74 DEGREES MORE REMOTE FORBIDDEN. disposed, to resist all argument from the Levitical law. It is this:-That it plainly forbids marriage within degrees of affinity more remote than that of a man with the sister of a deceased wife. Thus (Lev. xviii. 14), "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt." Of course the word wife here must mean widow, otherwise it would merely be the prohibition of adultery. Marriage is here forbidden to a man with his aunt-in-law-his aunt by affinity. A man (a son) is forbidden to marry his mother's sister, or aunt by consanguinity. A son is forbidden thus to marry his aunt both by affinity and consanguinity. But the father of that son is forbidden to marry (Lev. xviii. 16) "his brother's wife "- that is, the aunt of his son by affinity; and it were strange indeed if he were allowed to marry the sister of his own deceased wife—that is, the aunt of that same son by consanguinity. Parties who stick at no consequences of principle in interpreting the law, because they persuade themselves that they are justified by an inference arrived at by a point of criticism of a kind, as by them maintained, to say the least, that is very, very doubtful, may get over this argument; but I am persuaded few others will get over it. Again, in Lev. xviii. 17, we have marriage expressly prohibited, on the ground of nearness of kin, with a wife's grand-daughter, the daughter of that wife's son or daughter by a former marriage-in other words, a man is forbidden to marry his grand-step-daughter, on account of nearness of kin; but yet, on the reasoning of the Libertarians, he is at liberty to marry the much closer and nearer blood relation of that same wife, viz., her sister. But this latter is a point which they are so determined to carry, that I believe, notwithstanding avowals in some cases to the contrary, the majority of them do not admit the authority of the Levitical law on the subject at all. And, without charging men with falsehood, I must say I care little for avowals extorted by a deference to prevailing opinion, when men's argumentations and convictions have already subverted in their own minds all the principles which can give any stability to the feelings that dictate the avowals. Some of the writers most directly deny that the Levitical law is any rule to us. They affirm that it was only the ceremonial and judicial law of the Jews. What they mean by ceremonial on such a point, I do not profess to understand, and cannot conceive. If by ceremony they mean some external rite to give pomp and circumstance to the institution of marriage, no one can discover either its use or its propriety. If it were to keep them separate from the nations around them, it evidently would have had the opposite effect, by driving them to seek for wives and husbands "far hence among the Gentiles." If it were as a type of something future in the Christian economy, it is desirable that it be pointed out. Marriage itself is used in the New Testament as a type or similitude of the union of Christ and his Church, but this only establishes its sacredness and perpetuity. On the same principle, if the Levitical prohibitions were types and ceremonies, what did they prefigure? What in this instance do they teach? If they were shadows, they must point to the substance. What is the substance in such a case? There is no substance but the thing itself, and consequently no ceremony. Again, if they are alleged to have been judicial, what does that determine? Is everything that was judicial in the law of God, as given by Moses, for that very reason contrary to the actual law of God, to good morals, or to the principles of Christianity? Is the mere assertion, or even the proof, THE MATTER OF THE PROHIBITION NOT CEREMONIAL. 75 that a law belonged to the judicial law under the Mosaic dispensation, certain proof that it is now no part of the will of God, and contrary to natural right? If so, short work will be made alike with the laws of religion and morals, and with the principles of justice and mercy. Is there no meaning in the universal principles which we have seen prefixed and added as the sanctions of the prohibitions in Lev. xviii.? Is there no meaning in Rom. xv. 4—“WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORETIME, were (aforetime) written for our learning?" Grave divines and learned lawyers seem to think that the mere utterance of the words "ceremonial," "judicial," "municipal," without reason or cause, or without any attempt to show that they have any possible application to the subject in hand, are amply sufficient to put the facts, testimonies, and universal principles of God's Word to flight without any more ado. But in truth there was nothing more judicial in the prohibitions in question than there is in the seventh commandment, which forbids all uncleanness, and to which the punishment of death was annexed by the Mosaic law. If the circumstance of the punishment annexed to the violations of the prohibitions of Leviticus xviii. renders them ceremonial and judicial in the sense that they are no longer binding. on us, then the same circumstance must absolve all mankind from the obligation of the seventh and of the whole ten commandments as an authoritative law of God,-a conclusion which few but those who hold the Antinomian notions of Mr Binney will venture to broach. Were this the proper place, it would be interesting to trace the connections between a pretended spiritualism and mysticism in religion and infidelity, Popery and paganism, both in doctrine and morality. But we must forbear. Calvin, who was both a jurist and divine, a man of unsurpassed, if not unequalled strength, acuteness, and moderation of judgment, of classical learning seldom exceeded-a man skilled and consulted not only as a divine, but as a jurist and a politician-who was, in fact, bred to the law, and had not long left that profession when he published his Institutes—a man who has impressed his mind on whole nations-is infinitely to be preferred, in all sober reason, to any Judge Vaughan, or Storey, or Denman, wrote on the universality and permanency of the law in Lev. xviii. as follows:-On Lev. xviii. 