IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 1.0 I.I it la 110 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 41 6" — ► ^ V] 'm ^^' ^ /a °fl /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTEf). N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4S03 s. ■^ iV A ^ ^ :\ \ q\ '^^^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/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. n n D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou peliiculie Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents rTj Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 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 ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, iorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il !ui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ V D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachetdes ou piqudes I I Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality in^gaie de I'impresslon Includes supplementary materif Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible r~5 Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partieliement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. Tl to Tl P< o1 fil Oi bi th si( 01 fil Si( or Tl s^ Tl w M di en be rif re mi This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X J 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenks to the generosity of: Nstionel Librery of Caneda L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grflce A la gAnArositA de: BibliothAque 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 nettet* de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat 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. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ". le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed 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.. peuvent Atre filmte A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour 6tre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmi A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 EBVIBW OP A PAMPHLET PROM THE CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE, 'iSNTITLB© MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER; A BIBLE ARGUMENT IiONG OBSCUBED. BY A CLERGYMAN, The Writer's Misquotations and Misrepresentations Oerreoted. REPRINTED FROM "THE CHURCH HERALD. »» ■•-•< 1. ** Holy Scripture oontaineth all things necessary to solvation : So tJuU whatsoever is not read therein^ nor map he proved therefrom^ is not to be required of any man, that it should be be* lieved as an Article of Faith, or be thought necessary for aalvation," — Extract from the VI. Article of the Church of England. 2' " The Church hath power to decree Sites or Ceremonies, and authority in controversies of Faith: And yet it is not Zauv Julfor tiie Church to ordain anything that is contrary to Ood's Word written; neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to fi.notheY."— Extract from the XX, ArticU of the Church of EnylatuL TORONTO 187*1. PREFATOKr NOTKI lliefott«^wing^pctge» (repvmte<^fronB tlW CkuR€KHEitALD^ contain » brief reply to a pretentioas but miperfieial pup^r w!kicE {cppeared iu the ChitrcRman's Mtbgazine. for August^, skrid which yi'sis afterWardfereprint'ed in a pamphlet. With the local personalities introditced iyy tSbe Church-' Timn*^ McCfjdz^ and its cohtributor, we have not f ^t callet^ «ipon to int^i-f ere ; our concern \9 to- vindicate scriptural principles as set forth in the authorized tntnriati&n of the Holy Scriptures, which may be r«^ard@d as expressing not- only the true princrplas of the-Chu^hof England, but of Protestantism generally. When attempts are mad« to set aside, or to ««t ecclesiastical authority above any great principle of Bible truth, or of numau right, they are always begim by attacks u^xju the authorized translation of the Holy Scripttrres, whether made by the' sneoring sceptic op' the Koman ecclesiastic, or the amx3hibious character that floats between Protestantism sad Eomanism. We trust the following pAges wift tend to check such attempts, aar well as give information on an important q,uestion8 of^ f eligious a»»d soeial- life^ Torontc Iwt SepUmber, 1871. ""MAHBIAGE WlfH A DECl^ASED WlP^lii'S ftti^^ TER. A BIBT.E AllGUMENT, Wmi FACTk^ JuONG OBSCUKED." Bv A Gleiic;yiiaj», 1*. :pjl:per oijTiEi. ;■ ^«c.? 18 the title of an articlfc whicii appeaped lately in •ifehe Churchman's Maffaslne for August, and which is now iput forth inepamphlet fly to a better -from th« Rev. W. M. Pun^hon, adflresaed to Dr. Hod^ns, and comaaunicarted hy him to Th£ Church Herald, and inserted in our |>aper on the 6th ult. It rizttd ver- sion of the Scriptures, and his Romanizing idiosyncracies in the matter, we have something consideraljJe to say. CAUSE OF AGITATION IN ENGLAND GN T«I8 SUWfiCT. But l>cfore wc enter upon the discussion of this subject, we think our readers would like to know the cause of the agitation respecting it in England during tlie last thirty years. It has arisen from an Act of Parliament passed in 1835, declaring all marriages with a deceased wife's sister, contracted after that date, to be illegal, but legalizing those which had taken ijlace before it. Previous to that time the civil law of England was like that of Can« akla at tlie i>roseiit time ; mairiagc with a (Xixeixacd wife's ai.stcr waH not forWddeii by the civil law, though contrary to the cccle8ia8tical law, subjecting the partieu to proHu- cutions before Ecclesiastical Courts, whose cleciHi<>n8 had to be enforced by civil authority— Courts which do not exist in Canada. The origin of the ImxKirial Act of 1835 (not in force in Canada) is as follows : Two sisters, nieces of tile Duke of Wellington, had married Henry Somerset, seventh Dulce of Beaufort. The first marriage took place on the 25th July, 1814 ; the second marriage of the Duke of Beaufort with his deceased wife's sister took pliice oij? the 2l)tli Jime, 1822. The issue of the secojid marriage was Henry C/harlcs Fitzroy Somerset, the present Duke of Beaufort, late Her Majesty's Master of the Horse. In' 1835 liord LyncUiurst introduced a Bill into the Hosed to the Mnendment or ryder ; but finding that the rejection of it would endanger the ])assiiig of his Bill, admitted it ; and it i» this invidious aiiening of Par- liament ; he sitH in the House of Peers with an unblemished title ; takes i»recodenee of the Bishop of Londiui by forty - and-one degrees ; is patron of twenty-six livings, and has, indeed, every privilege that an Englishman can enjoy ; while the mme of aimilar inarriage^!, 'llffci'inledged against it. The Homan Catholics are immovably opposed to it ; and only a certain portion of English Non- conformists, with some loose and wordly-minded Church- men, are to be found to give it a shadow of religious sup- port." (p. 3.) His statement is not true as to the Presbyterian botlies in the United