IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 V 
 
 /A 
 
 / 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Ui 
 
 V- 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 2.8 
 
 1^ 
 
 ^^ IIIIM 
 
 M 
 
 2.2 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 <> 
 
 
 ■• 6" — 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 //, 
 
 'm 
 
 ^/ 
 
 s 
 
 'm 
 
 ^^ff 
 
 /A 
 
 <pi 
 
 Ow/ 
 
 '? 
 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 V 
 
 iV 
 
 ^^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^9> 
 
 .V 
 
 
 ri>^ 
 
 ^■^.^y^ 
 
 <?) 
 
 i^ 
 
 ri? 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CiHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommag^e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margiri/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 n 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 I I Pages restored ond/or laminated/ 
 
 Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachet6es ou piqudes 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtach^es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualit6 indgale de I'impression 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6X6 fiim^es d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 7 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la 
 gdndrosit^ de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film^, et en 
 conformity avec las conditions du rontrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^ (mt^aning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the sv -c.of V (meaning "END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, srit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d"illustration et en terminer*^ par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie ""FIN"'. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be ft?med at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvant dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est fi*m6 d piirtir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant ie nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Le« diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m6thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 
SIS' 
 
 ^ 
 
 CAN. 
 
 ADA 
 
 Mft 
 
 K 
 
MARRIAGE ^^i G 
 
 ii 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 ? 
 
 SISTER OF A DECEASED WIFE, 
 
 COXSIDKIIKD IN CONNKCTION WITH THK 
 
 STANDARDS AND PRACTJ 
 
 OF THK 
 
 CANADA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 
 
 I 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN LAING, 
 
 MINISTER AT COBOURG. ONTARIO. 
 
 T O R ( ) X T () : 
 ADAM, STKVEXSON & CO., PUJUJ8HEK.S 
 
 M(.NniK.VL~r)AW80N BHON. ; l,ONJ)OX~-E. A. TAYLOR: 
 
 HAMILTON— 1>. M*LELLAN: 
 
 KINU8TON-W. rnEIOHTON; COBOURf;— J. SAIIXBUKY. 
 
 1868. 
 
',W'*' 
 
 SIS 
 
 'Ai\ 
 
 Kl 
 
m^mmmm 
 
 MARRIAGE 
 
 / WITH Tin: 
 
 USTER OF A 1)J:CEASEI) WIFE, 
 
 CONSlDl'Uri) IX ( <)XNi:rTI()\ Wi'llf TIIK 
 
 STxVNDAlVDS AND rRACTlOE 
 
 or I hi: 
 
 JANADA PREBBYTEPJAN ('lliniCII. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN LAING, 
 
 MINISTER AT COBOURG, ONTARIO. 
 
 T U 11 :S T O : 
 ADAM, STEVENSON & CO., PUJ3LI8IIEES. 
 
 MONTREAL — DA^^SON BROS. J LONDON — E. A. TAYLOR; 
 HAMILTON — D. M'lELLAN; 
 
 . vlllS 
 
 KINGSTON — J. CREICIITON; CODOURG— J. SAILSBURV , „ 
 
 1868. . . ■'■"•'y"''^. 
 
■Hi 
 
 H« losi 
 
 L32. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 VI. 
 
 VII. -^ 
 
TABLE or CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Introduction 5 
 
 I. — State OF THE Question 9 
 
 11. — The Standards Examined iO 
 
 1. Tlic marriage for]jidde:i 1 
 
 2. The grouiKl of prohibition 1 
 
 3. The Scriptural insufliciency of this grovnd 1 
 
 Scripture Teaching 1 
 
 111 
 
 1st. Leviticus xviii. — 6 to 18 1 
 
 1. 
 
 Analy.sis of the passage . . 
 
 (1 ) Relatives of the man 15 
 
 (2) Relatives of the wife 16 
 
 (3) Principles laid down 15 
 
 2. Principles as laid down 15 
 
 (1) Chihlren one with parents; 15 
 
 (2) "Wife one with the husband 15 
 
 (3) Sister one with the brother 15 
 
 3. Table of forbidden dcgi'ees 16 
 
 (1) Wife's relatives in collateral line 17 
 
 (2) No table of degrees forbidden to women 17 
 
 (3) Alleged intermixture of affinity and consanguinity 18 
 2nd. Leviticus xviii. — 18 19 
 
 1 . Part of the law of incest 19 
 
 2. Meaning of the verse 20 
 
 IV. — Scripture Arguments against the Marriage 21 
 
 1st. Leviticus xviii. — 18, a prohibition of polygamy 21 
 
 2nd. Leviticus xviii. — 16 , 23 
 
 (1 ) Argument E converso 24 
 
 (2) Affinity equally with consanguinity a bar to mar- 
 
 riage 27 
 
 3. Argument from verses 13 and 17 combined 28 
 
 V. — Sum of Argument and Confirmatory Consideration... 30 
 
 VL — General Considerations 31 
 
 1. These marriages opposed to general sentiment 32 
 
 2. Of injurious effect 32 
 
 3. Productive of confusion 33 
 
 4. Contrary to law .^illS 
 
 5. Should the law be repealed ? ^.^ ^ynod.** 
 
 YIL — Excommunication 
 
•'K^mmmmmim 
 
 'si 
 
 IIo^ 
 
 sho 
 disc 
 
 SUSj 
 
 Kir" 
 
 agai 
 liad 
 a v( 
 
 byte 
 
 Sess 
 
 red 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Pres 
 
 "tog 
 
 " ben 
 
 "toe 
 
 "que 
 
 mittf 
 
 V tJ 
 
 was r 
 
 it wn 
 
 "over 
 
MARUIAGJ': 
 
 WITH TIIK 
 
 SISTER OF A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 At tlie Synod of tlie Ciuiada rrc^byteriau Cliurcli, 
 wliicli was lielJ iu Toronto, in June, 180 7, tlic (jucsliou : 
 How men who had nianicd the sister of a deceased wife 
 should he dealt with by the Cluirch Courts ? caine under 
 discussion twice. One John Cunningham, who had been 
 suspended from the membership of the Ch'.;rch by the 
 Kirk Session of Xcw Gla.sg'ow and Tvintyre, appealed 
 against the decision of the Presbytery of London, A^'llich 
 liad confirmed the action of the Session. The Synod, by 
 a vote of 137 to 5, affirmed the decision ^ of the I'res- 
 bytery. The otlier case was as follows : — The Kirk 
 Session of Knox's Church, "Woodstock, Ontario, had refer- 
 red for advice to the Presbytery of Paris the case of a 
 Mr. Sherran, who had married in this relation. The 
 Presbytery, "after due deliberation, instructed tlie Session 
 "to suspend Mr. Slierran in the meantime from tlie mcm- 
 "bership of the Churcli, and recommended the Session 
 "to overture the next meeting of Synod on the whole 
 "question." The Session of Woodstock accordingly sub- 
 mitted an overture to the Presbytery of Paris, which was 
 by them transmitted in due course to the Synod. It 
 was received by the Synod and partly discussed. Finally 
 it was agreed "Tliat the further consideratir«u of this 
 "overture be postponed until the nex't meeting of Synod." 
 
6 
 
 MARRIAGK WITH TUB 
 
 The overture was as follows: — 
 
 'To the Rev. the Synod &c The Session of Knox's Church, 
 
 * Woodstock, respectfully present the following overture: 
 
 * Whereas by the 4th article of the 24th chapter of the Con- 
 
 * fession of Faith, marriage with a Deceased Wife's sister is prohib- 
 
 * ited as contrary to the word of God: 
 
 * And whereas the passages of Scripture cited in proof thereof 
 *do not prohibit the marriage in question: 
 
 * And whereas other passages of Scripture teach with very con- 
 
 * siderablc clearness the lawfulness of such marriage in the sight of 
 'God: 
 
 'And whereas the preeent law of the Church on this point, 
 
 * consistently administered, consigns all persons so married to hope- 
 
 * less exclusion from Church fellowship — yea, even those who mar- 
 ' ried in ignorance of such a clause in the Confession of Faith — the 
 'only condition on which their restoration is possible being a 
 'mutual agreement on their part to separate from each other — a 
 
 * course which few spiritual rulers in the Church would feel prc- 
 
 * pared to recommend: 
 
 * And whereas the visiting of such heavy censure, if it is not 
 ' warranted by the word of God, involves in great guilt those who 
 ' bear rule in the Church: 
 
 ' Therefore, the Session of Knox's Chiu'cli, in accordance with 
 'a reconmiendation of the Presbytery of Paris, respc^.tfuUy and 
 ' very earnestly overture tlie Synod to take up and consider this 
 ' whole question, in order that, if no clear and sure foundation for 
 ' such prohibition to rest on can be pointed out in Scripture, the 
 ' Synod may take tlie necessaiy steps to have the clause in question 
 
 * removed from the standards of our Church. 
 
 (Signed) W. T. McMullen, 
 
 Moderator of Session.' 
 'Woodstock. April 4th, 1867.' 
 