6, "Nemo ad propinquam." Speaking of the word nakedness, he adds,-" Therefore there is no doubt but that Moses marks something abominable (foedum), and to be punished. Moreover, it must be maintained, as I have already determined, that not only are certain incestuous connections without marriage condemned, but that the degrees are designated within which marriages are unlawful. It is indeed true that this was part of the political constitution which God established among his ancient people; but at the same time it must be held, whatever is commanded, that it was taken from the fountain of rectitude itself, and, from the sense of it, divinely implanted (ingenito) in us. Therefore, some, little exercised in the Scriptures, affect a preposterous acumen when they boast, that the law being abrogated, the bond is dissolved by which Moses bound his countrymen (suos.) For that this doctrine is not simply political, nor ought to be thought so, is to be gathered from the preface" (to ver. 6) "just expounded." And then, stating its substance, he adds,"In conclusion, the prohibition of incests, about which the question now is, is by no means of the number of laws which are wont to be abolished, according to the circumstances of times and places, since it flows from the 76 PERMANENCY OF THE LAW CALVIN-BOEHMER. very fountain of nature, and is founded in the general principle of all laws, which is perpetual and inviolable." He farther declares that God prohibits them simply as pollutions, "inquinamenta," and adduces Scripture authority for the proof.* The reader, who is uninitiated in the shifts and turns of the writers on the other side, may be surprised to find reasonings like those of Calvin and Grotius met by such free and easy answers as the following of an American writer:-"It must be granted that those laws being inspired, were the best for the people to whom they were given; but the Asiatics were never accustomed, and, as our missionaries testify, are not now accustomed, to exact classification or logical arrangement in discourse"! And of course the conclusion is, that God adapted his laws to the disjointed arrangements of ancient Israelites and modern Hindus or Calmucks! Others treat us to reasons drawn from "Eastern houses," "Eastern customs," and such like, as if the Bible, like the Sabbath, had not been made for MAN, but for Easterns or Westerns only. Since writing the above I have had an opportunity of perusing Böehmer's "Jus Ecclesiaticum Protestantium," and I am tempted to give the following admirable extract on the universality and permanency of the Levitical prohibitions. Let it be observed that Böehmer was not of the class of bigoted theologians, who, of course, because they are theologians, must be unfit to judge of a point of theology and morals, but Professor of Common Law (Juris Ordinarii), and interim Director of Council to the King of Prussia last century. The preface is dated 1731. He edited the "Corpus Juris Canonici." Böehmer, tit. xiv., DE CONSANGUINITATE ET AFFINITATE, states first, the "history of computing the degrees," then second, the rules by which the prohibitions were regulated; and while condemning their undue extension, and stating the law among Protestant States, sums up in sec. xxxvi., of which the following are the heads on the margin :-"The degrees in affinity are estimated from a married person, and the prohibition extends itself to the same degree which restrains blood relations (consanguineos.) From which rule the Tridentines deviated in the case of a woman illegitimate. Was it so among Protestants?" These points he states as follows: "But I have not yet evinced how far marriages are prohibited in the first kind of affinity. That there are no degrees of it, asserts Modestinus in l. 4, § 5, de grad. et affinit., which is undoubted as to succession, of which relations by affinity (affines) are not partakers, therefore neither is any account of degrees held. But it is held as to carnal connection; so that the degrees ought to be estimated from the person of the spouse. The spouses (conjuges) are one flesh, and constitute one body, and so the wife is joined in affinity by the same degree to the blood relations of the husband as the husband was joined to them in consanguinity, and vice versa. But these were most common, even in c. 12, seqq. 6, 35, qu. 2 et 3, acknowledged. Thence the laws ordain that the same degree must be observed in affinity which they concluded to be observed in consanguinity, c. 8, x., h. t., which the courts of Protestants for the most part follow. From this rule, however, receded 1, Ordin. Eccles. Argentorat., p. 397, prohibiting matrimony between those who are among themselves in the second and third degree of the collateral line, but expressly admitting them. * Calvini Opera Fol., Amstelodami 1671, vol. i., pp. 519–20. JEWISH LAW ADOPTED BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 77 in affinity thus, Dass nunmehre die Vermaelung im drittem Grad in gleicher und ungleicher Linie unverboten, sondern frey and tsugelassen seyn soll." "That now marriage in the third degree, in the equal or unequal lines, shall be unforbidden, but free and permitted." Though Böehmer speaks of second and third degree, this extract only mentions the third. He adds (ii.), “In like manner the Tridentine fathers thought that a veil ought to be drawn over affinity contracted by (stupro) fornication, and the prohibition should subsist within the first and second degree only. Concil. Trid., sess. xxiv., de Matrim., c. 4. I think this was wisely resolved, since such affinity is not so publicly known, and so the fear of scandal is awanting. In the ecclesiastical laws of Protestants I find no exception, although, that the prohibitions were withdrawn" (in such a case) "would be more advisable. Moreover, in the second degree of the unequal line of illegitimate affinity, Lauterbach, cit. § 31, asserts that marriage is prohibited, which affords a proof that little or no doubt was raised among Protestant Christians upon the degrees among these relations by affinity. For even Carpsovius, lib. ii., Jurispr. Consist., def. 77, stands on the rule, that the same prohibition obtained in the case of an illegitimate which was prescribed in a legitimate, in which, in the deficiency of the decisions of jurists, I believe we must stand.”