m IMAGE EVALUATION TEST Tk.^GET (MT-3) m >, LihU', is a man expressly ibrhidden to marry liis grandmother, his niece, or even his dau^diter: hut who can imaj^ine that in {^ivin*^ a law on the subject oi marriage, God did not intend to forbid marriage with such relatives? Evi- dently there are some marriages the prohibition of which is necessarily implied, although not expressed. We must have recourse to the method of inference in the interpretation of this, as of many other prohiblUn y laws. Nor are we to apply this method merely to the case of ivlatives by blood; we are bound ia fairness to extend the method to the case of relatives by marriage. There areas good grounds, as we shall see, for inferring that it is sinful to marry a wife's aunt, sister, or niece, as for inferring that it is sinful to marry one's own grandmother, niece, or daughter. The same principles which lead to the conclusion that the one cla.ss of mar- riages is sinful, load to the same conclusion with res])ect to the other class of marriages.' This will appear from the general principle that a man may not marry any who are near of Jcia to him. This is the general law as laid down in Lev. xviii. 6. " None of you shall approach to any " that is near of hin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am the " Lord." The words translated " near of kin to him," mean, as in the marginal rendering, "remainder of flesh." They include all near relatives by blood. They include also near relatives by mar- riage or by aflinity, as it is called. That they apply to relatives by marriage, and not to relatives by blood merely, is evident from the fact, that of the fifteen particular cases specified as " near of kin," eight are relatives by marriage, and seven relatives by blood, the first on the list being a relative by blood, the second a relative by marriage, the next six being relatives by blood, and the last seven being relatives by marriage. If "near of kin" had been intended to include merely relatives by blood, it is unaccountable that the second on the list should be a relative by marriage, and preceded and folloAved by relatives by blood; and that the remaining relatives by marriage should be mentioned without any note that they were not included under the general denomination "near of kin." All is plain when we assume that relatives by marriage as well as by blood are "near of kin." This view is confirmed bv the fact that husband and wife. WJ "01 noil iidrother's nakednes.s." "If a man shall take his brother's wife it ^ 8 • MARUIAGE WITH A i« an unclean thing." It is true that in Deut. xxv. 5 there is an ex- ception made in the case of a brother dying childless:!. Allusion is made to this exceptional case in one of the Parables of our Lord, in which seven brothers in succession are said to have been married to one woman. The design of the exception was to preserve the inheritance in Canaan in the family to which it was attaclied. But us the ground of the exce])tion has passed away, the exception ceases, and the general law remains, that a man may not marry his brother's wife. This being the general express law, it neces- sarily follows, according to the principle of ecnii-distant relations being forbidden, that a woman may not many her sister's husband. In other words, a man ought not to marry his wife's sister. There is another principle which may fairly be applied to the interpretation of the law of marriage. JVhen marriage is forbidden between relatives of a certain degree, it is unlauful between those who are more nearly related. Thus a man's own daughter is a nearer relative than his aunt, and the express ])rohibition of marriage vdth. an aunt would, according to the principle stated, imply pro- hibition of marriage with a daughter. This principle is so very evident that it recommends itself at once to the acceptance' of all. A man is forbidden to marry any who are near of kin — nearly n'- lated by blood or marriage. It may be doubtful to Mhat extent "nearness" may reach. But nothing can 1)0 ])lainer than that if it; is asceitained to reach, in various directions, to a certain degree of I'emoteuess, it includes all nearer or less remote degrees. Let this rule be applied Avitli reference to the case in question. A wife's sister is a nearer relative by marriage than a lather's brother's wife. Now a man is expressly forbidden to mairy his fathei^'s brother's wife, (Lev. xviii. 