458 By the ART. V. 1.-A Scripture Argument against permitting Marriage 2.-The Report of Her Majesty's Commission on the Laws of Marriage, relative to Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, examined in a Letter to Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Bart. M.P. By ALEX. J. BERESFORD HOPE, M.P. Second Edition. London: James Ridgway, Piccadilly. 1849. 3.-Against Profane Dealing with Holy Matrimony, &c. &c. By the REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A. Vicar of Hursley. Oxford: John Henry Parker. 1849. We intend here to institute a short inquiry into the grounds upon which marriage with a deceased wife's sister, which it is proposed now to legalise, has been declared to be contrary to the law of God-and we are induced to enter upon this subject by two reasons: 1stly, because we feel that, even if the minds of many are already settled upon the point, yet there may be some to whom a calm consideration of the matter may perchance minister satisfaction and relief, and some whose doubts we may be enabled in some degree to resolve-and, 2dly, because the leading advocates of the change proposed, profess an unwillingness to promote or sanction any act which can be clearly shown to be contrary to the law of God, as revealed in holy Scripture, and as still binding upon Christians.' The point upon which many minds are at issue is not, whether they should obey or disobey God; but firstly, whether God has really declared His will in opposition to such unions; and secondly, whether such a declaratory law, even if found in holy Scripture, was not simply part of the Levitical law, and so binding upon Jews alone as Jews, but is now abrogated, as regards Christians, and of no further force or validity. Till this question is decided, it would seem that all other arguments in favour of a change, whether they have reference to an assumed expediency or propriety in such a change, or whether they be drawn from that most fallacious of all sources, the example of a multitude, are beside the mark and premature. For it is time then at length to inquire into the force and 1 In page ix. of Report of Commission on Marriage, quoted by Mr. Beresford Hope in page 5, 'Some persons contend that these marriages are forbidden, expressly or inferentially, by Scripture. If this opinion be admitted, cadit quæstio.' character of all such further arguments, when it has been demonstrated clearly and certainly, either that God has not spoken at all, or that He has even allowed, or at least not forbidden, such marriages. The subject then, with which we propose to deal, is concerned with the two following questions: 1st. Is the law of God, as revealed in holy Scripture, opposed or not to such marriages? 2d. If it is so opposed, is such a law to be regarded as merely Levitical, or as binding upon all men? Now, before entering more particularly into the discussion of the first point of our intended inquiry, we may perhaps be allowed to remark as Churchmen, and as addressing mainly Church-readers, that our Church has spoken to her members plainly and authoritatively upon the subject:-first, in the Table of Prohibited Degrees, set forth by authority in 1563; and, secondly, by Canon xcix of 1603, which orders that Table to be set up in every church, and characterises it as containing 'degrees prohibited by the law of God.' We see, then, that according to the view taken by our Church in the times of James I., and of our Reformers, (who framed that Table,) in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, these marriages were opposed to the law of God. We shall hereafter attempt to show that such also was the opinion, not only of the Christian Church from the earliest times, but of Jewish Rabbins and interpreters. Upon what passages of holy Scripture then, it may be asked, was such a general opinion and consent grounded? What passages can we find which bear at all upon this point? Now all parties in this discussion, whether they resist or advocate the change, seem to agree in referring to Lev. xviii. as to that part of Holy Writ, which, if any, has reference to the question in dispute: the one part deducing arguments from the clause contained in verses 7-17 inclusive; the other part depending upon verse 18, as even containing an argument for the lawfulness of such marriages. For the meaning of Lev. xviii. verses 7-17, as for the general argument which we shall have to state at length, we shall make frequent reference to the very able pamphlet, put forth by Dr. Hessey in 1850, which we have placed at the head of this article, and we avail ourselves of this opportunity, once for all, of recommending to the thoughtful perusal of all, who may be anxious to see in a clear argument what can be said upon this subject, so satisfactory and valuable a document. Dr. Hessey, after having quoted at length the passage under consideration, tests by it each member contained in the Table of Prohibited Degrees, and shows how every one of the connexions there forbidden is denounced either in express terms or by implication and converse analogy in the words of Holy Writ. We say, then, with Dr. Hessey, that in ver. 16 is contained the declaration of God against marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and deduce our proof in this way: we find in that verse a prohibition against a man's marriage with his brother's wifei.e. a woman may not marry two brothers; and analogously, (for the relationship is of a corresponding character in both cases,) a man may not marry two sisters, therefore not his wife's sister.1 Now it is to be remarked that, for the establishment of this proof, two assumptions have been made; viz., 1, the law of analogous inference as applicable to the case; and 2. the relationship of affinity as binding the persons concerned equally with the bond of consanguinity. Some have objected to this mode of arguing, and have assumed that no prohibition ought to stand good but that which is laid down in so many words. Let us again follow Dr. Hessey's lead, and see into what difficulties and inconsistencies such an objection, if allowed to be good, would conduct us. He takes in illustration two cases similar to the one in dispute, and shows that it is only by inference, and not by direct words, that an uncle may not marry his niece, nor even a father his daughter: 'Those, therefore, who will admit nothing but what is set down in so many words to be Scripture, are brought to this-they must either allow all these inferences, or none of them.'-P. 11. Besides, "There is another strong reason for the admission of inferences. The probibitions on the woman's side of the table are all of them of this character. The restrictions upon marriage in the chapter of Leviticus are addressed to men. We infer the woman's side from what is said to men.'