States, nor as to a large number of their mem- bers and most distinguished ministers in Canada, nor a+« to such illustrious names as those of Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Eadic in Scotland ; it is not true as to English Noncon- formists generally. (>ardinal Wiseman f;aid the Roman Catholic Church did not hold that such a marriage wag prohibited in Scripture, but *' is eonsideretl a matter of ecclesiastical legislation ;" and when no less than seven hundred clcrgyrtien of the Established Church i>etitioned at one time for the repeal of the Act of 18;i5, including such men as the Archbishops of York and Dublin, the late Primate of all Ireland, and the present Archbishoi) of Canterbury, any one may judge of even the decency, much less truth of the statement, that only "some loose and worldy-minded Churchmen are to be found to give it a s'ladow of rcljgioas supi)ort." THE writer's RECKLK88 BTATEIIENT IN REGARD TO t(Of(' CONFORMI8TH, AND H18 BLANDER ON CANADA. We Bhall hereafter present the earnest and learned wnnlff of many illustrious Prelates of our Church on this subject ; we will merely note here, as an example of this writer's reck- less statements, what he says in regard to '* only a portion of the English Nonconformists." The Tendon Central Board of the Three Denominations in England adopted a resolution saying, ** Such marriage (with a deceased wife's sister) is not only in itself perfectly allowable, but may often he the best which an individual may contract." Tlio Board of Baptist Ministers in London and Westminster adopted a resolution declaring : " In the judgment of the Board, the marriage of a widower with the sinter of his deceased wife is Scripturally lawful, and ought not to bo prohibited by any human legislation." The famous Wes- leyan minister, the late Dr. Bunting, said in his evidence before the Koyal Commission : " That the enactments of the Levitical law are entirely misrepresented when applied in condemnation of marriage with a deceased wife's sister was the decided judgment of !Mr. Wesley, the founder of our Societies ; and I believe that similar views are enter- tained by many among us, who have been led by circum- stances carefully to examine the matter, and whose competency to judge of such a question has given great weight to their conclusions." This writer says : — ** The genenU contempt for religious, as opposed to secular law, characterizes the looseness of Colonial populations." This statement is not only untrue, but a calumny upon our Colonial pojmlation, which regards religious law as everything, and looks with comjmrative indifference upon all secular law in religious matters. Such an utterance is the characteristic language of some who come to the colony for the improvement of their own con- dition, and then magnify themselves by speaking con- temptuously of everything Colonial and its iM»pulation. VIEWS OP DISTINGUISHED CHURCHMEN OPPOSED TO THE MAGAZINE WRITER. Wo shall heruafter expose the dangerous criticisms and al»Riird borrowed fallacies of this writer. We will close these preliminary o>)8ervation8 at present with the remarks of two or three distinguished churchmen respecting the Act of 18«)5. The late Robert Southey said, in a letter to a friend,— "But haa it never occurred to you, my dear Wynn, that this law is an abominable relic of ecclesiastical tyranny ? Of all second maniages, I have no hesitation in saying that these are the most suitable." The late Lord Francis Egerton, (afterwards Earl of Elle8mere),8aid, in a speech in the House of Commons: In 1835 a most im- ix^rtant Statute had been passed by that House, under somewhat peculiar circumstances, and he might say, of haste, and want of due deliberation, mat erially affecting the marriage laws of this country. In this case, the voice of Heaven was silent, and that of man had been given with a hesitation ami confusion of utterance that deprivere- tatiim, as well as in religion, and esjiccially on a subjort which has been discussed by the most learned Hebraists and Divines in England for very many years. Our clerical fri(md acknowledges himself indebted for these novel il- lustiations to a writer by the name of Galloway, who pub- lished a i)amphlet in I^ondon last year on the subject ; and the pami)hlet of this man Galloway seems to constitute the sum and substance of our rural friend's researches and learning on a grave question of long and varied discussion for more than a quarter of a century. THE MAGAZINE WRITER'S NOVEL ILHSTRATIONS AND READ- ING OF THE SCRIPTURE. II. — One of these liuvel illustrations is, the denial that Moses e ver commanded a brother Uy marry the childless widow deceased brother, "and raise up seed to his brother; or that the seven brothei-s mentioned in Matthew, xxii. chapter, veraes 24 and 25, were own brothers. Moses said, (Deuteronomy xxv. 5, 6), " If brethren dwell together, and one of thorn, die, and have no child, the wife of tlie dead shall not marry without unto a stranger ; her husband's brother shall go in unto her and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the first bom which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead» that his name be not put out of Israel." In Matthew, we are told that the Sadducees came to our Lord, " Saying, Master, Moses said, * If a man die, having no children, his brother sball marry his wife and raise up seed unto his brother.' Now, there were with us seven brethren : and the first when he had married a wife, deceased, and, hpving no issue, left his wife unto his brother : Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also." These words are as plain in the authorized version of the Scriptures as the English language can make them, and as they have ever been understood by the Jews, and by all Christendom, but which are now denied by the writer of the Churchinan'' s Mmjazine on the authority of his man Galloway, in illustrations ** unknown to the bulk of Bible readers !" He says, referring to Deuteronomy xxv. 5-10, it is a mere '* assumption that the brothers are own brothers, sons of one father or mother ;'' ** but the assumption itself is to be denied." .