maimonides on such a point somewhat high. There will be occasion to refer more fully to Grotius in the sequel. Meantime, when demonstrating that the heathen held certain connections in the case of those related merely by affinity to be abominations, and that if this opinion were not absolutely derived from the law of nature, yet it followed from ancient tradition as a divine precept, he adds:-" The ancient Hebrews are not to be despised as interpreters of the divine law in this matter, and Moses Maimonides, who has read every thing about them, and digested them with the highest judgment," &c. &c. Whatever may be in this, it will be admitted that his opinion is not of less value than that of Dr Adler, a Jewish Rabbi of London, which has been so widely circulated by the Libertarians, ‡ in a collection of alleged facts and opinions, and which we shall notice hereafter.

Maimonides in his " More Nevochim," pars. iii, cap. xlix., which treats "Of the causes and reasons of the precepts of the fourteenth class," after assigning as the reason of the prohibited degrees, that of the necessary domestic intercourse of near relations, and the consequent danger to morals, even to the extent of saying, that if the decision, in regard to women so related, were the same to a man as in regard to other women free to marry,

*Marshall," Lawfulness of Marriage," &c.

+ Grotius," De Jure Belli ac Pacis," lib. ii. sec. xiii.

I use this word to avoid constant circumlocution, both as the most characteristic of what those on the other side contend for, and as the least offensive that occurs to me.

OPINIONS OF THE JEWS-MAIMONIDES.

7

and that marriage with them were not prohibited under any penalty, says, "The greater part of men would live in sin without end (indesinenter in Scortationibus viverent.") He is very minute in specifying the ways and the parties, and in these the brother of the husband and the sister of the wife are named. Then he adds, (I quote from Buxtorf's Latin translation), "Altera causa meo judicio est, ut pudor et verecundia nobis commendetur. Nam quia impudentiæ summæ est opus istud intra radicem et ramum (h. e. in uxorem ducere matrem aut filiam); idcirco prohibitum est matrimonium inter radicem et ramum. Neque est differentia, sive radix ramum, aut ramus radicem ducat, sive radix et ramus in corporis tertii connubio convenient, ut nempe aliquis corpus secum radici et ramo detegat." He adds, "Ideo enim prohibitum est ducere mulierem et filiam ejus, item uxorem patris et uxorem filii; quia ista sunt retectio nuditatis corporis unius nuditati radicis et rami. Fratres se habent ut radix et ramus: hinc quia prohibita est soror, prohibita etiam est soror uxoris, et uxor fratris; quoniam hæc est duorum individuorum, quæ sunt sicut radix et ramus in conjunctione corporis tertii." That is, "Therefore, then, it was prohibited to marry a woman and her daughter, also the wife of a father, and the wife of a son; because these are the uncovering the nakedness of one body to the nakedness of the root and the branch. Brothers are to one another as the root and the branch: hence because the sister has been prohibited, so also has been prohibited the sister of the wife, and the wife of the brother; since this is the case of two individuals, who are as root and branch in the conjunction of a third body." The reason assigned by Maimonides for the prohibition in these cases, every pure mind must approve of, viz., that it commends chastity and modesty, and it argues, he says, the height of impudence that there should be marriage between the root and the branch.

I believe that on a point connected with this subject some have been led to state the case of references to the opinions of the Rabbinical Jews, greatly more strongly than these opinions warrant. For instance, Dr Eadie, in his letter of date 27th May 1850, states the case in the following confident, at least confiding terms :-"But surely the people for whom the law was intended are entitled to be heard as to their interpretation of it? Yet on the Glasgow platform Israel was ignored. The law was made for their guidance, and how did they understand it? The uniform understanding of the statute, so far as can be ascertained, harmonises with the opinion we have advancedthe small sect of Karaites only are excepted. We have proof in the Mishnah (Yebamoth, iv. 13)-proof reaching from Philo, in the days of the apostles, down to Zunz, whose Gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden' appeared at Berlin in 1832. Surely the Children of the Covenant' are able to interpret the language of its common and secular enactments." There are as many questionable points in this passage as there are clauses. 1. In the first place, an ordinary reader would suppose that the Rabbins referred to gave their opinion when they were living under "the covenant;" whereas it was long after the time of Christ, and they were driven forth and dispersed for breaking the covenant, and "blinded," degraded, and hardened, under the “ curse," for rejecting it. 2. They were not remarkable at any time for a conscientious interpretation of the "covenant,” but for making it "void by their traditions." 3. Even their "understanding of the statute" was the farthest possible from being "uniform," as we shall presently show from the passage in the Mishnah referred to. 4. The opinion