 In June last, consideration of this overture was re- 
 sumed. On a question of order, however, it was decided 
 that it was not competent to entertain the overture in 
 the particular form in which it was presented, as it con- 
 tained an expression — the 2nd clause of the preamble — 
 impugning the standards of the Church. Another over- 
 
 t 
 
 li 
 
l's Church, 
 
 f the Con- 
 is prohib- 
 
 )of thereof 
 
 I very con- 
 he sight of 
 
 this point, 
 5(1 to hope- 
 B who irar- 
 Fftith— the 
 le being a 
 I other— a 
 I feel prc- 
 
 f it is not 
 those who 
 
 lance with 
 fully and 
 sider this 
 Idation for 
 ture, the 
 question 
 
 Session.' 
 
 was re- 
 Idecided 
 rture in 
 
 it con- 
 Imble — 
 
 IT over- 
 
 8I8TER OF A DECEASED WIFE. 7 
 
 ture was then prepared and submitted, of tenor follow- 
 ing:— 
 
 * Whereas many learned, eminent, and devoted Christian men 
 
 * in different Churches have expressed doubts as to whether mar- 
 ' riage with the Sister of a deceased wife be prohibited by Holy 
 'Scripture: 
 
 *And whereas it appears to the undersigned questionable 
 
 * whether the passages adduced in the Confession of Faith do prove 
 
 * the unlawfiilness of such marriages: 
 
 * Whereas, further, the practice of this Church in dealing with 
 
 * persons so married has been to excommunicate them, and the un- 
 
 * dersigned entertain doubts as to this manner of dealing by the 
 
 * Church being defensible on Scriptural grounds : 
 
 'Therefore it is humbly overtured to *;ht Rev. the Synod, &c., 
 Hhat the portion of our standards, to wit: the 4th section of the 
 
 * 24th chapter of the Confession of Faith, which implicitly teaches 
 
 * the unscriptural character of such marriages, be carefully recon- 
 
 * sidered, and such relief be afforded to parties concerned as the 
 
 * Synod may deem to be conformable to the word of God. 
 
 W. T. McMuLLUN, John Jennings, 
 
 W. Ormiston, 
 J. M. Gibson, 
 Robert Wallace, 
 William Cochrane, 
 John MacColl, 
 Wm. Moore. 
 
 John Laing, 
 D. Waters, 
 D. Wardrope, 
 A, Young, 
 D. H. McVicar, 
 R. Edmondson, 
 Thos. Wardrope, 
 
 * Montreal, June 10, 1868.' 
 
 After full discussion, the Synod resolved "That the 
 *•' prayer of the overture be not granted, but that the 
 " Synod affirm its continued adherence to the declara- 
 " tion of the Westminster Confession on the subject of 
 " the overture." This motion was carried over a pro- 
 posal " to remit to Presbyteries to consider the subject 
 " and report to next meeting of Synod, as to whetlier the 
 " law of the Church should not be so altered as that the 
 " Church Courts may be relieved of the responsibility of 
 
8 
 
 M.VHl'IAGE WITH TUK 
 
 III 
 
 "casting out of Cliurcli fellow.sliip, on grounds so much 
 "dispuccd, tlioso wlio arc so iiuiiTiccl," by a vote of 49 
 to 37; and on tlio yeas and nnys ])cing taken, l>y a vote of 
 52 to 37 — not, indeed, a large majority. 
 
 This (question is one of grave importance and far- 
 reaching extent. Indirectly, it affects the claims of 
 Scripture to he the guide of man, the obligation of the 
 moral law, the pijwers of civil government, the principles 
 of family and social morality. It has also practical 
 issues whicli must 1)0 met. If, then, doubts arc enter- 
 tained to any extent v.iihin the Cliurch as to the Scrip- 
 tural basis of its doctrine or practice in thii matter, they 
 should 1)0 removed by a clear exposition of that basis. 
 Men vIki feel aggrieved, vh.etlier in conscience, by being 
 parties to tlio act of excommunicating others, or by being 
 themselves exconniiunicatcd, should be "shown "that our 
 "rules of di.-cipline do not rest on sliglit or arbitrary 
 " grounds."" And surely when fifteen members of Synod, 
 and some of them prominent ministers of the Church, 
 arc of oO doubtful o])ini'.)]i as to sign the above overtm'c; 
 Avhen out of eighty-nine votes, t]iirty-se\'en were record- 
 ed For a. reconsideration of our standards; ^\'hen, as is 
 known to the writer, there are three instances of persons 
 GO married (lie may shy, since last June, four histunces) 
 enjoying the seailiug ordinances of the Church, and as 
 rumour lias it, one of our elders is in this position ; surely, 
 in these circumstances, a reconsideration of tlie subject 
 by the Cluux'h i;^ calhjd for. 
 
 Principal Willis propijsed tlie appointment of a com- 
 nuttce to give its consideration to the subject. Although 
 the object of that committee, as specified in the motion, 
 is very one-sided ; nevertheless, had the proposal been 
 adopted, it would liave been not only courteous l.)ut "duti- 
 ful to wait for tlie action of that committee. The deci- 
 
 sl 
 
 il 
 
 mm 
 
 . %.ci.rjavm^iwK» 
 
SISTEn OF A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 9 
 
 so much 
 )te of 49 
 n vote of 
 
 uid fiir- 
 
 laims of 
 
 11 of the 
 
 riiiciples 
 
 practical 
 
 re eiiter- 
 
 LO Scrip- 
 
 ter, they 
 
 at basis. 
 
 )y being 
 
 )y being 
 
 that our 
 
 rbitraiy 
 
 ' Synod, 
 
 liurch, 
 
 crture ; 
 
 •ecord- 
 
 as is 
 
 K'l'sons 
 
 a noes) 
 
 lud as 
 
 ■surely, 
 
 subject 
 
 I eom- 
 liough 
 lotion, 
 [ been 
 rduti- 
 ! deci- 
 
 sion of Synod, however, lias peremptorily prevented con- 
 sideration of the subject ecclesiastically, and those wlio 
 have doubts, and whose conscience is aggrieved, have no 
 course left, save to draw attention to the matter through 
 the press. 
 
 In this manner to agitate the Church is far from de- 
 sirable, especially in a matter as delicate as it is perplex- 
 ing. But if a sufficient vindication of the position of the 
 Church is tlius evoked, we shall all rejoice in the result. 
 If, on the other hand, it shall be found, that there is no 
 scriptural basis for that position, then there cannot l)e a 
 doubt that all who love God's word and l)elieve our 
 standards to be in accordance witli that word, will, not- 
 withstanding whatever prejudice or feeling, follow the 
 light, and labour to have the standards conformed to 
 Scripture. 
 
 Such is the only apology the writer has for laying 
 before the public the following pages. lie is seeking 
 for trutii. He believes others are also. He has care- 
 fully perused all the works within his reach, which he 
 has been told settle the question against him. His 
 doubts remain, and, as he hopes to make apparent, are 
 scarcely noticed in the works referred to. His desire is 
 to see the positions which he lays dov/n fairly and calmly 
 considered. And he will gi-atefully acknowledge his 
 obligation to any father or brother who, l)earing with his 
 doubts, will patiently meet the points raised and show 
 us the more excellent way. 
 
 I. — State of the Question. 
 
 That v.'c may avoid unnecessaiy and irrelevant dis- 
 cussion, it may be well to state distinctly that the writer 
 has no sympathy with the views of those who say, either 
 that in the matter of marriage Holy Scripture is not to 
 1* 
 
10 
 
 MARRIAGE WITH TUE 
 
 i ! 
 
 Ifii! 
 
 be our guide ; or that the Old Testament is not to be held 
 binding as to the question. He accepts tlie Bible as the 
 judge — the wliole Bible, from Genesis to Eevelation. 
 He further bcliev(3s»that Scripture teaches that there is 
 such a thing as Incest; that God has given a law of In- 
 cest, forbidding marriage in certain relations; that in 
 Leviticus xviii. chiefly this law is found; and that this 
 law is of permanent obligation, binding on Christians. 
 
 On this understanding we propose to consider the 
 marriage of a man witli his deceased wife's sister, in 
 connexion witl) the standards of the Canada Presbyte- 
 rian Church, and the ordinance of that church, which 
 excommunicates parties so marned. As our Church pro- 
 fesses to "sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine 
 "contained in tlie Confession of Faith to be founded on 
 "the word of (Jr d," we do well to examine the Scripture 
 basis for the statements of the Confession. This is our 
 main design. If other matter shall be introduced, it will 
 be sparingly, not as discussing other points, as of His- 
 tory. Law, or Expediency, but only as throwing some 
 light on the principal subject of consideration. 
 
 N 
 
 ^ 
 
 II. — The Standards of the Church. 
 
 The enquiry regarding the standards is three-fold. 
 1. Is the marriage in question forbidden by the Confes- 
 sion of Faith ? 2. On what ground is the prohibition 
 based in the Confession? 3. Is that ground found in the 
 Word of God? Such enquiry is legitimate, as we are 
 told (Conf, chap, i; 10) that "all decrees of councils and 
 "doctrines of men," as well as articles of synods and 
 assemblies, "are to be examined by Holy Scripture as 
 "supreme judge." 
 
 1. Does the Confession forbid the marriage in ques- 
 tion ? 
 
b to be held 
 
 lible as the 
 
 \evelation. 
 
 at there is 
 
 aw of In- 
 
 s; that in 
 
 1 that this 
 
 ristians. 
 
 usider the 
 
 sister, in 
 
 Presbyte- 
 
 ch, which 
 
 lurch pro- 
 
 ) doctrine 
 
 •unded on 
 
 Scripture 
 
 lis is our 
 
 ed, it will 
 
 of His- 
 
 ing some 
 
 SISTER OP A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 11 
 
 iree-fold. 
 Confes- 
 )hibition 
 id in the 
 \YQ are 
 cils and 
 )ds and 
 ture as 
 
 In ques- 
 
 It says, chap. xxiv. 4, " Marriage ought not to be within tho 
 "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." -*/ 
 
 The answer to this qi' Ty then must be : Yes, the 
 Confession forbids the marriage. The relation is not 
 expressly named, but it is implicitly stated. The argu- 
 ment is simply this: A. man may not marry his own 
 sister, therefore he may not marry his wife's sister. 
 