—P. 11. It really does seem to us unaccountably strange, that any objection should be raised, or seriously entertained, against the validity of such a law of inference, as applicable to the chapter or the case which is now especially under our notice; when not only the directions contained in this chapter, but the whole Law given by Moses, (except in two or three cases which especially relate to the female sex,)—and may we not add, not only the Law given by Moses, but every general code of laws?—has its provisions addressed to men, and only to women by inference through the other sex. And if this indeed be the rule, why should we feel any especial difficulty in admitting the application By a similar line of argument, the marriage of a man with his wife's niece is forbidden in ver. 14-the other class of marriage, the galisation of which is being attempted by the Bill now before the House of Commons. of that rule to the present case, or in considering that the prohibition contained in ver. 16, against marrying a brother's wife, is really looked at, as is usual, from the man's point of view, and is equally conclusive against the correlative marriage; viz, with a wife's sister; that is to say, a man may not take his brother's wife, therefore a woman may not take her sister's husband? So much then we say in answer to the objection which has been entertained by some against the argument from analogy. In reply to the second objection raised against affinity as occupying a like position with consanguinity in the matters of marriage, we shall do no more than refer our readers to the mysterious language of holy Scripture, in which husband and wife are represented as made one in and by marriage-'one flesh-united with each other by a higher and closer bond of connexion than even that of blood, and in each other united also with every one who is bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh. The law of God in the chapter before us treats unions by consanguinity or affinity in the same way, as standing on the same ground;' and it is worthy of remark, that the only two cases of incest which are mentioned in the New Testament, viz. those of Herod, S. Mark vi. 18, and the guilty Corinthian, 1 Cor. v. 1, are cases of connexion by affinity. Mr. Beresford Hope's searching Review of the Report made by the Commission, appointed in 1847 to inquire into the laws of marriage, which we have placed with Dr. Hessey's and Mr. Keble's pamphlets at the head of this article, as containing much valuable information with respect to the character of the evidence which was brought before the Commissioners, throws some light upon the opinions which were held by the various witnesses upon this question of affinity. We would call attention especially to the evidence of Archdeacons Sinclair, p. 92, and Hale, pp. 94-96, and to the petition of the Clergy of Down, Connor, and Dromore, pp. 150, 151, as confirming our own view of the matter, and quote the words of Mr. Beresford Hope himself as corroborative of the same position. In remarking upon a case men 1 We may perhaps be allowed here to refer our readers to Mr. Keble's tract, pub lished in 1849, under the title, Against Profane Dealing with Holy Matrimony,' where he speaks as follows upon this point :-" Here, (i. e. in the verses 7-17 of Lev. xviii.) are thirteen cases in all; six of kindred by blood, and seven of kindred by marriage; and neither by the order in which they follow one another, nor by any difference of expression regarding them, is any hint given, that the one sort of profanation is less heinous in God's sight than the other. The world may come to think there is a difference, because the world will not believe that man and wife are really one flesh. But the written law of God apparently deals with both alike." -P. 13. tioned in the evidence, in which union of a man with his wife's mother was charged in the Law Courts as incestuous, he says It may be obtuseness or obliquity of moral feeling on my part, but I confess that I cannot understand why, marrying a wife's mother being acknowledgedly incestuous, there can be so little harm in marrying a wife's sister. The permissibility of the latter alliance must rest upon marriage not creating a relationship between the husband and the wife's family, similar to that existing between him and his own-on him and his wife not being "one flesh" in this sense. If marriage does create such relationship, it would be hardly credible that so near a relation as the sister of her who is "one flesh" with one, could be a person with whom a marriage could, without loss of purity, be contracted. But, on the other side, if such a relationship is not created, where is the pollution of an alliance with your wife's mother, a woman no way connected with you by blood? Either both must be, as far as I can understand, lawful, or both unlawful.'-P. 90. If then we may in fairness, as all hold that in some cases we must, allow of the argument from analogy-if affinity does indeed unite man with man by ties which correspond with the bonds of blood-relationship, as the constant interpretation of holy Scripture would lead us to believe-then in Lev. xviii. 16 is contained virtually a declaration of the great God of all the families of the earth against marriage with a wife's sister—a declaration, which, except it be proved either to have been qualified by any other subsequent law, or to have been intended for Jews alone, and so to have become abrogated as regards Christians, must be held to be still of divine force and obligation. It will be seen that we have qualified our conclusion by two supposed or supposable exceptions. They are not altogether imaginary ones, but have been, we fear, causes instrumental in attaching a large number of too-willing adherents to that party which is promoting, with a zeal worthy of a better cause, the abrogation of a law which we, in common with our forefathers, hold to be divine. They are exceptions which have often been brought forward, we have too much reason to fear, to suggest doubts to wavering minds about the real truth of the case, or to allay scruples with respect to a line of conduct which, while passion or inclination prompted them to adopt, conscience hesitated to believe to be after all the right course. We believe that many, who have been led to enter into such incestuous and unholy unions, have perhaps been induced to take the final step upon the representation and with the hope that such marriages, though contrary to the laws of England, nevertheless either were sanctioned by Lev. xviii. 18, or were perhaps part only of the Levitical law, and had so passed away with the Jewish economy. We know that some, even amongst the clergy, have been kept back from vigorously opposing the introduction of the proposed change, by a latent feeling that though forbidden alike by the laws |