8

OPINIONS OF THE JEWS-MISHNAH.

of Philo, as we shall afterwards see, is any thing but certain on the side of Dr Eadie. The opinion of Maimonides we have seen to be the reverse. What Zunz says Dr Eadie has not told us, and it is believed Christian men will not be very anxious to know. 5. The place referred to in the Mishnah does not bear on the statute at all, and forces us to doubt if Dr Eadie has ever looked at it for himself; or, if he has, to stand amazed at the confident tone of the remarks above quoted. The passage referred to by Dr Eadie, but not given, occurs in the Mishnah in the "Treatise concerning the Duties of Levirites to Brother's Widows."* Any one who will read or even glance at the treatise, will have fully as much difficulty with the " tedious and perplexing casuistry and solemn frippery" of the Mishnah, as Dr Eadie attributes to the Canon law. The following is Surenhusius' Latin translation of the passage, and any one who will compare it with the original will see it is strictly accurate :-(Yebamoth, cap. iv. § 13.)- Quisnam est Spurius? Omnes carni propinquis ob quem transgredimur preceptum non veniet, &c., verba R. Akibæ. Schimeon Temanites dicit, omnis propter quem rei sunt excisionis per manus cœlorum; decisio est juxta verba ejus. R. Jehoschua dicit, omnis propter quem rei sunt mortis domus judicii. Dixit R. Schimeon filius Asai, inveni volumen genealogia Jerusolymis, in quo scriptum erat, N. Spurius est ex uxore viri, ad confirmandum verba R. Jehoschuæ. Si mortua fuerit uxor ejus, licitus est sorori ejus; si repudiaverit eam et mortua fuerit, licitus est sorori ejus; si nupserit alii et mortua fuerit, licitus est sorori ejus; si fratria illius mortua fuerit, licitus est sorori; si calceum illi dederit exuendum, et mortua fuerit, licitus est sorori ejus; si nupserit alii et mortua fuerit, licitus est sorori ejus." The whole point in discussion is the duties of the brother when his brother died and left no child. A great variety of points are raised and opinions given under the three first chapters, and under the preceding twelve sections of the fourth chapter; some of them curious enough. The twelfth section of chapter four is "If any one shall have brought back (reduxerit) his repudiated wife, and hath married her who hath plucked off the shoe, and married the near of kin of that one who hath plucked off the shoe, shall take her, and the son shall be spurious (Mamzer), are the words of Rabbi Akiba. Wise men say, the son is not spurious, and (wise men) grant concerning him who shall have married the near of kin of his repudiated wife that the son is spurious." Section thirteen immediately follows:-"Who is spurious? Every one near of kin on account of whom we transgress the negative precept, He shall not come, &c., the words of R. Akiba. Simeon Temanites says, Every one on account of whom they are guilty of cutting off by the hands of heaven, the decision is according to his words. R. Joshua says, Every one on account of whom they are guilty of the judgment of the death of the house. R. Simeon, son of Asai, hath said, I found a roll of genealogy at Jerusalem in which it was written, he is spurious from the wife of a man, to confirm the words of R. Joshua. If his wife had died, he is allowed her sister; if he had repudiated her and she was dead, he was allowed her sister; if he married another and she had died, he is allowed her sister; if the brother's widow of that one had died, he is allowed her sister; if he shall have given the shoe to be loosed, and she had died, he is allowed her sister; if he married another and she had died, he is allowed her sister." What have

*The Levirite was the brother-in-law, whose duty it was to marry the sister of a deceased brother who had left no children.