 2, On what ground is this prohibition based? It is 
 not express prohibition — but inference. The inference 
 is: As a man may not marry any of his wife's kindred 
 nearer in blood than lie may of his own ; and as he may 
 not marry his own sister, so he may not marry his wife's 
 sister. The ground, Hien, on which the inference rests 
 is the statement, " A maii may not marry any of his 
 vnfe's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own!^ 
 
 3. We next enquire : Is this ground found in the Word 
 of God; and particularly in the passage quoted in the 
 Confession of Faith as proof? 
 
 Let us first examine the passage quoted by the 
 Westminster divines as proof We finJ under letter K, 
 in small type, under the text of tlie Confession, the pass- 
 age rested on as proof of the statement above given in 
 italics. It reads in full: 
 
 "Lev. XX. 19-21. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
 "of thy mothei-'s sister, nor of thy father's sistur; for he uncovtreth 
 "his near kin ; they shall bear their ini([uity. And if a man .-^hall 
 "lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's naked- 
 "ncss; they shall bear their sin; they shall die chiUlless. And if 
 "a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing, 
 "he hath uncovered his brolhei-'s nakedness; they shall be child- 
 "less." 
 
12 
 
 MAiiRIAGK Wlia TUK 
 
 Tlii3 is the only pa-sago cited. Docs it prove the 
 propoisition ? The relatives specified are a man's aunts 
 by Mood; the \virc of an 2uic!c, and the ^\'ife of a brother. 
 In other vrords, rf m'lv's nirn blood rclatii'cs and the vnves 
 of blood nicft ices. 0/ i he wivi:''?^ blood relatives there is 
 no rnentio]] in any way. And yet this is the only pass- 
 age adduced to pi-ove th('t tlir "rdan nunj not marry amy 
 "of his^vivv'^ hlood hindrccl nearer in r.LOOD than he may 
 "(f hi-' oii')i." Surely tlie language of the overture is 
 warrantahle, — "it appears to the undersigned question- 
 "al)lc whetlior the passages adduced in the Co'"'.fession 
 "nf Faitli do prove tlie unlawfulness of such marriages.'* 
 
 (.)thcr ]>assages, such as Gen. ii. 24, Matt. xix. 5, 
 Epli. v. 28, I'll, we are told, 'may l)e cpioted in proof. AVe 
 answer tliat, at present, we are dealing only v. itli the 
 passages cited in the Confession, and there, we repeat 
 it, no ^!uch passage /.s- cited. Tlie proof is made to rest 
 on the solitary Lev. .\x. 19-21. 
 
 Nor will it do to say tiiat Lev. xviii. having been 
 already quoted undei letter II, it is to be regarded as 
 proof under letter K. Principal Will's well reminded 
 US that Lev. xviii. is not quoted on the point in dispute. 
 The compilers of the Confession were wont to re-quote a 
 passage under successive letters, y.dierever they consid- 
 ered it as supporting successive propositions. Their plan 
 was to establish each separate proposition by indepen- 
 dent proof, that each may stand on its own sufficient 
 evidence. It is not then inadvertently, but of purpose, 
 that the Westminster divines (quoted only this passage. 
 
 The passage contains (1) a statement tliat incestuous 
 marriages will be punished. (2) A statement that a 
 father's or a mother's sister is a num's flesh, and it is in- 
 cest to marry her. (3) A statement that an uncle's wife 
 is one wit. the uncle, and a brother's wife one with the 
 
 .i») , i ii»mMW iiii ii| ii iw« ii (W ' iuj) nw)i ww i .n iu HM.M ||^ 
 
SISTER OF A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 13 
 
 prove the 
 Ti's aunts 
 a brother, 
 the unves 
 there is 
 nly pass- 
 larry amy 
 "ii he may 
 xrture is 
 qucstion- 
 o^.fessioi) 
 
 >» 
 
 arriages, 
 t. xix. 5, 
 I'oof. AVo 
 ^^ith the 
 e repeat 
 ' to rest 
 
 tig been 
 rdecl as 
 •minded 
 dispute, 
 ■quote a 
 
 consid- 
 
 eir plan 
 
 iidepen- 
 
 ifficient 
 
 Kirpose, 
 
 ssage. 
 
 estuou.s 
 
 that a 
 t is in- 
 
 's wife 
 
 til the 
 
 brother, and it is incest to niarry thein. As reg;>T'd3 
 any princiiilc to be gathered from the passage, all we can 
 see is: (1) It is wrong to marry a woman who is a 
 blood relative, or near kin. (2) It is wrong to marry a 
 woman who is tlie wife of a blood relative, as she is one 
 with that blood relative. Further tlian this, we cannot 
 find our way. N^o menticii has been made of a man's 
 wife, or of any of At';- blood relatives; and surely no prin- 
 ciple can be gathered from a })assage in ^\hich they are 
 not mentioned, wliicli must apply to them. Far less can 
 it be said that the piinciple has been laid dovm in tliis 
 passage: "Tlie mnn may not marry any of his wife's 
 "kindred nearer in ])lood than those he mav of his 
 
 "own." 
 
 If it be said tluit the principle is laid down, 'thai re- 
 lation ])y marriage is a ground of incest eciually with 
 relation by blood,' we reply 'tliat tliis is indeed true of 
 the relations mentioned in the passage, viz.: relations of 
 affinity, where a woman i-s married to a blood relative; 
 but surely it does not ai>ply, far less necessarily apply, to 
 relations not mentioned, viz.: those which are formed bv 
 a man's connection, through his wife, with women who 
 have no blood relation to him. \yiiether these t^'o re- 
 lationships be of equal cflcct, as a bar to marriage, we 
 do not now discuss; we merely note that as the former 
 is in the passage, and the latter is not, the passage may 
 prove the one, and not prove the other. In this case, the 
 second, if proved at all, will recpiire some additional 
 passage to be cited.' 
 
 But other passages, it may be said, give us the prin- 
 ciple, though this Lev. xx. 19 to 21 does not. Suppose 
 so. Then admit that the Confession is defective in its 
 proof texts. If passages giving us the principle can be 
 cited, by all means let us have these proof passages; 
 
i il 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 u 
 
 MARIIIAGK WITH THE 
 
 print them below the text in small type, and there let 
 them stand, an immovable foundation, "the word of 
 the Lord, tliat cndureth for ever," to remove doubt from 
 every candid reader. Till this is done, we cannot but 
 feel that the Confession of Faith contains one proposition 
 for which it does not afford sufficient Scripture proof. 
 
 III. Scripture Teaching. 
 
 Having disposed of the passage cited in the Confes- 
 sion, the larger question remains, — Is any ground of pro- 
 hibition of the marriage under discussion found in the 
 Word of God ? We have already stated that we accept 
 Lev. xviii. 6 to 18 as the law of Incest. We must there- 
 fore inquire : Does this law forbid the marriage as inces- 
 tuous ? Now it may serve to meet the objection, that "if 
 " we set aside this principle of the Confession some of 
 " the most monstrous marriages whicli it is possible to 
 " imagine must be legalised," as well as to make clear 
 our own position — if we give here our interpretation of 
 
 1st. Leviticus, xviii., G — 18, or the Law of Incest. 
 
 1. Analysing the chapter, we have in verse 6 the 
 general or radical principle enunciated, " None of you 
 " shall approach to any that is near of kin to him," liter- 
 ally " flesh of his flesh ;" also the reason, " to uncover 
 " nakedness," that is, " it is incest ;" and lastly the sanc- 
 tion — " I am Jehovah." The principle, then, thus laid 
 down by God's authority, not as a dogma of natural re- 
 ligion, but a positive enactment of revelation is : " Near- 
 ness OF Kin is a barrier to Marriage." 
 
 But within wliat degrees are we to understand this 
 term, * Nearness of Kin ?' Is every man to set his own 
 limits, and draw inferences on his own principles ? No. 
 God specifies tho limits and lays down the principles in 
 the following > erses : 
 
SISTER OF A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 15 
 
 liere let 
 v^ord of 
 ibt from 
 not but 
 position 
 )roof. 
 
 Confes- 
 l of pro- 
 1 in the 
 3 accept 
 jt there- 
 is inces- 
 that "if 
 some of 
 jsible to 
 ke clear 
 ation of 
 
 Incest. 
 
 ; 6 the 
 of you 
 ," liter- 
 ncover 
 e sanc- 
 us laid 
 ral re- 
 
 id this 
 s own 
 ? No. 
 lies in 
 
 (1.) We have specified, relatives of the MAN. 
 
 {a) His oivfi female blood relatives, wlio are prohi- 
 bited, verses 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 
 
 (b) His ovm male blood relatives, whose wives are 
 prohibited, verses 8, 14, 15, 16. 
 
 (2.) We have specified. Relatives of the Wife, who 
 are prohibited. 
 
 Blood relatives, verses 17, 18. 
 
