Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

14

EVIDENCE OF DR ADLER-LORD DENMAN.

66

point neither the divine law, nor the Rabbis, nor historical Judaism, leave room for the least doubt." As to the divine law, any one can judge as well as a traditionist Jew, who rejects Christ and all the evidence of his being the Messiah which the Old Testament furnishes, and whom God, according to his own Word, has given up to strong delusion to believe a lie, and to call Christ accursed. Dr Adler's evidence is contained in a letter to the Secretary of the Commission, who had requested his opinion. Like all such Jews, he proceeds on the assumption that polygamy was lawful to the Jews, makes the Scripture bend to this corrupt tradition, and treats what other men deem very strong proof against him, viz., Lev. xviii. 16, and Deut. xxv., as unworthy of notice;" and then adds,"The rendering adopted by the Karaites of the words ' one wife to another,' is not only destitute of all authority, and discordant with the spirit of the sacred language, but quite contrary to the truth, inasmuch as polygamy, which would thereby be prohibited, was formerly permitted, as may be proved from innumerable instances." "Innumerable instances" of the violation of a law will not disprove the existence of the law. But he adds, "And all the Rabbis, too-and here we are on the ground of historical Judaism concur in this view of the question; for in examining their opinions from the Mishnah (Jebamoth, iv. 13) downwards, to the Schulchan Aruch, Eben Ezer (sect. 15, § 26), we find that they prohibit marriage with a woman after the divorce of her sister, but expressly permit it after her DEATH. The same conclusion must be arrived at by searching the Jewish commentators, from Philo (see his Special Laws of Moses,' p. 303) down to Zunz; so that, to the best of my knowledge, not a single opinion can be met with throughout all the Rabbinical writings which would even appear to throw any doubt on the legality or propriety of the marriage of a widower with his deceased wife's sister." The reader will be able to judge of the force of this statement by what has been already adduced. In such a question mere references are of no use. The passages ought to be quoted before such averments can be entitled to the least weight. An assertion that a thing "must be," because the admission of the contrary would prove the unlawfulness of polygamy, is a sorry evidence of an alleged historical fact. Is Dr Adler Dr Eadie's authority?—(See p. 7.)

[ocr errors]

On no higher authority does such a man as Lord Denman rest his proof, in a letter to Lord Brougham, that the Jews always held such marriages lawful. If not always, the following passage has no meaning:-"We know, from the information of their high priest, Dr Adler, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was held lawful and constantly practised amongst the Jews; and I believe that the numerous and awful denunciations of successive prophets do not once speak of this union among the backslidings of the people." In the first place, they do not speak of such unions at all; and, in the second, Dr Adler knows as little of the ancient Jews as any other man. But one need not be surprised at this weakness of Lord Denman, as he is so totally ignorant of this controversy as to affirm what is contrary to the whole history of it, viz., that "the asserted prohibition was long supposed to be contained in Lev. xviii. 18!!"-(See Letter to Lord Brougham, p. 11.)

The prophetic argument of his lordship, viz., that the Jews are not charged with the sin of such marriages by the prophets,-is another specimen, among many, of the "clear weakness" that some able men indicate when they argue on Bible subjects. It is akin to the argument of Paley against the

EVIDENCE OF REV. MR JENKINS.

15

moral obligation of the Fourth Commandment, that from the beginning of the creation no mention is made of it for 2500 years, till what he calls its first institution in Exod. xvi. at Sinai. Its first institution was at the creation of the world; it is referred to as a day well known in the 16th chapter of Exodus. No mention is made of it at all during the long period of the Judges-450 years; and the first denunciation of its neglect is not found till the time of the prophet Isaiah, 731 years thereafter. And yet, on his lordship's reasoning, there was neither such a law as the Fourth Commandment, nor any violation of it for nearly a thousand years! Such is the way by which men trifle not only with Scripture, but common sense, when they have an erroneous opinion to maintain.