14) "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach his wife, she is thine aunt." In other words, he is forbiiMon to marry his father's sister-in-law, and therefore he ought not to marry his own sister-in-law, who is more nearly related to him. As he is mori'. nearly related to his own sister than to his father's sister, so he is more nearly related to his own sister-in-law than to his fathei-'s sister-in-law, and is therefore less at liberty to many his own sister-in-law than his father's sister-in-law. There is yet another form in which the argument may be exhi- bited which is drawn from the law laid do^vn in Leviticus. Wliat- soever is there forbidden to a man, is forbidden to a woman in similar relations. Thus a man is expressly forbidden to marry his grand- daughter, his mother and his aunt; so a woman ought not (although she IS no+- expressly forbidden) to marry her grand-son, her father or her uAcle. Dr. JVIcCaul, of London, who strenuously contends for the lawfulness of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, virtu- ally admits this principle, when arguing that his views may be? established by fair inferences, as well as by express statements. "ml "U DECEASED WIPES SISTER. f» " Even ill tlie New Ti'stanient (he says) the 1;iw1u1ik-.plication of the principles laid down, it may be shown gonerall)'' that, as stated in the Confession of Faith, "a man may not marry .Jiy of his wife's relations nearer in blood than he may of his own." Here it is proper to note (as much miscon- ception prevails on the subject), that the Confession does not teach, nor do we hold, that a man is debarred from marrying his ^oife'a relatives by marriage equally with his own relatives by blood. It is only to At.s wife's relatives by blood that the prohibition is held to e.xtend. A man is not ef[ually related to his wife's relatives by marriage and his wife's relatives by blood, and the instances given in Leviticus do not warrant an extension of the prohibition to both alike. If there had been even a single case in w^hich a man was expressly forbidden to maiTy a wife's relative by marriage — for ex- ample, a mfe's uncle's ^vife — it would have been proper to infer other cases of double affinity. Btit there is not a single instance of a wife's relatives by marriage being exp'essly forbidden to the husband, or of the husband's relatives by marriage being forbidden to the wife ; hence, we are not warranted to extend the meaning of " near of kin" to any such relative. In order to place the subject more clearly before the mind, and to exhibit the conclusions arrived at by an examination of the Divine law, I subjoin the common table of forbidden degrees, marking, in Italics, the relatives forbidden, not expressly, but by inference. 11 i\ 11 if ii if li 1 til A Man Ma/ Not Marrv 1. Grandmother, GrandJkUher's wife. Wife's grandmother His A Woman May Not Marry Hek 2. 3. 4. 6. 6. Father^ sister, Mother's sister. Father's brotLcr'.s wife, 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 6. Grandfather, Grandmother's husband, Husband's grandjdtlur. Father's brother, Mother's brother. Father's sister's husband, DECEASED V71FE S SISTER. 11 8 brother's gainst the opinion, le subject i the con- liece may essly for- It follows husband, I may not ot marry 's sister's also, it is his wife's I a wife's wife. In ^n,it may Faith, "a lood than i miscon- lot teach, liis ivife^H lood. ' It Is held to itives by es given to both nan was —for ex- to infer stance of husband, he wife ; near of ind, and of the degrees, but by SK 7. Mother's brother's wlj'f, 8. Wife's father's sister, 9. Wijes mother's sister, 10. Mother, 11. Step-mother, 12. Wife's mother, 13. Daughter, 14. Wife's diiughtor, 15. Son's wife, 16. SLster, 17. Wife's sister, 18. Brother's wife, 19. Son's daugliter. 20. Daugliter's dauyhter, •21. Son's son's u'ife, 22. Daughter's son's icife, 23. Wife's son's daughter, •J4. Wife's daughter's tiauglitcr, '2rj. Brother's daughter, 'J6. Sister's daughter, 27. Brother's son's wife, •J8. Sister's son'svnfc, •29. Wife's hrofhrr's danghier, ■ 0. Wife's sister's dangliler. H. 9. 10. 11. 1-2. IX 14. lo. li). 17. 18. 19. •20. •21. *22. 2'}! 24. IT). 2t(. 27. 28. 