 (3.) We have specified, certain iirineiples which are 
 to guide us in ascertaining what relations come within 
 the forbidden degrees, as v: 10, 17, 8, IG, &c. 
 
 Now, it will surely be admitted that we have here 
 positive enactvients and principles laid down, so that we 
 are not at liberty to extend the prohibitions beyond the 
 terms of the statute, nor to fall back on natural princi- 
 ples, or add principles of our oiov. The law is to be 
 our only guide, and that as we find it laid down. 
 
 2. Before giving in detail our table of forbidden de- 
 grees, we may state the Principles according to which 
 that table is formed. 
 
 (1.) Children are one with, or are in their parents. This 
 is ftrpr65s/y stated : v. 7, " She is thy mother; v. 10, The 
 nakedness of thy grand-daughters is thy own nakedness; 
 and v. 17. 
 
 (2.) The wife is one witli the husband ; v. 8. The 
 nakedness of thy father's wife is thy father's nakedness ; 
 V. 16, The nakedness of thy brother's w^ifo is thy 
 brother's nakedness; also chap, xx,, 20 and 21. 
 
 (3.) The sister is one with the brother: v. 11, She is 
 thy sister, and v. 12, Thy fatlier's sister is thy fatlier's 
 flesh ; also, ch. xx., 19. 
 
 These three principles we find crj^ressli/ laid down. It 
 is manifest at a glance that all their applications are not 
 mentioned, and we must, by applying them to the many 
 
ii 1; 
 
 ii i! 
 
 16 
 
 MAllUIAGK WITH THE 
 
 relations of a man, ascertain wliich of these relations arc 
 prohibited. 
 
 In the following table, we mean, ])y Direct Line, the 
 relation of parent and child, or the line of generation 
 ascending and descending; by Collateral Line, the rela- 
 tion of brother and sister. Under Blood Relatives we 
 class those who are either in the direct line of genera- 
 tion or in the collateral, and who partake of the same 
 blood ; under Consanguineous Affinity, those women 
 wlio are married to blood relatives and so partake of the 
 same blood, or are one with them ; under Simple Affinity, 
 those women who arc blood relatives of the Wife * 
 
 Guided then ])y the foregoing j^rinciples, we develop 
 from Lev. xviii. 
 
 3. THE TABLi: OF FOKIUDDEN DEGREES. 
 I. Blood IIel.vtives. 
 
 1. DIUECT LINE. 
 
 (a) Expressed. 
 
 Jlothcr. 
 
 Son's dauj-lito;'. 
 
 l)aughtor'.s Daugh- 
 ter. 
 
 (It) By inference. 
 
 Fatlicr'.s >Iothir. 
 Mother'.^ MoMier. 
 Diiiisliter. 
 
 2. COLLATERAL LINE. 
 
 (a) Expressed. 
 
 Father's sister. 
 Motlicr'.s sister. 
 Sister. 
 
 (b) By inference. 
 
 Brother's dawghtcr. 
 Sister's daughter. 
 
 II. CoNSANGUfNEOUS AFFINITY. 
 
 Father's wifa. 
 
 Father's father's 
 
 Fatlior's brother's 
 
 Brother's son's wife 
 
 Son's wife. 
 
 wife. 
 
 wif.\ 
 
 Sister's son's wife. 
 
 
 Mother's father's 
 
 Mother's brother's 
 
 
 A 
 
 wife. 
 
 wife. 
 
 
 
 Son's son'.s v.-ife. 
 
 Brother's wife. 
 
 
 " 
 
 Daughter's Son's 
 wife. 
 
 
 
 * It is said that the ground of prohibition is not consanguinity, 
 but a regard to moral propriety, in preventing improper intimacy be- 
 tween men and women who are thrown into familiar intercourse ; and 
 verse 1 7 is quoted as an instance in which there is no blood relation. Now 
 supposing this granted in reference to verse 17, (although, perhaps, the 
 principle of descend and the parental and filial relation oi guardianship 
 and obedience would account for its inclusion within the law,) is it not 
 manifest that the verse applies the principle only to the direct line, and 
 verse 18 to the collateral line, during the life of the wife? The moral 
 impropriety ends when the wife dies. So says Moses, whatever others 
 say. 
 
 immtmm 
 
■Mi 
 
 tions arc 
 
 TAney the 
 iiieration 
 the rela- 
 tives we 
 
 genera- 
 he same 
 
 women 
 :e of the 
 Affinity, 
 fe* 
 develop 
 
 ES. 
 
 NK. 
 
 iference. 
 
 (laughter, 
 daugliter. 
 
 son's wife 
 oil's wife. 
 
 guinity, 
 lacy be- 
 3e ; and 
 Now 
 aps, the 
 ianship 
 s it i)ot 
 le, and 
 ! moral 
 others 
 
 SISTEU OF A UECEASP^D WIFl':. 
 
 Hi. Simple Affinity. 
 
 17 
 
 Wife's m-jthcr. 
 
 Wife's daugliter. 
 
 Wife's son'.s (.laugh- 
 ter. 
 
 Wife's driiighf^r'.s 
 daughter. 
 
 Wife's father's mo- 
 ther. 
 
 Wife's moth'T's 
 inothor. 
 
 Wifn'.s sl.stcr, during 
 the wife'i lifc- 
 time. 
 
 (1.) Tliis tal)le contiiins twenty-eight out of the thh'ty- 
 three degrcM^s wliicli are found in our common Bibles. 
 The live wliich arc in llic latter and not in our tahle are, 
 wife'n father's sister, wife's mother's sister, wife's sister, 
 wife's hrotlier's daugliter, and wife's sister's daughter; 
 or to use the terras of the tal)]e, the relatives in the col- 
 lateral line of simple affinity, or tlie wife's blood rela- 
 tives in the collateral line. It may be asked, why not 
 include tliem ? AVe reply, hecav.se Moses has not included 
 them, nor given any era7n:ple 02)iilicaJ)Ie to fliem, nor laid 
 doum a lyrinciple which ivill indvde them — just as he 
 has not included first cousins, nor set down a limit 
 which would reach theni. 
 
 (2.) It mny further be asked, v.'hy do you not de- 
 velop a table of degrees prohibited to womc'i ? We re- 
 ply, Because it is unnecessary ; for if men do not marry 
 within forbidden degrees, women cannot ; and when the 
 relation is forbidden, the proliibition lies on l.>oth the 
 contracting parties, on the woman as well as the man — 
 she must be included. Our principal reason, hovv'cver, 
 is, that Moses has not yivcn ns a law for vmynen, nor laid 
 down principles to regulate tliem ; and as we arc simply 
 showing what Closes ordained, it is out of place to set 
 forth in our exposition something Avhich he did not or- 
 dain, no matter what may have been the reason of the 
 omission. We go as far as the law which we have goes, 
 and we stop where it stops. Dr. Lindsay in his * In- 
 quiry,' x)age 76, reminds us "that" those who hold that 
 
18 
 
 MARRIAGE WITH TUB 
 
 
 u 
 
 « 
 
 <( 
 
 « 
 
 « 
 
 " consanguinity and affinity constitute equal obstacles to 
 marriage, do not set out from this as a first prind'ple* 
 nor do they even conceive it to be obviously implied in 
 verse 6 ; but they reach it as a deduction at the end of 
 their enquiry, in consequence of finding that the pro- 
 " hibitions laid down refer de facto just as frequently 
 to affinity as to consanguinity, and mark out the 
 " one to just as remote limits as the other. It is a 
 " deduction from the series of particular cases adduced 
 " as examples by Moses ; and the fact that a grand-daugh- 
 " ter and a wife's grand-daughter are both specified, is one 
 " of the proofs of the conclusion so drawn." But how can 
 we find proof of this conclusion being applicable to a case 
 which is not specified, viz., the wife's relatives in the 
 collateral line ? They are not in the series of particular 
 cases adduced by Moses as examples ; the prohibition de 
 facto does not refer in a single example to simple affinity. 
 How, then, at the end, can a general principle, which is 
 admittedly a deduction based on a series of particular 
 instances, be held as including a particular instance not 
 in that series ? The principle may be true of every in- 
 stance specified, and yet be untrue of a relation which is 
 not specified. Tliis, we think, is the case. The principle 
 is correctly applied to consanguineous affinity, but is not 
 applicable to simple affinity in the collateral line, and 
 t'iiat solely because Moses has not de facto so applied it. 
 
 Another remark of Dr. Lindsay's seems important in 
 this connection — page 17. " Moses employs the very 
 " same terms in speaking of both kinds of relationship, 
 " viz., consanguinity and affinity ; and not only so, but 
 " he intermixes the cases, as if the idea of there being 
 " any difference between tliem had never struck him." 
 How far this is correct, any one may judge for himself 
 With the exception of verse 8, all the verses between 7 
 
 , 4i ^ r 'M i» j^,l i« » Jl«* W»ll l»<i ^^Wr ^ . .»*ii^^<*i»^ 
 
 •i4HJW«»'-S««'»«!»« 
 
SISTER OF A DECEASED ^IFE. 
 