(p. 12.) " In truth, the idea that the Levirate law contemplated own brothcra is wholly baseless and should be unceremoniously abandoned ;" (p. 13), after having said, "It is truly sur- prising how generally this assimiption has been 'allowed." Now, uix)n what gi-ound does this magazine writer, who says he is "entirely indebted to Mr. Galloway" for his proofs, thus deny what has been declared by the Jews of all ages, and all Christendom, to be the plain command of Moses, and recognized by our Lord and his Apostles ? He gives three reasons ; The first is the marginal reading of Deuteronomy xxxv. 5, which is "next kinsman." And who, let us ask, is the " next kinsman" of the deceased husband of a widow, but his own brother, if alive ? His 11 next reacion is, when denying that the seven brothers men' tioned in Matthew xxii. 24-28, were " all sons of the same parents," a quotation from the " book of Tobit," in which a woman, after having had seven husbands, laments, ** I am the only daughter of my father, neither hath he any cliild to be his heir, neither any near kinsman, nm' any g he says -'* I add a literal rendering,' of the Hebrew, as it will be useful for reference :" " And a woman to her sinter thou shnit not take, to riraf, to uncover her nnkedncsa^ hettides her, in her life time !" But onpa}j:e 8, to supj)ort his theory, he renders this same verse as follows : ^* And one with the other thou nhalt not take, to uncover her nr(!W IS AND aii<( ^o on >f tho Klialt her 1 the Kaiiie jiTiom." Ilusays, "It is well known that the wordu *a woman to ficr sister* are a Hebrew idiom, an «xi>rcHHioa puciiliur to the laiij,'uage. The correHjwmdiiif; phraHo, *ti iiuiii lo kis brother,^ hccuvh twenty-live tinu^s in th<.' Hchrow Seripturei!, and iu ti'auHlateJ generally isa in the following exampleu : •Cen. xxxviii. 19. * And they Raid one to anofhnr.* 30x. XXV. 20. *Ahd the faces of tlie tlierubim Hhall look one to another/ Jcr. xiii. 14. * And I will tUwh tliein mte ftf/nmnt (mother.* Jer. XXV. 14. *Aud all the kings of tlw north one mth another. ' *' ITx. xxvi. 3. * *' The five curtains Hhall Ikj conpled to- jjfetht-T one. to another ; and othtr iive enr- taiiiH shall he c«u>ded ove lo otiot/w/r.'' " iVtr. Those are «ome of the exaictples given by this writer t« 3)rove that two tiiMcr* are not intended in the vt.'rH<.' niuler «'liHcus»ion, though they are named I And vihat wliailow of i>ro()f do hi^ exaiBp1o« furnifch ? JknidtK, wluit he /;alLs a '*' Hebrew idiom," "is well kiu)wn" by t lie learned to be no idiom at all. The exami)leH he gives are idieinatic, be- cause th^y all Fefer to iKany or several pei-Kuns or things, aiot to two persons only, and ull are, aa the reader iviU see, .preceded by a phual nominative. fwUowed vby a plural verb; Jjiit the phrase in Ijeviticus xviiL 18, ia m>t idicfinatic, — refera to two i>er8on8 only, a woman and her si«tei*, or two ifiisters,— has a Bingular nominative with a eingular verb, •and followed by the words ** Aer nakednesa, besides Atr, in her lile time ;" noi having the least re«emblance btj the j>hrases : " Tli£! five eiirtains .shall Ijeooupltsd together one to anotkea; and othor five curtains Hhall be coupled one te '^mother/' The late learned Kevd. De. A. McCa^jl, (elder ibrother of the Revd. Dr. McCaul of the Toronto Uni- versity) Professor ©f Divinity and Hebrew Literature in King's College, London, has remarked, — " When the words, "* a woman to her sister,' or in the masculine f<»rm, ' a man to his brother,* cue used idiomatlcaU y to signify 'oiie anoth'er/ tliey alioays fiave tk^plurai antecedent of i5e tKfngs 0r i^rson spoken of. Here is no such antecedent ; conse^ quently hero tkey cannot be so translated.'^ P{igc5J^«f a f>;i,un^hIofc t'!»titl»Ml : '* The Aneknt iTitirpnUttion of Le-^ viticus xvifii. 18^ as received in the Ghurch ■ fvr more tharif 1,500 yearSj a SuJ^ent Apoloffy for holding that, cteco^dirnj to the Wo-RD • OE God, Marriage wiHa a Deceased Wife's^ 'Sister islawfuL''' Sixteenth. tliausand. DR. M'CAUL'S INTERPRBTATION SUSTAINED; Professor Kobinson^ the weU-know3x oriental travelle% and most distinguished Hebraist in America, thus (in his^ BibUothecik Sacra) give& the reason for Dr. McCaol's inr terpretation : " The phra8er, ' a woman to her sister/ does indeed owurr no less than eight times ^8lsew][leFe•in« the Helj^-aw Bible^ in^ the general meaning,, 'one to another,' hxA^onlp of inaii/v- mate objects^ntha feminine gender — viz., of the curtains^ }oop« and t(»ions of the tabemade, — Exodus- xxvL 3r bis^, 5y 6, IZ ; and oi ^a- wings oi the living creatures, Ezekiel. 1: .9,' 2^^ iii) 1A: The? like phrase ' a noau to his brother/ occurs- i&^ about 'tM^ent^ -times; mosldy of m«n, but als» m a few instances «fnaiumate objeots^oriasectSjOl Exodu»- XXV, 29^; Joeril-S. But it^is^-to b» remarked thatm^2«r2r jrucA instance 1 thi» phrase, wheth^oi tUe snaseuline or femi^ nine gendec has a reciprocal distributive power, — that, isy tkntrnibevfof-pertons^-^ir thing* are said to do, or be so^ one t# cmotAcn Sxodits- xi^^ lH and olten. * So. Abraham and Lot separated themselves one from «»iother.'' Genets xiin. 11; Nehemiah iv. 19; Isaiah ix. 19; In the Hebrew :: *They shall not spare one another,' Haggai it. 22; * And the hearses and their riders- shall come down, each l^ th» aword of the-othor, — i. e. , they shall destroy one tuiotheri So of other examples. The only ai)parent oxc^>tion as to form is £zekiel xxxviii. 21., ' Every mtm's sw(mx1 shall be- agaii^t his brother,* here too, the idea of multitude and of xeciprocal and> mutual action among individuak is iuKjf 16 cott8e>> tharu wdiruj ^[TreaeiTed. Tliis, then, ietbe idiom ; andto this idinrm Qk pasMv^ ia L«iriticu8 xvdii. 18. has no relatioa. There m fiothiiig dietributive xhqt Keciprecal implied an it. The phrase here refers oalty to the object cf the verb ; upon which object no trace «f mutual or reciprocal action paaees «ver. To bring it in any degree under tlie idiom, it should sX least read thns.i * Wives {Ifat^m) one to jEuu^tlier thou chalt.not take; and even then it ' would be xunlike any other instanoe. But, further, ^he suiiixeB attached in the eingnlar t« the iubse<|uent worde (her . nakeduens, besides heVy in her lifetiuie) show » decisively, ^that eve&sueh ar solu- tion is inadmissable ; and these of theniBelves lifiuit the %7ord8 to two «{>£cific individu^ i^^o have no ^mutual action one upon an«ther,.) in 'the same literal senee^ai in the preceeding ^verses, vias., a wife to a.aister.^^ It is. "thus as plain as day that two «i»ter8 are mentioned ^n Lievitiov-S xviii. 18, as this writerls own first '' literal arendering of the Hebrew" d^f^Lires ; aiwl wiien fee after- wards, {page 7), iays, "the text iii dasjmte refers neithor ta f.olygfamy nor .to. a deceased wiSe's sister, 'Wie not only con- tradicts hixoself and what we have above adduced, 'obut he contradicts such writers as Dr. Busey, tho late Bishop dt Exeter ly- pamy, and regulated it, (Kxodus xxi. ^12 ; Deuteronomy xxL IS"*!?), but does not forbid it. The prophet denounced David^b adultery, but diiectly recognized his .polygamy 1& pi. Samuel xii. 8.) It is dear, not only from the hiEtorieBi «f David and Solomon and Joash (II Chronidcs xxiv. sy, and of the Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, but from the passage referred to in Exodus xxi. 9-11, and Deuteronomy xxi. 15-17. that polygamy was recognized by the law o Moses and by the Jewa. When, therefore, a man was for, bidden to marry a. second sister during the lifetime of the- first, it could net be polygaany that waa cendemned, but individual domestic peace that was to be preserved. The' note of the learned