20. :iO. Mother's sisttr's husband, Husbands father's brother. Husband's mother's brother, Father, Step-father. Husband's father, Son, Husband's son, Daughter's hu.sbjiiMl, Brother, Husband's brother, Sister's hitshaiid. Son's son, Daiigktcrs soii. Son's daughter's Imsbaud, Daughter's daugliter's husband, Husband's son's s<>u, Hi'sband's daughter's son, Umtlier's son, Sister's son, Urothrr's daughter's husbanil, Sisti;r's daughter's husband. Husband's brother's son, Jlusbituil's f^istrr's snu. It Avin be observed that tlie second culuiiin is lui'iely a state- ment in a difiVrent form of wliat is contiiiiied in t])e first column. Thu3, No. 10 in the first column is tlu- simie as Nu. 13 in the second — prohiltition of a man's marriage Avith his mother being the same as prohibition of a woman's marriage with her son. It thus appears that the number of didiini. p-ohihitions in the two columns is thirty. Of these fifteen a^e expressly prohibited, and the other fifteen — those printed in Italics — by inference. That the inferences are good .and necessary in most of the cases is generally admitted. Thus, Mr. Laing admits that they are all good, on various principles, with the exception of five, viz: a wife's aunts (Nos. 8 and 9), sister (No. 17), and nieces (Nos. 29 and 30). From the fact that a man is forbidden to marry his uncle's wife, he infers that he may not marry his nephew's wife, but denies that from a woman's being prohibited to marry her husband's nephew may be justly inferred the unlawfulness of marriage between a man and his wife's niece. The reason of his denial he extends to the case of a wife's sister. Let us endeavour to understand his I'eason, and see whether it is a good one. He thinks a man is not so nearly, or in the same way, related to his uife, as the wife is to her hus))and. By marriage the wife becomes his blood relative, but he does not become her blood relative. She becomes consan- guineous Avith him, but he does not become consanguineous with her. Hence, he is less closely related to her relatives than she is to his. It follows that he may marry her sister, aunt or niece; but she may not marry his uncle, brother, or nephew. He further asserts that, so far as marriage is concerned, a sister is not so near to a sister as a brother is to a sister. Therefore, a sister's relative* by marriage are not so near to a woman as a brothei-'s relatives by i' ! 12 MARRIAGE WITH A marriage Hence, wliile a Avoman may marry her sister's hustand, a man may not marry his brother's wife. While a man may marry two sisters in succ(!ssion, a woman cannot marry two brothers in succession. I tliink a mere statement of tliis style of reasoning is a sufficient refutation of it.* Few, I suppose, will place mucli stress upon the physiological considerations which may seem to countenance it, in the face of the Bible declarations respecting the husband and wife, that ^^ they timin ahall he one flesh " aud the language in Lev. xviii. 12 and 13, which represents a man's sister to be his iiear kinswonian (his flesh) and at the same time a woman'.s sister to be her near kinswoman (her flesh). These and similar statements entirely discountenance the idea, that, so far as marriage is concerned, a man is less nearly related to his wife and her rela- tives than she is to liim and his relatives; or that a brother and sister are more nearly related than two sisters; and thus leave us at liberty to extend the prohibitions to a wife's aunt, niece and sister, as well as to a husband's uncle, nephew, and brother. Having examined the Divine Law, as contained in Lev. xviii., 6-17, and seen that, by good and necessary inference, it forbids marriage with a deceased wife's sister ; let us now attend to the 18th verse, which, according to the translation in the English text, may seem to imply that such a marriage is permitted — but which *Tlie followlii!^ extm(;ts from Mr. Laing'.s pkiriphlet, with refcreuce to his dis- tinctions, will, I doubt not, l>e read with surprise: — "What we call in question is the sameness of the comj)o?/?icZ relation — whether, " according to the law of Moses, a relationship formed by blood and marriage is the " sartie as a relationship fontied by mo.rriage and blood-: or, to use the terms already •'employed, we ask whether, according to the law of Moses, simple affinity in the " collateral line is the same in effect as consanguineous affinity in the collateral " line?" (p. 2:5.) "Who does not regard as revolting, as subversive of all morality, ' ' and of the family institution, to speak of polygamy among women ? Who would '* plead for that? Men may have more wives than one, but there is no confusion or " mingling of blood so long as wives are chaste." With reference to what he calls " simple affinity," and " consanguineous affinity," he says : " Now let us remember " that we have two distinct and perfectly different rel/xiions under the name of afti- " nity, and let us not deceive ourselves by the ambiguous tenn. The first results ' ' from the marriage (i{ a woman with the man's blood i-elatives ; the other is the *' relation in which a man stands to his wife's blood relatives." "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 marriiige, on the principle that two sisters am " one flesh. Now this is nowhere said, but the contrary is implied." "But it is " said, impatiently, '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 argu- ' • ment. A man is forbidden to marry his sister. By domg this there would take " place confusion of blood. The thing is not possible in the case of sisters, there- " fore it needs no prohibition. Just so, a man might marry his brother's wife, " which would produce confusion of blood, therefore it is forbidden ; but though it " man should marry his wife's slater there Is no confusion of blood, therefore it is " not prohibited, for that reason, but for the 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. This will appear from the simple statement that " the children of the one sister-in-law are heirs at law of the man ; the children of " the otlier ax*o not in the lino of succession at all." If there be any force in tho Itot illustration, a sister is nearer to the eldest brother, who is the heir, than to the younger brothers, who are nut heirs of the entailed inheritance ! only ther 8 nake( riytl this i{ admit " con " am " doii '■ Thi "is " sho *' this is qu s husband, nay marry rothers in reasoning lace niucii y seem to meeting the ' and the an's sister a woman'.s id similar 3 marriage her rela- other and I leave its niece and ler. tev. xviii., it forbids ad to the ^dish text, 'lit whicli to his d is- m—w?iether, rriage is the Tins already finity in the tie collateral ill morality. Who wouKl confusion or hat he calls 3 remember lame of affi- Irst results other is the stablish the t being the sisters art* "But it is one flesh as ig the argu- would tako tera, there - iher'a wife, t though tt refore it is Strange as -in-law and ement that children of jrce in the than to the DECEASED WIFE S SISTER. 13 )nly seems to imply it. The words of the English text are: "Nei- ther shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other, in her lifetime." This seems to im- ply that after the death of the wife he may marry her sister. But this is by no means a necessary inference. This Mr. Laing frankly admits. He says : " Taken, then, in its obvious sense, and in its " connection vnih the preceding part of the law, it seems to mean " a man is forbidden to marry his wife's sister ; thus vexing her by " doing that which is incestuous beside a sister during her life. '' This by no means proves that he may marry her when his wife "is dead, although it implies it." Again he says : "If it can be " shown from other passages that this marriage is incestuous, then " this verse (18) cannot make it not incestuous, ov justify it." He is quite right. That which is forbidden for a particular reason, which reason ceases at a particular time, might be wrong after- wards on other grounds. Thus we might suppose Isaac forbidden to marry a woman of Canaan, lest by doing this he would vex his lather and mother during their lives. It does not follow, as a matter of course, that he might marry a Caniianitish woman after- wards. Nay, the very reason which would make such a marriage a vexation to the parents while they lived — alliance with a godless race — ought to prevent it altcrwards. So when a man is forbidden to marrv a wife's sister diiriny the life of his wile, lest he should V CI' ' vex licr, it does not follow as a matter of course that he may marry her after the death of his wife. The very same reason — the unlaw- ful character of the connection — which would be a source of vexa- tion to the wife while ali\'e, might prevent the marriage afterwards. How is the wife vexed \ Not simply by her husband's bavin" two Avives, but by the aggravated wickedness of consorting with her sister. The peculiar aggravation of this sin would render her miserable for life. She could never think of it but with abhor- rence while she lived. Nor would that which rendered it so vex- atious terminate with her life. Just as it would vex a woman through life if her husband were to