 19 
 
 stacles to 
 principle* 
 nplied in 
 lie end of 
 the pro- 
 equently 
 out the 
 It is a 
 adduced 
 d-daugh- 
 sd, is one 
 how can 
 to a case 
 3 in the 
 articular 
 bition de 
 affinity. 
 which is 
 irticular 
 nee not 
 v^ery in- 
 vhich ig 
 rinciple 
 is not 
 ne, and 
 'd it. 
 tant in 
 e very 
 unship, 
 so, but 
 being 
 him." 
 imself. 
 ^een 7 
 
 and 13 refer to blood relatives ; and with the exception 
 of verse 8, all the instances of Consanguineous Affinity 
 are to be found between verses 14 and 16 — Simple Affi- 
 nity being confined to verses 17 and 18. This is scarcely 
 intermixing the cases. 
 
 In this respect, however, Dr. Lindsay's remark is 
 very true, that Moses' order of stating the instances and 
 use of the same terms shows that he regarded Blood Rela- 
 tionship and Consanguineous Affinity as equally a bar to 
 marriage, and within the same limits. While the change 
 of expression in verse 17, and the addition, " It is wick- 
 edness," found only in connection with wife's relatives, 
 indicates that "the idea of difference" between the rela- 
 tionship of verses 14, 15, 16, and verse 17 ''struck him." 
 And the still greater change of expression in verse 18, 
 when he comes to speak of the Collateral line of Simple 
 Affinity, indicates that he was sensible of a still more 
 striking difference between that relationship and those 
 preceding. What that difference is we shall now try to 
 show. 
 
 2nd. Leviticus xviii. — 18. 
 
 The words are " Neither shalt thou take a wife to 
 " her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside 
 the other, in her life time." Literally translated, it is, 
 " And a woman to her sister thou shalt not take, for vex- 
 " ing, to uncover her nakedness, beside her, in her life." 
 
 1. We regard this as part of the law of Incest, as 
 treating of a prohibited marriage. The relationship pro- 
 hibited is evidently a wife's sister, or the wife's blood 
 relative in the collateral line ; that is, the collateral line 
 of Simple Affinity. A reason is next given for the pro- 
 hibition, " for vexing," whatever that may mean. Then 
 follows the usual phrase to declare tlie connection inces- 
 
20 
 
 MAUHIAGK WITH THE 
 
 iuims, " to uiiL'ovor lior luikcdiioss." And, lustly, comes 
 ii limitation as to timo, "bnside her in licr life time." 
 
 2. Talvoii, il\"n, in its ohvious sense, and in its con- 
 iioction with tho preceding part of the law, it seems to 
 mean — A man is forhidden to mairy his wife's sister; 
 thus vexing her hy doing what is incestuous beside a 
 sister and duriu'' her life. lI(Mice a man is for])iddcn to 
 marry his wife's sister during her life. This hy no means 
 proves that he may marry her when tlie wife is dead, 
 although it imj^lics it. For upon the recognized principle, 
 that in prohibitory legislation a man has tlie right to do 
 anytiiing not specified in the enacting statute, it follows 
 that a man may thus marr\% uidess a prohibition be 
 found in some other passage. Wlicther there is such a 
 prohibition elsewhere, we shall by and by consider. Wo 
 are, however, told that, If the thing is incestuous during 
 the woman's life, it must still be incestuous after her 
 death. Now, if it can be shown that this marriage is 
 incestuous from other passages of Scripture, then this 
 verse 18 cannot malvc it not incestuous, ot justify it. But 
 if no other passage can be .shown proving it incestuous, 
 this passage, though declaring the marriage incestuous 
 during the wife's life, does not condemn it after her death. 
 For, as Dr. Jjindsay well shows, " Incest is just a connec- 
 " tion which is forbidden on tlie ground of relationship, 
 " by a competent authority." Marriage with a sister was 
 not incest to Abel, Cain, or Seth ; because that marriage 
 was not forbidden, but enjoined by God on them. It 
 is, however, incest to us, because it is forbidden by God. 
 Even so, to marry a wife's sister during her life is incest, 
 as it is forbidden in verse 18. It may nol, however, be 
 incest after the wife is dead. 
 
 Such, then, is a full statement of the way in which 
 we feel constrained to interpret Leviticus xviii. — 6 to 18. 
 
 ■;.;V.-i^j-^'ia'i""f''4 -^ 
 
* \ 
 
 HIBTEU OF A DIXKASLU Wlt'll. 
 
 21 
 
 And the Tiiblo of Forliiddcn I )iigrees on pages 10-17 gives 
 tlie practical results of that interpretation. We have 
 thought that giving a positive statement of what wo 
 regard as the Law of Incest \v(juld serve most clearly to 
 set forth our position on the disputed relation. But wc 
 by no means wi.sh to overlook the objections whicli will 
 be made to our view. On the contrary, we hope now to 
 be able more inlelligently and satisfactorily to consider 
 the statements of those who differ from us. 
 
 IV. SciillTL'ijK AlKiUMK.NTS ACAINST TIIK M.VUKIAOK. 
 
 1. To meet the implied permission uf tlie marriage 
 which we tln'nk is to be found in verse 18, it used to be 
 said that tliis verse is merely a })rohil»ition of polygamy. 
 To support this opinion, great stress is lai<l nn the mar- 
 ginal reading, "One wife to another thou shalt not 
 take," &c. l)i\ Oibson seems still to cling to this view, 
 endorsing the argument of Sereno Dwight as concdusivc. 
 In 1807, tiie majority of our Synod seemed to favour it. 
 Tn 1808, however, it found only one advocate, and even 
 he only quoted in support of it the new version of Kev. 
 liobert YouuLC, but laid no stress on it as an argument. 
 Dr. Lindsay, in liis able, candid, kindly conceived, and 
 in nuiny respects most satisfactory " Inquiry," gives up 
 tliis view', Xay, he grounds a great part of the most 
 telling part of his argument against legitimising the 
 relation, on the fact that polygamy existed among the 
 Jews, and that Leviticus xviii. 18 is to be interpreted in 
 view of the " polyganuc connection which is spoken of." 
 No more satisfactory answer to Mr. Dwight can be found 
 than that part of Dr. Lindsay's book in which this idea 
 of the verse being a prohibition of polygamy is discussed. 
 As most of our readers, however, cannot have access to 
 the " Inquiry," it may not be amiss to show why wc 
 
22 
 
 MARRIAGE WITH THE 
 
 IPI 
 
 11! 
 
 !!l|l 
 
 111! ill!! 
 
 
 reject the marginal reading, and hold to the text of the 
 English version of the Bible. 
 
 This translation rests on the su})posed use of a He- 
 brew idiomatic phrase, n woman, to lier sister,' which, it 
 is said, means 'one to another'. Now we object, tliat in 
 order to obtain this meaning : (1.) The words 'woman' 
 and 'sister' are taken in a sense different from that in 
 which they have uniformly been used in the context. (2.) 
 It is not the idiomatic phrase for one woman to another. 
 That is invariably ' a woman and her ncighhoiir^ not sis- 
 ter. When the phrase in the text occurs, it is without 
 an exception applied to tilings without life ; and to ren- 
 der the phrase in this place ' one woman to another ' is 
 to give it a meaning which it has in no other place in 
 the Hebrew Bible. (3.) When the phrase is used idiom- 
 atically, it is uniformly preceded by a word in the 
 plural immber to which it refers. To meet this usus 
 the verse would require to read ' and women, a woman 
 to her sister thou shall not take;' whereas the woru 
 * women' or 'wives' is awanting. (4.) In verse 29 it is said: 
 "Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even 
 " the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among 
 " their people." If then this verse forbids polygamy, the 
 polygamist was to be cut off. Instead of this, however, 
 we find polygamy existing among the Israelites. Even 
 David, the man after CJod's own lieart and the chosen 
 Head of the covenant people, was a polygamist, and was 
 not cut off. (5.) If tlie verse is a prohibition of polygamy, 
 it does not belong to the law of incest, and the phrase 
 'uncoAner nakedness' is irrelevant, for polygamy was not 
 incest. 
 
 We may, therefore, safely dismiss the statement object' 
 ed to, saying with Principal Willis, that it must be con- 
 ceded that the weight of evidence is in favour of the 
 
xt of the 
 
 of a He- 
 
 whicli, it 
 b, that in 
 'woman' 
 I that in 
 ext. (2.) 
 another. 
 ' not sis- 
 without 
 I to ren- 
 )ther' is 
 place in 
 :1 idiom- 
 in the 
 lis ums 
 woman 
 i woru 
 is said : 
 IS, even 
 among 
 ny, the 
 )v,ever, 
 Even 
 chosen 
 id was 
 gamy, 
 phrase 
 as not 
 
 bject- 
 3 con- 
 f the 
 
 SISTER OF A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 23 
 
 
 text of the authorised version, and with Dr. Lindsay "the 
 " verse before us cannot be viewed as a condemnation of 
 " polygamy. It must be two sisters, in the literal sense 
 " of the term, that are spoken t ^, and not merely two 
 
 '' wives." 
 
 2. But this brings us to the main position. And al- 
 though the argument is not stated as it is in the Confes- 
 sion, it is to the same effect. AVe have admitted that 
 verse 18th does not justify the marriage in question, and 
 have asked : does any other passage forbid it ? We are 
 at once answered, Yes ; it is forbidden in verse 16. The 
 words arc: 'Tliou vshalt not uncover the nakedness of thy 
 brother's wife.'* Hence it is inferred that a woman is 
 forbidden to marry her liusband's brother. On what 
 principle ? we ask ; and we are told, that the relation is 
 the same, or parallel, or like, or analogous. Now it is this 
 principle which must be established, or proved untenable, 
 in order to settle the question in dispute. 
 