Wesleyan, Df. Ai>AM Clarke, ex- presses not only the sentiments of Wesley, but the com- mon sense of the passage : " Thou shalt not marry two^' sisters at the same time, as Jacob did Rachel and Leah ;: but there is nothing in this law that rendered it illegal to marry a 8ister-in4aw, when hear sister was uead. There- fore the the text says, *^Thou shalt not take her in her life- time, to vex her,' alluding, probably, to the cause of the jealousies which subsisted between Leah and Eachel, «nd by which th* family peace was so much disturbed."' • Dr. T. SeoTT, our Church Commentator, interprets the- verse as forbidding ** the marrying of two aistsrs together.. This conduct in Jacob proved a source of vexation both tof Leah and Eagihel ; who were more jealous of each other than of the handmaidens whom they willingly gave to their husband'^" But as all parties are agreed that a man's, marrying two sisters at the same time was forbidden by Moses, we need n»t multiply authorities on the point,, though a score of them might be adduced. But the chief point in the remaining part of the argu- ment turns on the last phrase of the passage, the restriction or limitation, "in her life time." The Churc/iman^g Mar/a- zinc writer says (page 5) " such a mode of reaamiing is in general highly dangerous and uncertain — to conclude that things are sanctioned or approved by law, if the are only not expressly forbidden ! For example, I say to a servant whom I have detected in theft, * As long as you are in my «mpIosr never steal again.' May he justly conclude t P 17 that when not in my employ he hay my full ap- probation for theft ?" This writer must me more f oolisli than we had even imagined him to be, if he wfnild ntter »nch a limited prohibition to his servant, and not caution him ag-ainst ever stealing again. But what he supposes himself to say to a servant detected in thef^, is as fallacious in aj"giiment as it would be foolish in act. It would indeed l)e as wrong for **a clergyman's" servant to steal after leaving his master's employment as before ; but it would not be as wrong for his married servant to marry another woman after hia wife's death as before, as every one but *his writer must know. But this writer resorts to a second iTlustration. He says, (page 6) ** When Hannah says she will give her expected son nnto the Lord 'all the days of life,' she might just as well be supposed to intend keeping him t<» herself after his death, as the restriction in Leviti- eus be explained away as tempcirary — contingent on the life of the first wife." In this second illustration the Mapazine writer supposes Hannah might intend an impos- sible thing, as in his first illustration he sui)posed himself to doa foolish thing. Hannah might have kept her son's dead hod'if after his death, had she survived him, but lier 9011 would have been beyond her reach. We fear our read- ers may think us trifling with them by our noticing such nonsense ; but we cannot resist the desire to add one or two fllustrative example.* of this writer's logic. • For exami)ley from the prohi])ition, Leviticus xxii. 28, " Whether it be a^ €ow or ewe, ye shall not kill her and her young one in one day ;" common sense infeis that to kill them on tUtferent ilays was lawful ; but according to this writer's logic, it would be as unlawful to kill th«m on different day;-? as to kill thera on the same day. Again in li^vitieiis x. 0, it is said " Do net drink wine nor any strong drink, thou nor thy sons Tvith the, when ye go into the tabtiinacle lest ye die." (/Ommon w^nse would iiift'r that tlu; parties; addressed might diink wine at other times ; but the logic of this writer would make them teetotallers at all timea 18 »iid fer «ver — perhape a v«ry good thing, at least for loms .parties, but hardly commandod by the Mosaic law. Fur- .thermore, vhen in* Leviticus xm. 14, a High Priest is for- .bidden to marry a widow, eoramon sense infers that other .priests and other meAAinay marry a widow.; but according .to this writer no priest nor any other roan can lawfully «marry a widow; yet this infercnoe from the prohibition of .1;he High Priest hi the only authority or permission in the aw of M«HB3 f©r the laavf nines of a priest or „Any other man to marry a wido^. ^ £ius writer Ije oonsistent or sincere iu his r,east>niAg, lie certainly «hoiild n«>t marry a wfidow. But to be-seriouff, and not multiply examples, we imay remark, thst even 'ii.^ to tfvfee a -second husband; and by •inference our LoRB proved tlkj doctrui/j of the Resurrec- tion, and i:?*. Paul the doctrine of Jiistifijcation Iqt Faith. "^HE MAGAZnw: writer's violation ©P a PLAIS FEINCIPLE €)F JrtJKItSr4iU3>EKCE IN IIIS STATEMENT. But t« the princii^e of the -argument itself. No prin- ciple is more j^-enerally understood «nd acted upon in both civil :and criminal jurkprudenoc tlian this — ^that '^when a 3)rohil»iti€rn k given with a 'limitation, rthflrt ^diere ti^ limitation eeases, the prohibition -oeases, especiatiy when 1;he limitaton is with regard t<3 time."' The examples above •given are iHustrations of the trutib of ihis principle ^ and ^hus when we are prohibited from steaKng and ^bearing 'false witness aj^infct our neighbo^ir, it is ■ implied *that we should be honest and -tinitWul : when we are prrohibited from selling or holding property, it is implied ithat .on .his becoming of age he can do both ; the pro- . for loma kW. Fur- est is fop- liat other according 1 lawfully libition of ion in the jiy other eistent or t niaxry & nples, we be lawful- authority 1 given to i; and by Resiirrec- T Faith. PEmCIPLE N® prin- n in both "wlien a Hi^re tihe ally when pies *bov€ nple^ «.nd ^bearing d-that we pr^^hibited is implied nal is pro- ^e months, le «lmll be ^eitated or is implied the pro- Hbilion, which prevents the heir to a title or an estate from stssiiming it during the life of the owner, censes onn liis deatJi. E\;amiplc8 could'bc iritrltiplismxV sayings,, (^or argimients they cannot l»e called), om thia point, we. may remark in the language^ o£ the leamad-vDr. A. Mc- ©AUL.: — " Th« - inf earenoe drawn from. th« hmitation in- EevitieiiB xviii. 1&; * in her lifi&'tim^;' & as old af^ the days^ of Philo, ha» beea chrawn by the great btxiy^of the Jewish- nation ever since, and by^ the most learned^ and thoughtful €lhristiain»,' oir varioue>-Tiations>' and opposing ereed»> down/ to the present time^— no4i only of tiiose who draw it in: favour of marriage wrfeh a. dkjceased wife% sister, but of those wiho, opposing that marriage^ inter]^i*et Leviticus xviu.lS) o£ polyg^uny^ Both, asserix that the. worda, *in. her life-time' is a limitactiou, and-, that' when., tha wife i%. ^&f%d., a.se«ocid.maiir!£^e ast lawful; and thus the xmitecJ^. stre^igth' and learning oi both. partioS'^aFBd thwe are only; a fe^v indiVidvial coimneiitafcors wbo^ dx> not b»l€>ng to the one or the other — ^are couibined in affirmihg the validity of:' this eoncdUBion."