marry her daughter, and as that which was the ground of the vexation — the unlawful nature of the connection — would continue to be sinful afterwards; so, a wife would be vexed by her husband marrying her sister, and the ground of the vexation — the unlawful nature of the connection — would continue afterwards. Thus, the translation in the English text affords no good or necessary inference in favour of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, in face of a law which as clearly for- bids it as it forbids marriage with a daughter or niece. It does not ''^ prove or justify it." It may here be mentioned that, although the translation adopted in the English text was generally received for 1,500 years in the Christian church, it was scarcely ever supposed to give countenance to the marriage in question, which was gener- ally regarded as forbidden in the i)revious verses. Even after the i I I u MAURI AGH WITH A u\ 1|! 1 1 1 1 faulty Greek and Latin verHions ceased to he slavishly followed, and tlie original Hebrew text and its idioms hegan to he more carefully studied, many of the most distinguished Reformern (Calvin, for example), while translating as in the English text, un- hesitatingly isjected the inference that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was permitted ; holding that it was clearly forbidden in the previous verses. So also the rendering of the text is ac- cepted by distinguished writers of the present day, who, never- theless, contend that it affords no warrant to the maniage in question. But if the marginal translation is adopted, there remains not even the slightest apparent coun^^^enance to marriage with a de- ceased wife's sister. The marginal translation is : " Neither shalt thou take one wife to another to vex her, Stc." According to this translation, the 18th verse simply forbids tlie sin of polygamy, and does not touch upon the question of marriage with a wife's sister. Tliere are many reasons on account of which I cannot re- fiist the conclusion that this is the correct translation. These are fully exhibited l)y Dr. James Gibson, of Glasgow, whose treatise on the "Marriage affinity question" is tlie most satisfactory which I have seen on tlie subject. The chief reason is that the idiom- atic form of expression translated in the text "wife to a sister," is elsewhere uniformly and, as is admitted, correctly translated "one to another," or by words of similar impoit. There are upwards of thirty eases, and the rendering in the text is the only case in which there is a departure from the g(ineral rule. The following are a few of the cases : In Gen. xiii. 11, it is said of Abraham and Lot that they separated themselves "one from the other" — the lit- eral words are "a man from his brother." In Gen. xxvi. 31, it is said of Abimelech and Isaac that they sware " one to another," — literally, "a man to his brother." In Ex. xxvi. 17, we read : "two tenons shall there be in one board, set in order, one against ano- ther" — literally, " a woman against her sister." In Ex. xxxvii. 9, it is said of the Cherubims that they " covered with their wings over the mercy seat, with their faces one to another" — literally, "a man to his brother." Now there is no good reason to depart from the usual meaning of the words in the translation of Lev. xviii. 18. If the same, or a similar form of expression, be translated by " one to another," or words of similar import, in thirty-four out of thirty-five cases, it is fair to conclude that it should be similarly translated in the remaining case.* The marginal translation, it * It lias lieen objected to tlie marginal translation, that it would require the {)laral noun "women" to be inserted before the phrase "woman to her sister," trans- ated, "one woman to another." But why should we require the word "women" here, more than the word "men" in Gen. xiii. 11 and Gen. xxvi. 31? In all these places the plural noiui is alike needless, and alike omitted. When Moses had been speaking of Abiaham and Lot, it waa needles.s to say, and he does not say "they separated thomselveti, the men, a man from his brothor" (that is, one from another). Hiayl law,! is hi time to t| the that! haml ihatl cone refe he sidel Dav vvari that into tion whi( zar, coruJ DECEASED WIPES SISTER. 