* It will be observed that this is determining affinity before marriage. He then goes on to consider what he calls "affinitas superveniens," or the affinity which supervenes on betrothment or marriage. In discussing this subject, he shows that the Levitical prohibitions are obligatory on Christians; that the Christians were, as it were, descendants of the Jews-professing that Christianity was Judaism reformed; that they were held so by the heathen; that Christians in early times did not disown this origin; that they only laid aside ceremonial and forensic laws, among which, however, could not be reckoned the laws concerning prohibited degrees, which, by the design of God, were to be in force for ever, and were in harmony with universal religion; that Christ himself inculcated this distinction, and reformed the laws of marriage with this view; that the laws regulating the degrees of marriage were of this sort, as Paul also proves, and then be says, § li., "In the purer primitive ages proofs are almost awanting by which this opinion (dogma) can be illustrated. I conclude that it has happened from this, that no doubts were ever stirred concerning the prohibited degrees, but that rather Christians acknowledged, without any hesitation, as was altogether proper, that they were bound to the divine laws given concerning marriage in the Old Testament. They knew the reproaches of the heathen, who accused them every where of the crime of incest."+ He gives specimens of the way in which they repelled this calumny. He then adds," If you inquire whence they obtained their estimate of incest, the thing itself teaches that they took their rule nowhere else than from the Word of God. Various doctrines of the fathers, which were delivered a little after, concerning the limits of the prohibited degrees, declare this: these were not new, nor drawn from any new source (principio); already from the beginning of Christianity had they come into that opinion, that the limits placed for marriage by God himself must be preserved; nor does any vestige occur that any one of them ever called that into doubt, * Böehmer's Jus Ecclesiasticum Protestantium usum Hodiernum, &c., tom. iv., editio quarta, pp. 174, 175. † On account of their secret meetings in persecuting times. 78 SCRIPTURE PRINCIPLES BASED ON UNDISPUTED TEXTS. and that they believed that the laws of Moses were given to the Jews alone addicted to the Levitical worship, and that they were to be placed in the same category with the rest concerning circumcision, feasts, and the like; and thus they rightly judged, because it was manifest that these laws, equally with those concerning divorce, had an universal and eternal force" (universalem vim atque æternam habere.)* Such is our Scripture argument, based on great Scripture principles, viewed in connection with certain Scripture texts, about the meaning of which there is no dispute whatever. These general principles are: 1. That the Old Testament, by the decision and practice of our Lord and his apostles and such special texts as Rom. xv. 4, and 2 Tim. iii. 16, is, in some way, and to a great extent, a rule of faith and manners to us. 2. That the prohibitions in Lev. xviii., whatever they are, proceed on great general and universal principles and sanctions, applicable to all men, and not limited to Jews. 3. That these prohibitions refer to incestuous marriages. 4. That they extend to relationships by affinity, as certainly, and to as great an extent, as to relationships by consanguinity. 5. That in matters affecting the race of man, male and female, what is forbidden by God-in other words, is morally wrong—to a man, is morally wrong to a woman. 6. That in the Bible, and in all legislation, civil and ecclesiastical, the word “wife,” and not “ widow," is the word used to designate the woman bereaved of her husband. 7. That on these principles the prohibitions in Lev. xviii. 16, and Lev. xx. 21, which are as follows: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness"-"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 they prohibit a man from marrying his brother's wife or widow, prohibit a woman from marrying her sister's husband, and the prohibition of course applies to both. We have, therefore, demonstrated that is, as Mr Binney says, we think we have demonstrated that every one of the following things required by an American writer on this subject is fully complied with. He says, "There are at least five things which ought to be very clear to our mind before we bring any fellow-Christian under ecclesiastical penalties for these marriages: as, 1. That marriage is the subject, or at least included in the subject, in Lev. xviii. 6-17. 2. That the term wife, in that passage, means widow. 3. That the prohibitions there are to be explained by parity of reason. 4. That, so explained, they include the marriages considered; and, 5. That they continue to be authoritative laws for the Christian world." We have the most entire and perfect conviction that each and all of these points have been proved; and do not see how, without casting God's word and law behind our backs, we can deny any one of the seven points enunciated above, and which most certainly include these five.† Böehmer, ibid., 193-197. † We have seen a curious argument for setting aside the force of all these reasonings, derived from the supposed obscurity of Scripture authority on this subject. In a discussion in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, in the the year 1842, on the case of a Rev. Mr M'Queen, in pleading for the doubtfulness of Scripture on the subject of such marriages, it was asked, "What other point of morals is thus a matter of dispute? Who doubts whether theft or drunkenness are crimes? Who would hesitate a moment in inflicting the censures of the church for such offences, or who would |