* We. have thua>. we think, sufficiently replied to the*- magazine writer on thainterpootatioii of L»viticus xviii.. 18, thougjii we- have employed, but a. ssqciII \mx\i of the- authorities: and' illustraticHis whieli w^ had. prepared to ex- pose his ciude and absurd erttitosma*. W^-HbalL u«rxt,, iuh one mora pap«:^ notice his- nHsquotatioos of JULitherities. itovat Jewish and: Christian anticiiiiity, and eonclutle witlfe adducing modem- Church and other avithoritieawliich cant neithai" l>e gainaaad nor resisted by any soimd Prote;itaniw. 20 rn:E3:xiEiiD -jp a.t=>:ei:ei . y^e have yot to notice the Jewish and early chui*ch autho- xitios to which the ChurchmnrCa Magazbie writer appealfl in support of his assertions as unscriptnral and immoral what never was prohibited by the laws of any country in the world before the fourth century of the Christian era; what is now la'^vful in every country in the world except Great Britain and Ireland since IfiS/i, and what is santioned by the bright- est ornaments of our church in both Europe and America, as we shall show before concluding this paper. THE MAGAZINE WRITER'S MIHIlKPnESENTATIONS OP HIS OWN AUTFIOniTlJ^lS— THE MI8UNA. The writer has either never read tJie works which ho pro- fesses to quote, or he knowin^y misrepresents them ; for in overy instance except one do they declare the very opposite ■of what he represents them as having stated. His first reference is to the Mishno. He cays " The negative testimony of Scripture [against the lawful ness of a man's raari-iage with his deceased wife'* sister] i^ iiTesistibly substantiated by the most ancient traditionary laws of the Jews— the Mimhna, There is no dispute that the Mishna is the most exact representation of ancient Jewish (Opinion," (pg. 14.) It migbt be supposed, after such a pretentious flourish, that the writer would have adduot';d seme very expJicit quor tations from the Mishna in support of his formidable, but we hesitate not to say perfectly groundless, statement. He -quotes not one, passage bearing on the subject, but represents the Mishna as using certain terms and stating certain things, :and even laments Dr. McCauTs ignorance of the Mishna !— Very like a candle sitting censor on the sun for not knowing how to give Is'ght 1 Wo will quote one passage from the Mishna, from the next •chapter (iv. 13) to that wliich this writer has referred to as -fuisfcaiuin^ his fitatcuieuts. That there may bcnoiniatako,or oavil, we first give SunENiiusius Latin version of the po-s- i^age and then an English translation; rch autho- ippeals in loral what the world hat is now Bit Britain he bright- merica, as ? HIS OWN Lch ho pro- em ; for in y opposite Hia first ;he lawful Si sister] i^ aditionary jO that the lit Jewish s ilourish, :p3Icit quo" ble, but we Dent. He represcutfi ;aiu thiiigSf Mishiia !— )t knowing in the next jrrecl to as mistake, or •f the pas- 21 '• Si mortua fuerit uxor ejus.licitus oat sorori ejus ; si repu- diaverit earn et mortua fuerit, licitus est sorori ejus ; si fra- tria illius laoiiiua fnorit, licitus sorori ejus ; si calceuiu illi dodorit exeundinii, ot mortua fuerit, licitus est sorori ejus; si nupsorit alii, et mortua fuerit, licitus est sorori rjus." This passage is decisive on the poiut. The translation is as follows : " If his wife die, he is allowed to marry her sister. If ho divorce her, and she die, he is allowed to marry her sister. If she be married to another man and die, he is allowed to marry her sister. If he have performed to her the ceremony of taking off the shoe, and she die, he is allowed to marry her sister; if she marry another man, and die, he is allowed to marry lier sister." The Mishiia is a collection of legends and expositions said to have been learned by Mohes in the mount, and handed down by tradition. It was compiled in the second century, and testifies what was the common and received sense of tho law among the Hebraizing Jews. The Magazine writer says, " it is the most exact representation of the ancient Jewish opinion ;" and the above passage from the the Mishna de- clares that opinion to be precisely what we have alleged to be the law of Moses understood by the ancient Jews. As Dr. McCaTil says, "The Mishna, whatever its defects, gives no uncertain sound in this matter. It uniformly adheres to tho ancient interpretation of Leviticus xviii. 18." THE MAGAZINE WRITER'S MISllEPKESENTATIONS OF MAI- MONIDK8. Next the Magazine writer professes to quote Maimonides as an authority in support of his views, but omits the very pas- sage which bears on the point in discussion, and i)rofesscs to infer certain things from other words which relate not to the subject. The words of Maimonides, in tho English transla- tion, are as follows : " When a man has betrothed a wife, there are six women of near relations prohibited to him, and each one of them is prohibited for ever : and those are they, her mother, and her mother's mother, and her father's mother, and her daughter, and her daughter's daughter, and her son's daughter, and if ho approacli any one of these in tho life-time of his wife, they are burnt and so his wife's sister is pro- hibited to liim until his wife die." (Hilchcloth issuro biab, 22 oh. ii., BeotioiM! 7, 9.) ThuB Moimonidefl* in bis farnouB digest of the Jewish law, says that some women are forbidden for. over, but the wife'k -^iater only until the wife die. THE MAGAZINE WIIITEB UMFAIRLT BEPRES1':NT8 JOBEPHUB' VIEWS. The magazine writer, in quoting Josephus, is careful not to notice the Icind of marriage with a brother's wife wliich was detestable among the Jews. Qlaphyra had had throe children by her first husband. On liis being slaiik by his father, she toolc a second husband. Then the brother of her first husband divorced his wife to marry her. The law of MosBs had commanded a man to marry his brother's widow only when his brother had died childless, and did not permit the divoarcing of a wife in order to marry a brother's widow. Such a marriage as that of Olaphyra was, of course^ detested among the Jews. MODERN JEWISH AUTHOIUTY lONORED BY THE MAOAZINB WRITER. We have shown above that both the Mishna and Miamo- nides state the very opposite of what the magazine writer represents theni to have stated. We will add on this point the testimony of Dr. ADLBR^the Chief Rabbi of the Jews in the British Dominions. In his evidence before the Royal Commisioners, Dr. Adubr says :— ^ It is not considered as prohibited, but it is distinctly imderstood to be permitted ; and on this point neither the DJvine law, nor the Rabbis^ nor historical Judaism, leaves room for the least doubt. I can only reiterate my former assertions that all sophistry must split on the clear and tmequivooal words of Itevitious zviii. 