15 followed, ► be more leformerH text, un- deceased brbidden ext h ac- 3, never- niage in lains not th a de- her shalt ; to this )lygamy, L a wife's mnot re- hese are ! treatise y whicli i idiom - ister," is ed "one ivards of case in >lIowing am and the lit- 31, it is her,"— "two i3t ano- xvii. 9, r wings ally, "a rt from xviii. ited by • out of nilarly ion, it Hire the trans- kvomen " 11 these ad been "they uothor). may be added, accfirds with the fact that jKjlygamy, l)y the Divini* law, as indicated in Gen. ii. 24, and Mai. ii., 14, 15, was sinful. It is held, indeed, l)y many that polygamy was not sinful in ancient times; and in proof of this, reference is made, among other things, to the cases of" Abraham, David, and other polygamists. Bui the fact that Abraham and David were polygami^U does n(jt prove that pol3^gamy was not sinful, any moiv, than the fact that Abra- ham was guilty of falsehood, and David of murder, would prove that falsehood and murder were not sins. So far as David wjib concerned, his polygamy was in violation of a specific law, witli reference to Fvings, contained in Deut. xvii., 17 : " Neither shall he multiply wives to hiiuself, that his heart turn not away." Be- sides, in the case of Uriah's wife, it is represented as a sin that David had not only put her husband to (hiath, but that he after- wards took her to be his ^\ ife. If it is alleged that God's declaration that he "gave" David his mastei-'s (that is, his father-in-law's) wives into his bosom, justifies his polygamy, the folly of such an allegii- tion will be seen l)y comparing it with the similar declaration, in which God is said to '' give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnez- zar, King of Babylon," and which cannot be said to vindicate the conduct of Nebuchadnezzar in his aggressive wars. God, in his providence, permits wicked men to do wrong, and may thus be saidi,o give them the desire of their hearts ; but this implies no sanction of their conduct as being right and lawful. It can fonn Tin objection, therefore, to the marginal translation of Lev. xviii., 18, that elsewhere polygamy is supposed to be sanctioned by the word of God. The supposition is groundless. The original law against it is nowhere repealed. Lev. xviii. 18 is a simple re-enact- ment of it. But while I prefer the marginal translation, it will be seen that, whether we adopt the marginal or the textual rendering, Lev. xviii. 18 nOitlmv proves nor justifies the marriage of a deceased wife's sister, in the lace of a positive prohibition. In the previous verses there is a prohibition as distinctly and clearly ilnplied iis the prohibition of marriage with a niece, daughter, or grandmother. As a man should not marry his aunt, so a woman should not marry her uncle ; as a man should not marry his mother, so a wo- man should not marry luir father ; as a man should not marry his granddaughter, so a womaii -should not marry her grandson. In He siinply say.^i, " they separated themselves a man fi-om liis brother," (that is, one from unolhcr.) In like manner, when Moses is writing of women whom a mm ought not to Hi;irry, it was needlesH to say, and ho does not say " thou shalt not take wo- men— a woman to her sister" (that is, one woman to another); V>ut aimply says "thou shalt not take a woman to lier sister" (that is, one woman to another). The case is very differeiitwhen he is writiii>> of the faces of the cherubim, and the tenons, loops and curtains in the tabernacle. Thus, in Ex. xxvi. 6, tlie meaning; would not have been apparent without the word "curtains." The verse would have l)etin "thou HhrJl make (Iftv taohes of gold, and couple together a Woman to her sister (that ia, ono to another) witli the ta(;he,s " The word " curtaius" is uecessaiy after "couple," :o provcnt a ridiculous mistake. 16 MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIPE S SISTER. like luanner, as a woman should not Le nrtaiTied to two brothers in Huccession, so a man ought not to be married to two Bisters in 8uc- oegpion. I truat the argument, as I have endeavored to present it, will commend itself to the reason and coiiBcience of all, and espe- eiftUy of thomemberH and office-bearers of the Canada Presbvtenan Cliurch. I think that, if seriously, candidly and prayenully pon- dered, it may contribute to prevent our n^^bers irom contracting, and our office-bearers from sanctioning, such alliances as brought down the iudgment« of the Ahnighty on the EgjTJtians and Cana- anites, and, as I believe, tvxpose us to siniiljy judgments. Toronto, October, 1868. .1 , hers in in suc- mnt it, 1 espe- ytpvum y pon- octing, roiight