 It is asserted, that the relation between a man and 
 his brotlier's widow is the same as between a man and 
 his wife's sister. It is agreed also that the question is ; 
 are they the same in law, us laid down in Leviticus ? 
 
 It is then aside from the point to prove that the pro- 
 pinquity is the same and the simj^le relations the same, 
 that is, that in both cases there are two relations, (1) 
 blood relation, (2) alTinity relation, and this of equal 
 nearness. No one calls this in question. What we call 
 in question is the sameness of the compound relation — 
 ichethcr, aecording to the law of Moses, a relationship formed 
 hy blood and marriage is the same as a relationshi}) formed 
 by mxtrriage and blood : or to use the terms already em- 
 ployed, we ask whether, according to the law of Moses, 
 simple affinity in the collateral line is the same in effect 
 as consanguineous ofiinity in the collateral line. This 
 
p 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 liiii 
 
 24 
 
 ^lAUUlAGE ^YITII TlIK 
 
 we think cannot be shown froyt the law of J/o-stn, inas- 
 niucli as simple adlnity in the collateral line is not men- 
 tioned in that law save in verse 18, in which marriage is 
 not prohibited after the ^\'ife's death. We are therefore; 
 thrown back on principles, and to these wa must look. 
 
 (1.) We are told tliat, e convcrso, if a man is forbidden 
 to marry his brother's wife, a woman is forbidden to 
 marry her sisters liusbarid: for this is the analunms re- 
 lation. But we may ask where in the laio of Moses is the 
 warrant for interpreting its clauses c convcrso ? Tt is by 
 no means axiomatic that all laws may be so interpreted. 
 
 But it may be replied all nwrdl laws are binding on 
 woman as well as man, and as this is a moral law it must 
 be binding on the woman : consequently sliC is forbidden 
 to marry in any relation parallel tu that in wliich the 
 man is forbiildcn. We shall now examine this position. 
 
 We at once concede that any moral prohibition in- 
 cludes the woman in all cases in v.hich she can be in- 
 cluded, and so far as she must be included. A moral pro- 
 hibition laid on man, as Homo, includes the woman. If, 
 however, the prohibition is addressed to the man, as man, 
 luV, it cannot include the woman. The ])rohibitions in 
 Leviticus are generally of this kind. Some indeed, as 
 Lev. XX, 16 are addressed to the woman and exclude the 
 man. Others, as Lev. xx, 17, are addressed to both man 
 and woman. The prohibitions of chap, xviii, however, are 
 addressed to the man, vir. They include the woman only 
 in so far as by the nature of marriage she nuist be in- 
 cluded. For example, a man is forbidden to marry his 
 sister; but a woman cannot marry her sister; and there- 
 fore is included in the prohibition only in so far as, from 
 the nature of marriage, it follows that when a man mar- 
 ries liis sister the woman must necessarily marry her 
 brother. The relation is forbidden, and the prohibition 
 
 ?'VtitWlp%w^i|^i''*(lCT**(h*tw' 
 
SISTER OF A DECE.YSFIT) WIFE. 
 
 25 
 
 lies on both parties who form the rehitioii. Thus far 
 only is it tnte, that the Mosaic marria.gc laivs include the 
 ivomi.n as vjeM as the man. Wherever a certain relation 
 is forbidden to a man, tliat mmo relation is forl)idden to 
 the woman with wliom alone it covdd be formed. 
 
 It is quite another lhini>' to assume that, becau.se a 
 man is forbidden to marry in one relation, tlierefore a 
 woman is forbidden to marry in another relation, wliich 
 is only parallel to it, and not the relation prohibited. It 
 is the right to assume this conver.sion of the law which 
 we question. We must hnve proof to show that this 
 may be done. 
 
 Here we are met with the statement, tliat husband 
 and wife are one, and as Blackstone puts it, " Husband 
 " and wife being considered one flesh, those who are re- 
 " lated to the one by blood are related to the other by 
 " affinity ; therefore a man, after liis wife's death, cannot 
 " marry her sister, aunt, or niece." 
 
 But again we ask, what is meant by " one flesh ?" 
 Does it mean that they have equal rights ? Certainly 
 not accr/rding to the law of Moses. In it, man is empha- 
 tically the head of the woman. He may buy his wife, 
 marry her without consent, betroth her to another, 
 divorce her, as he sees fit. She can do none of those 
 things to him. He may have many wives and concu- 
 bines, and be no adulterer ; slie, as an adulteress, must 
 die if she take a second husband. L(!V. xx, 10. The 
 same distinction is found in Itoman law, l^^iglish, and 
 generally in Civil law, and forms the ground of what has 
 sometimes been denounced as partial legislation. Even 
 nature teaches the distinction. For who does not regard 
 as revoltinnf, as subversive of all moralitv, and of the 
 family institution, to speak of polygamy among women ? 
 Who would plead for that ? Men may have more wives 
 2 
 
2ti 
 
 3iAriuiA(iK wit:i Tm': 
 
 I'M 
 
 Hill 
 
 III' 
 
 ill! 
 
 tliaii uiic, but there is uo uonfusion or mingling of blood, 
 so long as wives are chaste. The superiority of man to 
 woman in the marriage relation cannot be annulled, and 
 the hiAv of Moses i.s in uniformity alike with nature and 
 liumau law. This accounts for what we find, that the 
 prohil>itions are laid <)ii the man and not on the woman. 
 They include woman, as a prohibited marriage cannot 
 take phicc \\itliout a woman being a party. But we are 
 not warranted, because husband and wife are one, in 
 inferring that therefore evcnjthing allowed to the hus- 
 band is allowed to tlie wife, and cvcrythlug forhidden to 
 the husband i^ f(jrbidden to the wife, c coiivpvso. jMoses' 
 law knows uo such oneness or ei|uality. 
 
 Another thing is worthy of note. Dr. [-iiulsay says, 
 page So, " The nakedness of tlie husband is the naked- 
 " ness of the wife, and tlie nakedness of the wife is the 
 *' nakedness of the husband. This is reiterated again 
 " and again throujlwuf ike eliapter in Leviticus^ This is 
 said in vindication of tlie identity of the relation as be- 
 tween man and woman, and it is essenticd to Dr. Lind- 
 say's argument. Now, Avhat is to become of the argument 
 when it is made manifest, as a glance at the chapter wdll 
 make it, that instead of being reitercded, it is not once 
 said that the nakedness of a. man is the nakedness of his 
 wife ?■ 
 
 It would be quite contrary to the whole legislation 
 to say so. The wife's nakedness is the husband's, but 
 the linsband's is not the wife's. The man may, where 
 poh'gamy exists, marry a second wife, but he does not 
 thereby injure his first wife, — that is, uncover her naked- 
 ness : he does nothing abominable. But a woman cannot 
 receive another man without doing something vile, 
 abominable, for she thereby uncovers her husband's 
 nakedness. This may appear one-sided, but whether it 
 
SISTER OP A DKOEASED WIFE. 
 
 27 
 
 ig of blood, 
 of man to 
 nulled, and 
 nature and 
 d, that the 
 he woman, 
 ige cannot 
 But we are 
 re one, in 
 ) the hu3- 
 ^rhiddcn to 
 0. Moses' 
 
 tl.say yay^s 
 
 he naked- 
 
 ^vife is the 
 
 ted again 
 
 This is 
 
 on as be- 
 
 )r. Lind- 
 
 trgument 
 
 ipter will 
 
 not once 
 
 \'ss of his 
 
 gislation 
 [id's, but 
 ^ wliere 
 loes not 
 naked- 
 can not 
 lig vile, 
 Isband's 
 etlier it 
 
 is or not, it is the law of Leviticus, and to tliat alone we 
 appeal. 
 
 (2 ) Again it is objected,' " The ground of incest in 
 " the Lcvitical law is as truly airmity as consanguinity," 
 and therefore a man is as truly forbidden to UKirry a 
 sister by marriage as a sister by blood.* \\'e must now 
 look at tliis statement intelliiXentlv. 
 
 By allinity is meant relationship by ]uarriagi.\ A 
 brother's wile is related to a man by aftinity, and all pro- 
 hibitions of marriac^o between a marj and the wife of his 
 blood relatives are prohibitions regarding degrees of affi- 
 nity. This v.'c have called Coiua'iigiiincous AJJinit y. Tlie 
 use of tlie word has, however, been further extended, and 
 it has beeil applied to the relationship of a man to his 
 wife's blood relatives. This we have called Simph Affln- 
 iiy. Now, let us remember that we have two distinct and 
 perfect If/ different relations under the name of afTmity, and 
 let us not deceive ourselves ].^y the amltiguous term. The 
 ■first results irom the marriage of a woman witli tlie man's 
 blood relatives; the other is the relation in v.diich a man 
 stands to his wife's blood relatives. 
 
 The law of IMoses lemslates for both these atlhiities 
 It forbids the man to marry anv woman wlio is married 
 to his blood relative, whether in the direct line of gener- 
 ation or in the collateral. That is, it prohibits marriage 
 with a woman related by Consanguineous alTuiity, both in 
 the direct and collateral lines. It also furbids a man lo 
 marry any woman who is tlie blood relati\^ of his wife 
 in the direct line. Tliat is, it prohibits marriage with a 
 woman related by Simple affinity in the direct line. It 
 
 * Assuming this, and interpreting the law on the ])rinciple stated in 
 the Confession ; what need is there of verse K' ? A woman may not 
 man-y her own brother ; therefore, she may not marry lier luisband's 
 brother. Yet Moses prohibits this. Is it not manifest that he did not 
 assume the principle ? 
 