18, in her life-time:' This may be oonsidered as settling tiie question so far aB Jewish testimony, ancient and modem, is concerned. THE MAQAZINS WRITER'S MISREPRESENTATION OV CHURCH HISTORY. Finally, we will follow this writer in noticing the authoirities he professes to adduce " as to the judgment of the Church on this matter." But he adduces not a single authority during Uie firtt three centuries of the Christian Era, and for a very good reason* there is not one for him to adduce. This is a motts digest rbiddeu for. I JOBEPHUS' kreful not to I wliich was had throe laiik by hia >ther of her The law of ler's widow id did not ' a brother's 8, ol course^ MAGAZINE ind Miomo- izine writer n this point the Jews in i the Boyal Qsidered as permitted ; the Babbis^ it doubt. I tl sophistry i Lteviticua >n so far as led. y» CHXJBCH authorities ) Church on tfity during 1 for a very This is a 23 long and most important interval, during which the Chnroh was founded, endured its bloodiect persecutions, and achieved its noblest triumphs. At its foundation, as Dr. AiiEXAKDBR MdGaul observes, ** If Christians were to resist the prevailing practice, a special interposition was necessary. The Jews thought it lawful to marry a wife's sister. The Gentiles thought it lawful to marry a wife's sister. Converts of both classes woidd, unless instructed to the contrary, carry their previous ideas into Christianity. Is there any evidence to show that they were so instructed ? There is none in the Gospels or Epistles— there is none (as has been shown) in the translations of the Scriptures used by the Jewish, Syrian, Greek " nd Latin Churches. These versions are all favourable to the uarriage with a wife's sister."—" Having given the concurrent testimony of the three rp^atest Bible-scholars of their age, and that age the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, in addition to the Septuagint, the Syraic and the Italic versions, I have done enough to show the opinion of the Church for the first 400 years. My witnesses do not, like yours, fall short of the foundation of the Christian Chiurch by 300 years. The Septuagint dates 280 years before it. Onkelos and philo are contemparaneous with the Church's foundation. The Mishna, the ancient Italic, and the Syraic versions witness as to the interiiretation in the second century. Theodoret and Augustine show the re. ception in the Syrian and African Churches, much about the same time that Jerome arose to make the ancient interpre- tation the heritage of the Western Church for many cen- turies.'* (Letter to Sir Page Wood, pp. 37, 99.) THE MAGAZINE WRITER ON THE XIX. APOSTOLIC CANON. The first testimony of the magazine writer " as to the judgment of the church," on the subject is " The XlXth of the Apostolic Canons, allowed by ail to be ante-Nicene, which says, ' He who hath married two sisters, or his brother's or his sister's daughter, cannot be a clergyman.' " (p. 16.) In Dr. Pusey's examinations before the Boyal Commissioners on this subject, the question (444) was asked him, — " When was the earliest period in the Christian Church at which notice was taken of these marriages ?" His reply was, " In the Apostolic Canons, canon 19, one had so married, or had married a niece, was forever excluded from the clergy/ 91 24 Question 445,—" What is their date ?" Answer,—*' I can only say that it is in Ante-Nioene collection." On this r>r. A. Mc- CAUii remarks :— " This is a vague '•eply. * Ante-Nicene' takes in 325 years. How long then before the Council of Nice wore these Canons collected, one year or 300 years ? Some make the collection Post-Nicene. According to the judgment of Von Drey, one of the latest and most esteemed writers on this subject, the collection of the so-called Apostohcal Canons is later than the Apostolical Constitutions, and the latter did not exist luitil the fourth century. If, therefore, we ad- mit the collection to have been made and known as early as the Council of Nice (A.D. 325), there would still remain an interval of above three hundred years without any testimony on the subject, and also the question as to the measure of the authority which they possess, as a collection, and the still more difficult question of the date and origin and authority of the 19th Canon. Moreover the 19th Canon only says, That he who married two sisters or neice [or, as some trans- late, a cousin] cannot become a clergyman.' It contains no proliibition, but testifies to the fact that such marriages were not unusual. In point of fact, therefore, the Apostolical Canons are valueless as an authority as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the disj)uted marriage, or even as to tlio date of the first notice of it in the Christian Church." [A?icient Interpretation of Loviticu.s xviii. 18, as received by the Church for more than 1,500 years, i&c., dtc, pp. 46, 47.] THE TESTIMONY OP ST. BASIL, EXAMINED. The Magazine writer's next testimony "as to the judgment of the church," is " St. Basil, in the 4tli century," (pg. 10), as sajdng, " our custom in this matter lias the force of law, be- cause the statutes we observe have Imen handed down to us by holy men; and our judgment is this, tbat if a man has fallen into the sin of marrying two sisters, we do not regard such a union as niarriage, nor do we receive the parties to coinmunioii with the Cliurch until they are separated." It will be recollected that these words of St. Basil occur in a controversial letter against an opponent. On this iioint also we avail ourselves of the remarks of Dii. INIcCaul, wlio ob- serves: "'The custom esta])liHhed among us,' 'our custom,' and still more the Greek to\ par hemin ethos, speak only of that which was local. There is not the least mark of um- -"I can only lis 7>r. A. Mc- Nicene' takes of Nice wore Some make jiulgmeut of d writers on ulical Canons id the latter efore, we ad- n as early as 11 remain an ly testimony 3 measure of and the still nd authority 1 only says, i some trans- contains no irriages were Ai3ostolicul awfulness or n as to the m Church." reived by the D. 10 judgjnent " (pg. IG), as e of law, bo- [ down to us a man has not regard parties to tirated." It I occur in a 3 point also rii, who ob- ur cuKtom,' ik only of ark of uni- 25 Tersality about them. Par hemin can never signify "in the whole church." Moreover BASiii does not even speak of it as a law of the church, but only a custom, nor of the custom as having been handed down from the Apostles, but by " holy men." Had St. BAsrL known of an universal custom, it would have been much more to his purpose to have urged that universality, as being necessarily known to the person against whom he argued. Cruld ho have have adduced the practice of the Universal Church, or the authority of the Apostles, he would hardly have confined himself to that of his own diocese and his predecessors. St. Basil's caution is to me a proof that his custom was not the practice of the Universal Church, and that he was aware of the fact." THE AUTHORITY OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRirT QUOTED. The Magazine writer's next appeal is "the Vatican Manus- cript of the Septuagint (lately published by Cat^Mnal Mat,") which we are told, "contains the text of a curse against those who lie with their wife's sister, in Deuteronomy xxvii. 