On the whole, I remark on this part of the subject, that, since we see that even the Talmudical writers held the general principle that the prohibitions of Leviticus xviii. extended to cases of affinity as well as to those of consanguinity, and the principle of parity of reasoning from the case of the man to the woman and vice versa, it will not weigh much with any man who forms his judgment either on grounds of direct Scripture or clear logical consequence, even though it should turn out that some of these writers are inconsistent with themselves. They even placed their salvation on the ground of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh; and from the very earthliness and self-righteousness of the grounds of their hope of salvation, as well as from their licentiousness of manners, they sought to justify themselves by taking their rule from the supposed conduct of Abraham and the conduct of other Old Testament worthies, rather than from the direct law of God, or the whole spirit and principles of his Word. They thus made the law and the Word of God void by their traditions, and are small authority to us.

The Talmudists flourished about the year 600 of the Christian era, and the Karaites about 750; and not more weight is to be attached to them, or their endless subtleties and distinctions, than to those of Romish casuists and scholastics. The writer rests no more on this part of the inquiry than that it makes of very little worth the assertions either of modern Jews, or of those who put them forth as authorities, to prove that from the beginning it was lawful according to God's Word for a man to marry his wife's sister. What they actually did, considering their character and history, is not much to the purpose.

A gentleman who, if we can judge from his own evidence, would have been willing enough to have come to an opposite opinion, has evidently been forced to the same conclusion on this head as ourselves.

The Rev. Robert Charles Jenkins, though holding that such marriages were lawful, seems nevertheless to have been compelled to give up any support to this opinion from the Jews. He gave evidence at great length before the Commissioners on the Law of Marriage; and in answer to question 1052-"Is there anything else you wish to add?" said-" Nothing that occurs to me. I have put on paper some observations on the passage in Leviticus, ch. xviii. ver. 18, which, if the Commissioners desire, I will hand in." [The paper was delivered in as follows]:-" Observations on the passage of Leviticus, ch. xviii. ver. 18, and on the Origin and History of the Prohibition alleged to be derived therefrom.

"The desire to reconcile this passage with the primitive law by which polygamy was prohibited, leads me to the adoption of the view, that it may relate to the marriage of a wife's sister during her lifetime, after giving a

[blocks in formation]

writ of divorcement; which, by the laxity of the law of divorce (V. Tract. Talmud. Gittin, cap. ix.) was likely to have been a frequent case. It appears, however, that the traditional law of the Jews did exclude the marriage of two sisters in succession, but whether on the ground of this passage, or upon some more general law, does not clearly appear, (V. Tract. Talmud. Jefamoth, cap. i. s. 17.)" He then endeavours to show that the law itself did not warrant this opinion. But the strange thing of this gentleman's evidence is, that, after intimating that his attention was called to the subject by the request of Dr Lushington, M.P., that he should give evidence, he shows himself so ignorant of the real ground of judgment with those who hold the opinion opposed to his own, that he makes the following statements:

"1008. Are you of opinion that there is any prohibition in Scripture against such a marriage? I think there is none whatever.

"1009. You are now speaking of the Mosaic law? I am now speaking of the Mosaic law.

"1010. Will you state your reason for your view upon that particular point? The view of those who contend for the prohibition rests, I think, on the 18th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, Neither shalt thou take,' &c."

He then proceeds to refute this view as supported by this text. Well might this rev. gentleman insert the words, "I think," for he betrays an ignorance of the subject altogether unpardonable in any one solemnly giving evidence on it. The view of those he opposes is not made to rest on Lev. xviii. 18 at all, but on very different passages altogether. Whether it was from this or some similar evidence Lord Denman was led into the same egregious mistake, I cannot say.

Though it might be delayed till we come to argue the question on its merits, I cannot help even now calling attention to the following points on this part of the subject.

It is universally admitted that there was a prohibition among the Jews against marrying the sister of a wife. Let this fact be pondered. The parties opposed to us admit and contend that they were not forbidden to marry more wives than one, if not sisters. Why then did they make a distinction? If there was nothing wrong in itself, why this prohibition? Because, they say, of the vexing of the first sister married. But what is there in the mere matter of first or second, that gives her humour a title to be held sacred, so as to be the subject of a divine law to shelter it, and all the alleged rights of the husband and the other sister to be counted as nothing, merely because the first might be vexed, without any ground in reason or morality? For, by the principles of our opponents, if it be merely another wife her husband takes, she had no right to be vexed. But is there any antecedent probability that two sisters will be more quarrelsome about the enjoyment of a common right or benefit than any two other women? Certainly they ought not to be so. But if there was nothing wrong according to the Mosaic law in a man having two or more wives at a time, and nothing wrong IN ITSELF in their being literal sisters, and they and the husband are pleased to risk the consequences, why infringe the liberty which, according to the Libertarians, God has given, and for which they contend so zealously, and which they allege no one has a right to take from them? It is a simple absurdity to say that because Leah and Rachel quarrelled, all other sisters would certainly quarrel, while all other women,