28 
 
 mai{ria(;k with tiii-: 
 
 h 
 
 I ill 
 
 does not prohibit marriage loitli a woman rclakd hy Simple 
 affinity in the collateral, except during the life of a sister 
 who is loife to the man. Tims, ^vhile we admit that in 
 some cases aHiiiity is a bar tomarria^^e c(jiially with con- 
 sanguinity, we distinctly exclude ironi the forbidden 
 degrees relatives by Sini]tlc allinity, in the collateral 
 line, after a wife's deatli; and we do so because Moses 
 has not included them. 
 
 Thus, the objection under review is vain, inasmuch as 
 it is not true of all affinity that it is a bar to marriage 
 equally with consanguinity, but only of one '.ind of 
 affinity in both lines, and of the other in the direct 
 line; v/hile the relation in ([uestion — 'wife's sister/ — 
 falls under the collateral line of simple a (Unity.* 
 
 3. Another distinct and independent argument is 
 based on the 13th verse, taken in connection with verse 
 17. It is this: In verse 13th, a man is forbidden to 
 marry his mother's sister, l)ecause she is her near kins- 
 woman; in verse 17th, he is forbidden to marry his wife's 
 grand-daughters, because the}^ are her near kinswomen. 
 But as he may not marry near kinswomen of liis wife, 
 verse 17 — and sisters are near kinswomen — therefore, lie 
 sliould not marry his wife's sister. 
 
 Let us now examine this argument. In verses 12 
 and 13 we have to do with Hood relations; in verse 17 
 with relations of simple aflniity. In the first case, a 
 man is forbidden to marry his aunts by blood, and hccaiise 
 they are blood relatives, as is clear from Lev. xx. 19, 
 "He uncovereth his near kin." In the other case there 
 
 i!-r 
 
 * If airiiiity and consanguinity are equally and in tha same sensR a 
 bar to marriage, it would follow that as a man may not marry his own 
 brother's wife, so he may not marry his wife's brother's wife; and on 
 the e convcrso princij)le, as a woman may not marry her own sister'? hus- 
 band, so slie may not marry her husband's sister's husband. This, how- 
 ever, is not asserted. i:\\ we are told that double atlinity is not in any 
 case a bar to marriage, llow so? Is not this to give up tlie assumption? 
 
SISTER OF A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 29 
 
 is no question of blood. It is not said, 'a man shall not 
 many two sisters,' but only that certain kinswomen of 
 his own and certain kinswomen of his wife are prohib- 
 ited; but the sister is not mentioned, in verse 17, among 
 those prohibited kinswomen of his wife. All near kins- 
 women are not prohibited, only the near kinswoman of 
 a mother in the collateral line: verse 13; and of tlie wife 
 in the direct line: verse 17. 
 
 The fallacy is that of an Undistributed ^liddle. 
 
 Some near kinswomen of the wife are prohibited. 
 
 A sister is a near kinswoman. 
 
 Therefore, a wife's sister is prohibited. 
 
 Bid nothing can he 2JT0VccI from two porticiilar pre- 
 mises. Near kinswoman lias not been distributed, either 
 by being the subject of a universal, or the predicate of 
 a negative proposition. Hence, it is not proved that 
 a wife's sister is prohibited. Let us apply the same 
 argument to verse 13th. 
 
 Some near kinswomen of an aunt are prohibited (v. 13), 
 
 A grand-daughter is a near kinswoman (v. 17). 
 
 Therefore an aunt's grand-daughter, or a second 
 cousin, is prohibited. * 
 
 Is that conclusion accepted? 
 
 To establish the argument under notice, we would 
 require a statement to the effect, that being the sister of 
 a man's wife is a bar to marriage, on the principle that 
 " Two sisters are one flesh." Now this is nowhere said 
 — but the contrary is implied. The wife becomes one 
 with her husband and forms a new family ; so that sup- 
 posing two sisters married to two strange men, they 
 would be one flesh respectively with their husbands, but 
 would not be one flesh with one another in the same 
 sense, — and this is the only sense in which the expression 
 
 has any weight in a question of marriage. But it is said 
 
 2* 
 
80 
 
 MAJUUAOK WITH THE 
 
 impatieutly, What nonsense ! are not a sister and sister 
 as much one flesh as a brother and sister ? We answer 
 no, not in the only sense affecting the argument. A 
 man is forbidden to marry liis sister. By doing this there 
 woukl take place confusion of blood. The thing is not 
 possible in the case of sisters, therefore it needs no pro- 
 hibition. Just so a man might marry his brother s wife, 
 which would ' produce confusion of blood, therefore it is 
 forbidden ; bub thougli a man should marry his wife's 
 sister, there is no confusion of blood, therefore it is not 
 proliibited for that reason, but for a special one, " to vex 
 her." Strange as it may seem, in the two cases the man 
 and woman are not brother-in-law and sister-in-law, in 
 the same sense. Tliis will be apparent from the simple 
 statement that the children of the one sister-in-law^ are 
 heirs-at-law of the man; tlie children of the other are 
 not in tlie line of succession at all. As, tlierefore, it is 
 nowlierc said by Moses that sisters arc one,* all de- 
 ductions iVom that principle have no warrant from the 
 Levitical law. 
 
 V. Sum of Argument. 
 
 Having thus set aside the objections urged against 
 the interpretation which w^e liave given of Leviticus xviii. 
 6 to 18, we sum up the result as bearing on the marriage 
 in question. The law of Moses does prohibit the mar- 
 riage during the life of the first wife, but nob after that 
 event. Taking into account, also, the circumstances 
 of the Jews when the law was given, we understand 
 verse 18 as teaching: (1) That if a man marry two 
 
 * In Lev. xviii., 13. — Though an aunt i^ said to be flesh of the 
 man's mother, or one with her, the ground of the proliibition is not 
 her oneness with her sijter, but her blood relation to the man. ; as is 
 evident (1) from the phicc whieh the verse has among blood relatives, 
 and (2) fi-om Lev. x?r., 19, whore it is expressly said, "He uncovereth 
 /iM near kin." 
 
 .»M?"rr^vct>n;:-' 
 
ind sister 
 ^e answer 
 rnent. A 
 tliis there 
 ing is not 
 s no pro- 
 ler s wife, 
 efore it is 
 [lis wife's 
 [3 it is not 
 !, " to vex 
 I the man 
 in-law, in 
 he simple 
 n-law are 
 
 otlicr are 
 ore, it is 
 all de- 
 
 fi'om the 
 
 ogamst 
 ;us xviii. 
 Jnarriage 
 ^he mar- 
 rter that 
 listances 
 lerstand 
 Iry two 
 
 tsli of the 
 Ion is not 
 
 tn ; as is 
 
 relatives, 
 
 covereth 
 
 SISTER OP A DECKASJiD WIL'K. 
 
 31 
 
 wives the second must not be sister to the first ; (2) 
 That tliough the first be divorced, he cannot marry the 
 sister ; (3) That should the first wife die, tlie man is 
 loosed from the law of his wife, so far as to be permitted 
 to marry her sister. 
 
 V/e are strongly euiifirmed in this view by the fol- 
 lowing consideration : Had ^Moses intended to proliibit 
 marriage with the relatives of the wife in tiie collateral 
 Ihie — ^judging from tlie context, wo should have expected 
 verse 18 to read, " And thou slialt not uncover the naked- 
 " ness of a wom;in and lior sister, for she is her flesh." 
 Now instead of this we liave a statement which, in its 
 obvious and confessedly easy sense;, implies tliat a man 
 may marry his w^ife's sister wli^n the wife is dead. Not 
 only so, but there is a departure most marked from the 
 ordinary form of expression (1) in assigning a reason, 
 " to vex her;" (2) in setting a limit, ''during her life," 
 which in effect says, as when the wife is dead the reason 
 no longer exists, so the limit then expires. If we are 
 right in this construction of the passage, not only is the 
 marriage in C|uestion not prohibited, but it is implicitly 
 sanctioned. 
 
 In view of the whole preceding argument, we feel 
 convinced tliat, though iha standards of the Church pro- 
 hibit marriage vrith a deceased wife's sister, the ground 
 on which this prohibition rests is not established either 
 by the proof adduced in the Confession, or by the LavV 
 of Incest as laid down in Lev. 18. We think, therefore, 
 that we are justified in asking the Church to reconsider 
 its position, and take steps to justify its practice,or alter it. 
 
 VI. General Considekatioxs. 
 Our main objrct having been accomplished, we might 
 leave the su"' \',ct here. To do so, however, would leave 
 a very falso impression on the reader of our opinion on 
 
 -Si«* 
 
 HnwB" 
 
32 
 
 MARRIAGE WITU THE 
 
 8 ^'i 
 
 the General Question. While we are convinced that 
 the Law of God does not prohihit the marriage in ques- 
 tion, we are far from tliinking that it is a proper one. 
 We plead for liberty of conscience, and shrink from saying 
 anything in God's name, and by liis anthority, which we 
 are not sure is in accordance with his revealed will. 
 Still, we tliink that very nmch may be said against such 
 marriages. Perhaps they can even be shown to be wrong 
 in a lower sense of that word. Though they are not 
 wrong as being condemned by God, tliey may be wrong, 
 far wrong, as being most inexpedient — "lawful, but not 
 expedient." 
 