23. — an important witness of the opinion of the early age in which that MS. was wiitten." (p. 16). In laiO, the Rev. E. W. Grinfield, London, addressed and published *'An Expoatu- latory Letter to the Rt. Rev. N. Wiseman, on the interpolated cumc," to which the Magazine writer now appeals as his final au- thority as to the "judgment of the Church." "The intel^iola- tion of the additional curse (it has been observe eludes him that is guilty of it from being bishop, priest, or deacon. The Council of Neo-Cesaraea (A.D. 314) forbids, by its seventh Canon, priests from even being present at a second marriage. THE SUCCESSIVE STEPS OP FIRST rORBIDDINQ SECOND MAB- BIAOE8 ALTOGETHER,— THEN MABBIAGES WITH A DE- CEASP3D wife's sister,— and FIN.VIiLY FOBBIDDING THE CLEBGY TO MARBY AT Alili. We might multiply authorities, and give the original authorities on which those summary statements are founded, did our limits permit. It is not surprising that when second marriages (whose only authority from Scripture is inference) had been long forbidden, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister, for which Scripture authority was more explicit, should begin to be forbidden ; and the prohibition of tho clergy to marry at all soon followed. The Provincial Spanish Council of nineteen Bishops, which was held at Eliberis A.D. 305, the first Council to forbid marriage with a deceased wife's sister, was also the first to forbid the marriage of the clergy. The Council of Neo-Cesaraea, held A.D. 314, the second Council to forbid the marrinf j with a brotjjer's widow, was tho first to command tho degradation of priests who marry after ordination. liook, then, at these facts : The prohibition against mar- riage with a deceased wife's sister did not begin until 305 ; but the condemnation of second man-iages began as early as 170, and soon obtained in every part of the Church— in Africa, in Greece, in Italy, in Asia Minor, in Spain, in France; and tlio first two Councils that forbade niaiTiugo with a deceased wife's sister, were the two first Councils that forbade tho marriage of the clergy at all, though none of the six Oeneral Councils, held between A.D. .325 and A.D. 680, condemned marriage" with a deceased wife's sister. K the magazine writer, then, be consistent and sincere in his appeal to early Church authority* he must forthwith oppose all second mar- riages, and the marriage of the clergy altogether. 28 RBCAPITUIiATION OF OMITTED PACTS AND AUTHORITIES. Wo have now reviowed, and, wo tliink, refuted the criticismfl and arguments of the magazine writer— onutting, of course his personalities and quibbles to give them point, as beneath notice. Wc will, in conclusion, state and recapitulate certain facts, and then adduce certain aiatliorities bearing upon the whole question. Tlie facts to which we beg the recollection of our readers are the following : — 1. The law of marriage in England and Ireland down to 1835 was as follows, as stated in 32 Henry viii., c. 38: "By this act we declare all persons to be lawful, that bo not pro- hil)ited by God's law to marry." The law of marriage in Scotland is thus stated in Statue 1558, c. 16 : " Our Sovereign Lord with consent, &c., has ordained the holy band of mar- riage made by all estates and sorts of men and women to bo as lawful and as free as the law of God has permitted the same to be done without exception of person or persons." No complaint was made of the operation of the law from the Keformation to 1835, during which period the marriage in question was virtually permitted o.nd contracted — its abso- lute prohibition dating from 1835, and therefore being a recent iunovation, a gross injustice to thousands, and, as Bojii^ixtT Scn:THEY called it, " an abominable relic of eccle- siastical tyranny." 2. As such marriage is held in the Church of Rome to bo an ecclesiastical regulation, the revenue of the Pope has been much augmented at various times from the payments of largo sums by Princes and numerous others to procure tho Pontiff'B dispensation or i)ernussJon for sucli marriage ; and other eoclosiasticK and agents }iavo received much nioney for their services in obtaining the l*ope's dispensations for such marriage. These facts are ref eiTcd to in some statutes passed diu'ing tho reign of Queen Elizabeth, as well as related by historians of the Reformation; but there is no record of any condemnation of such marriage in the Christian Church from its first foundation until 305 ; and the Bench of English Bishops voted to legalino marriages with a deceased wife's sister celebrated previously to 1835 — a measure to which it was impossible they should have assented had they believed such marriages to bo contrary to the Word of God. r*"' UTHORITIES. refuted the iter— omitting, ve tliem i^oiut, e certain facts, ipou the whole lloction of GUI- eland down to ii., c. 38: "By at bo not pro- f marriage in Our Sovereign band of mar- 1 women to bo permitted the - or persons." ) law from the e maiTiage in 3ted— its abso- 3fore being a anda, and, as i-clic of ecclo- f Eome to bo Pope has been payments of > procure the iuvria;>e ; a,nd ch money for )ions for such itutes j)as8ed as related by no record of stian Church h of English ceased wife's ' to which it liey bolioved Id. 2[r 3. Twcnf y-fiix Spiritual Poors, including two Archbishop.^, have delarod it to bo their opiiiiou that there is no scriptural prohibition of these raar ioh', more than 100 of the London Metropolitan clergy have xxjoitioncd Parliament for the legali- zation of such marriages ; eleven Deans and more than 300 other clergymen of the late ilataljlished Church of Ireland have expressed thoii* decided opinion that these marriagoa are not i)rohibitod in Scrii)ture ; the Deputies of the threo denominations of Dissenters in England, have repeatedly petitioned Parliament to repeal the Act of 1835 prohibiting Buch marriages; and the House of Coinmons, in 35 divisions, (commencing with IHUS, bofo/o x>nblic discussion had taken place on the marriage question) have voted for the reiieal of the almost sn\ugglod and hastily passed Act of 1835. Tho Logishitm-e of South Australia has for tho fifth time, by al- most unanimous votes of both Houses, i)assed a Bill for legalizmg such marriages,, and within tiie last few days it is announced that Her Majesty has given tho Eoyal Assent tO' tho Bill— thus making sucli marriages legal in England, as well as in South Australia, so far as Australian residents con- tracting such mannages are concerned. OPINIONS OF DISTINGUISHED ENGLISH AND AMEKICAN DIVINES AND JURISTS. To conclude. Out of upwards of ono hundred and thirty opinions of distinguiKhed Divines, scholars, jvu'ists, and statesmen, in botli Euroi»o and America, wliicli we liave col- lected on this subject, — all speaking to the same effect, — wo will quote a few in regard to the moral influence as well atJ Scriptural character of these marriages. The late celebrated Cai'dinal Wiseman gave tlie following evidence before tho Koyal (Jommissioners on this subji.>f.L in iHl8: ''Question. — Do you construe that passage in Leviticus (xviii. 18.) as proliibiting marriage Avith a deceased wife's bister, or merely us saying that a man sliouM not take two wives together at tho same time, being so related? ".4/w»'tr.— Certainly, that verse api)ear8 to have tho latter meaning, that two sisters should not bo living together in tho same Ixouso, wives of tho same person. " Question. — Is such marriage held by your church ias pro- hibited in Scripture ? " -f/MWfr.— Certainly not. It is considered a matter of occle- siditicdl regulation." msmm m f. ?rhoKoyal Gommissienerg, appointed June 28ih, 1847, to «f nquire into the state ef the 'law relating to marriages of *ifRnity,fltato as foUows; " Some persona contend that these marriages are forbidden 'expressly, or inferentiaJly, by Scripture. But it does not >or social point of vmw, such marriages |are unobjectionable, A?^hilein mauyinetances they contribute to the happiness of >the parties and to t}ie welfare ef motherless children, and 4].mong the poor, have a tendency to prevent immorality." The Bishop of Down and Connor (Dr, Knox) said :— " As it is admitted by the ripest scholars and meet accurate xjritics, that there is not the slightest prohibition in the Scriptures against the mairiage with a deceased wife's sister, J consider the legal restriction to be most unjust and in- jurious, producing the deepest social evils," The 'late Right Reverend Bishop Rottkb, of Pennsylvania, said: — " I am not one of those who hold that such marriages are forbidden by Scripture— and I am not aware that any special disadvantages, social or domestic, have resulted from them." The Right Reverend Bishop McIlvaine, of Ohio, said :— ** Such marriages, I apprehend, are nearly as frequent as the the circumstances which usually give rise to them. I have not known any social disadvantages attending them," The Right Reverend Bishop Burgess Maine said:—" I know of no social disadvantages attending such marriages. The apprehensions expressed in England on this head, aro ontii.oly dissipated by our oxpeiieuce." June 28lh, 1847, te ng to marj^iages of iages are forbidden But it docs not is gouurally outer- who contract theso who approve them, reiigiouB and morai Kiuct. These mar- o'f circuittfetancos 3 Hot dependent oh p of Lichfield Mr, ^liAKE, Mr. Justice rchbiahop of Can- «. religious, moral, ■e unobjectionable, o the happiness of ■Jess children, and nt immorality." rox) said :— and most accur^ite •rohibitiou in the eased wife's sister, st unjust and in- t, of Pennsylvania, luch marriages are re that any special ulted from them," 3, of Ohio, said :— as frequent as the to them. I have Ung them," Maine said :— " I ? such marriages. on this head, are ( i 31 i^e late Chief Justice Stobt» of Massachusetts,, said :— ^ •'^'Kothing is more common in abnoet all the States of America thtm second marriages of this sort ; audi so far from being doubtful- aa to- tlieir mora t tendency, they are- among us deemed the very best sort of naarriages. In my whole life I never heard the sUghtest objection against them^^ founded on; moral or domestic considerations. Everything, that I havelreadupoa this subjiect for the last 20 years, has- satisfied me that the objection is utterly uii8ex\^[)tural and- dnfouuded." The Reverend Dr. Fame, Piofossar of BibHcal Ijit<»uture to the United Pvesbyterian Chur<2h,'Scotkiud> iu answer to» ^he (luestiou of< the Iloyal Commissioners, " Is the m»jrk*iage of a widower with his late wife's sistev within the prohibited. degree?" sai€l:~"'In all frankness aiuL hoBesty I- am obliged, to answer — Nov It ia interdicted^ neither by exj)resa veto, nor yet by implication. Canonical austerity is not'tO'be identified* with moral purity or matrinKHiial fidelity^' The Beverfeud D^. Chalmers says, in his DaiSy Sciipture' Readings:— 'In verse 18 ("of lieviticus x\iii,) the prohibition' is only against niaiTying a wife'^s sister during the life of the first wife, which of itself ijnplied a liberty to marry the sister aiter her death," The Reverend Br^CuMMiNa, of Loiidou,.said:— "I can find nothing in Scripture prohibiting marriage with a deceased •^rife's sister. At the same time I ioel that conformity to the Word of Gk>d is always, and in allcircamstances, tlu> liighest- •xpedien^y.." Bishop Jeremy Taylor renYarked:.— " No man hatht power to contract against Divme law ; but isf he have con- tracted against hunuui law, his contract is establishetl by a Divine Saw, which is greater thtui human/' We will conclude in the words of the late Reverend Dr, Alexander McCaul, Professor of Divinity and Hebrew Literature in King's College, London :— " Having again carefully examined the question, and con- sulted some of the highest authorities in Hebrew literatiu*e as to the meaning of the Scripture i>assages, I am confirmed in the opinion formerly expressed, that marriage with a de- ceased wife's bister is not only not prohibited, either ox- iiSH M:'li' 82 presEdy or by implication, but that, according to Levitictn xvlii. ISffconceming the translation of which there is not the least uncertainty )« such marriago is plainly allowed. I con- foBs that when I entered upon this enquiry I htid not an idea that the case of those who wish a change in the present marriage law was so strong. 'I hud thought that the opinions of grave and leai'Dcd sludent;^ of the Bible wore more equally divided, and that as authorities were pretty evenly balanced, (hey who had contracted such marriages must boar the in- conveniences arising from doubtful interpretation. But I do not think! so now, confirmed by the testimony of antiquity «nd the judgment of the most considerable interpreters at the Beformation, and since the lieformation, I now believo there is no reasonable room for doubt— that there is no versa in the Bible of which the interpretation is more sure than that of Leviticus xviii. 18 ; and I think it is a case of great hardshix) that they should, by the civil law, be punished as tradsgressors, whose marriage, according to Divine law, is permitted and valid; and harder still, that the children of such marriage, legitimate in the sight of the luffallible Judge, should be visited with civil disabilities." -•-•• i020X!f^ 189 g to Levitiotw here is not tho lowed, I con- sul not an idea a the present t the oijiuions more equally nJy balanced, t boar the iu- on. But I do of antiquity terpreters at '. now believe re is no verso re sure than Base of great punished as vine law, is ) children of J lufifailiblo