 1. Such marriages are undoubtedly opposed to the 
 general sentiment of Christian Society. It matters not 
 to what that sentiment may be owing ; it is the fad that 
 has weight. It is most inexpedient to do violence to 
 the general sentiment of any community on a moral 
 question, and therefore such maniages should be avoided. 
 There may be cases in which a man should brave public 
 opinion. This, however, is not a case in which any 
 principle has to be maintained amid dishonour and dis- 
 approbation. 
 
 2. These marriages seem calculated to have an injuri- 
 ous effect on the harmony and peace of families, and on the 
 confidence which should exist between their various mem- 
 bers. The preservation of the purity of domestic life is 
 of chief importance, and it is well that no usage of 
 society should endanger it. We are aware that views 
 are held strongly as against what we now say. Never- 
 theless, we think that when men and women are con- 
 stantly meeting on terms of the greatest domestic inti- 
 macy, it should be perfectly understood that marriage 
 between them is out of the question. In this light, we 
 think these marriages inexpedient, and thus wrong. 
 
need that 
 e in ques- 
 roper one. 
 nn snying 
 wliicli we 
 aled will, 
 linst such 
 be wrong 
 ' are not 
 )Q wrong, 
 , but not 
 
 id to the 
 
 itters not 
 
 fact that 
 
 plence to 
 
 a moral 
 
 avoided. 
 
 ^e public 
 
 ich any 
 
 and dis- 
 
 1 injuri- 
 d on the 
 IS mem- 
 c life is 
 sage of 
 views 
 Never- 
 re con- 
 ;ic inti- 
 arriage 
 jht, we 
 
 ■g- 
 
 818TEB OF A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 38 
 
 3. Tliese marriages, as the law is now, occasion con- 
 fusion in Churcli and State, and therefore are inexpe- 
 dient. So long as the law does not enjoin siti, it is 
 expedient to conform to it, and thus prevent tlic evil 
 consequences of illegitimacy, with its civil diyal)ilities 
 and ecclesiastical censures. 
 
 4. Those marriages are wroug also as being contrary 
 to law. The Christian is l)ouiid for conscience sake to 
 obey the law. He is not at liberty to break it. If he is 
 satisfied that the law is not good, he should try to have 
 it repealed ; but wliile it is law, it should be obeyed,; As 
 far as we can asc(*-rtain, tlie marriage in question is 
 illegal in the Province of Quebec, and the offspring is 
 illegitimate. In tlierroviiice of Ontario, the marriage is 
 contrary to law, and miy be voided during the life of 
 tlie contracting parties. If not then voided, the oil- 
 spring is legitimate. As there are no Ecclesiastical 
 courts to void such marriages, it has been supposed by 
 many tliat they cannot be voided. It is, however, by 
 no means certain that in case of application being made, 
 such marriages can not be voided by the Civil Law 
 Courts in the absence of Ecclesiastical Courts. While, 
 then,, the law remains as it is, such marriages are higldy 
 inexpedient and wrong. 
 
 5. If we be further asked our opinion as to whether 
 the law should be repealed which prohibits these mar- 
 riages, we reply : We have no wish to see it repealed. 
 Though the law of Moses sanctioned the marriage, it 
 seems to us that the Christian religion, in abolishing the 
 Jewish practices of polygamy and divorce, and in making 
 the woman more the equal and companion of man than 
 formerly ; also in establishing usages which allow greater 
 intimacy between man and woman in family relations, 
 has weakened that permissive sanction. We favour 
 
 nm 
 
 MM 
 
ff 
 
 84 
 
 MAURIAGIi; WITH TIJIC 
 
 gvoatcr iiitlier than less stringenoy in logiaUition regard- 
 ing marriage, and have no wish to see tlic law rjjK'aled. 
 We d(3sirc to discourage everything which savours of 
 immorality, or tends thereto. Such, witiiont enlarging 
 on th(vso pointa, are our feelings on the general question. 
 
 VIE. Excr M MUNIOATI ON. 
 
 We come now to look at the discipline of the Canada 
 Presbyterian Church in connection with such man'iages. 
 We believe that discijdine should always be administered 
 in strict accordance with the will of Christ as made 
 known in his word. Is it any wonder, then, that iil'teen 
 rulers in the Church, not satisfied that the Scripture 
 does forbid these marriages, should come Ibrward respect- 
 fully but lirmly stating tJieir doubts, and ask the Synod 
 to reconsider the question with the view of affording 
 relief to parties concerned, in such way as tlie Synod may 
 deem to be conformable to the Word of God? Could 
 we ask less ? The Synod relused our prayer, and still 
 insists tliat we, as oifije-bearers, shall in the name and 
 by the authoi'ity of ('lu'ist cut off and cast out of his 
 Church visible, without any hope of future restoration, 
 all persons thus married, even though we cannot iind 
 Christ's authority for doing this ! In these circumstances, 
 can we do less than appsal to the Church through the 
 press ? Can we be blamed for taking the only course left 
 us either to evoke such a vindication of the position and 
 practice of the Church as may give satisfaction to us and 
 others interested, or to bring the majority to think with 
 us and grant the relief w^e must have. 
 
 It is a solemn thing to cut off any poor sinner from 
 the Church of God. It is a serious matter to have fam- 
 ilies growing up among us, against whom, v/hile children, 
 we must shut the door of the visible Church, and leave 
 
 ^:^ 
 
Slrjllill OV A DtCEASKD WIFL', 
 
 35 
 
 n re^'anl- 
 rapealed 
 ivour.:? of 
 enlarging 
 question. 
 
 ,0 Ciinada 
 Qarriages. 
 linistered 
 as made 
 kat fil'teen 
 Scripture 
 i respect- 
 lie Synod 
 affording 
 nod may 
 ' Could 
 and still 
 ame and 
 t of his 
 oration, 
 ot find 
 stances, 
 ugh the 
 urse left 
 ion and 
 us and 
 ik with 
 
 iv from 
 e fam- 
 lildren, 
 \ leave 
 
 them as heathen, witliout the covenant of promise. In 
 cases of known presumptuous sin, when men are unre- 
 pentant and rehellious, it must be done. Even then we 
 wait long and try much. And must we cast out at once 
 men and women of irreproachable lives, who have here- 
 tofore given evidence of an interest in Jesus, and still 
 are living consistently, simply because they cannot see 
 that (h)d lias for))idden marriage in tliis relation, and 
 have contracted such marriages, it may be ignorantly, 
 but still in good conscience ? Already some Sessions re- 
 fuse to carry out, or evade the discipline of the Church. 
 They will/^notj restore tlie penitent fornicator and adul- 
 terer, the drunkard and the thief, and yet grant no locus 
 penitent ia: for estimable men and women, to whom it 
 cannot be shown that they have done wrong. It is of 
 the last importance to the Church to carry the conscience 
 of the people with her. That is not done by bearing 
 down sincere doubts by the vote of a majority and a 
 peremptory refusal to reconsider any position as?iiimed 
 by the Church. 
 
 We do not even hint at what should be done. We 
 can leave that for the Synod to decide, under tlic guid- 
 ance of our Great Head. The Synod must assume the 
 responsibility in a matter so weighty as the repealing of 
 an ordinance of Exconmiunication. We shall be satisfied 
 if the Synod calmly consider the subject. It has the 
 examj)le of more than one church and denomination to 
 aflbrd direction. But we put faiily before our readers 
 the alternative; parties so married must either dissolve 
 the connection or submit to excommunication. Allow- 
 ing that it was wrong to marry, may it n(>t be a greater 
 wrong to dissolve the marriage, seeing that it is not inces- 
 tuous ? Can we then go to respectable men and women, 
 whose li\ .s perhaps condemn our own, s^urrounded by 
 
 I 
 
 wmmm 
 
r- 
 
 itm 
 
 if 
 
 36 
 
 MARRIAGE WITH TIIR SISTER OF A DECEASED WIFE. 
 
 I<l' 
 
 hopeful children, dearth them as ours are to us ; and say 
 * you must dissolve this bond that has united you, and 
 break up this happy home, or you and your house must 
 remain permanently cast out of the pal^> of the Church of 
 God?' Can we do tliis, wlien all our warrant for saying 
 so is a clause in a Confession, framed by fallible men ; 
 which clause is not esta])lished by the Scripture passages 
 adduced, and cannot be established by any other word of 
 God's? Give us relief, we implore, from this crushing 
 doom of Excommunication and from the guilt of pronoun- 
 cing it, if it is not in accordance with the will of Christ. 
 How to mark disapprobation of these marriages and 
 to discourage them by a proper discipline, it may be 
 difficult to determine. Still, the Church should calmly 
 look the matter in the face, and above all things eschew 
 the guilt of 'jasting out any one whom Christ has received, 
 and against whom no moral delinquency can be estab- 
 lished. 
 
■'\*S^f<*^'iif»^;4S.».rv»;S2aa»;« 
 
 WIFE. 
 
 s ; and say 
 1 you, and 
 louse must 
 Church of 
 for saying 
 lible men ; 
 'c passages 
 ler word of 
 s crushing 
 f pronoun- 
 of Christ, 
 iages and 
 b may be 
 lid cabnly 
 gs eschew 
 3 received, 
 be estab- 
 
 ....^.^^