[ocr errors]

OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

17

not sisters, would agree very well, or at least needed no law on the subject; and, at all events, though they might quarrel in thousands of instances, as undoubtedly they have done in such a case, yet the vexing is to be of no possible consequence in the latter case at all, though all and in all in that of an ill-humoured and selfish sister. But even this absurdity, though it were sustained as an argument, will not meet the case. It was universally admitted by the Jewish casuists (see Selden's "De Jure Naturali et Gentium, Juxta Disciplinam Ebræorum," lib. v. cap. 10) that a man was not permitted to marry the sister of his living wife, though the living wife had been lawfully divorced-repudiata-rejected, and thrust out. Why? There was no danger of quarrelling then. They might then be far enough asunder; and, at all events, they would not be under the same roof. The plain truth is, that there is always a basis of wrong-doing running through the whole transaction of the marriage of two sisters, in any circumstances or at any time, that even divorce did not permit, when the first wife had even been an adulteress ; and what could make it right when she was dead without having done any wrong, cannot well be discovered; though perhaps the ingenuity of Libertarians may suggest something. And to help them out of a difficulty, since the first wife is apt to think she has a claim against a sister by the circumstance of being first, why not-since there is nothing wrong in itself, according to them, either in marrying two or more sisters, and as many wives as they pleased -why not marry these sisters at one and the same time, and put them on an equality, and put an end to all claims to precedence on the part of one and all of them?

Section III-Opinions of the Christian Church.

Every one but moderately acquainted with the history of what is called the Primitive Church, knows how scanty are the materials even for determining what were their opinions, and how manifold and grievous were the forgeries, fabrications of writings attributed to the fathers, and the corruptions of the writings that were actually authoritative. On the present question, so far as the author has discovered, there is no charge, either of forgery or corruption, as affecting the little that remains on the subject. But an attempt is made to identify it with Popery, by the general proof that the elements of Popish corruption had crept into the church very early. That they had, there is not only no doubt, but very ample proof, both from the Epistles of Paul himself, and from the history of the first three centuries after Christ. But the way in which that is proved is, first, by ascertaining what their opinions were, and proving their contrariety to the written Word of God. Unless this can be done, it will serve our opponents very little in the eye of any intelligent man to make general allegations about the corruptions of these times. Such a mode of reasoning would overthrow, by a very short process, every article of Christian or religious belief; and, in fact, is the process followed by pure scepticism on the one hand, and by Jesuitism on the other. But our opponents are somewhat flexible and shifty. If Popery and antiquity will not serve them in one way, they will serve them in another. And if neither can be

of any avail, Henry VIII. of England will do the work as well. But to proceed. The evidence for the opinions held by the early church is found from three sources, viz., what have been called the Apostolical Constitutions,

B

18

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS-CANONS OF BASIL.

the opinions of certain Councils, and the Canons of Basil. It is, of course, admitted that the Apostolic Canons have no title to the name of " Apostolic.' All that can be said of them is, that they were of a date prior to the Council of Nice, which was held A.D. 325. The 19th canon is, "He who has married two sisters, or the daughter of a brother or sister (so the Scholia of Balsamon renders adλpion), cannot be a clergyman." The Scholia adds, "The daughter of a brother or sister is called in the Greek adeλpion, and also avea. Therefore, he who married two sisters, or an aunt, or the daughter of a brother or sister, the canon permits not to be a cleric, although a complete separation from the marriage should take place. Know, also, that not only he who did this, but he who contracted any other marriage forbidden either by consanguinity or affinity, shall not become a cleric, but rather punishment shall be inflicted on him." He then refers to the Canons of Basil for the penalties-not for the law. The Canons existed before the time of Basil. Basil lived in the beginning of the fourth century. In his 23rd canon, addressed to Amphilochius, he says, 66 Concerning those who marry two sisters, or those who marry two brothers, a letter has been sent forth, a copy of which we have sent to thy piety. But he who hath married the wife of his brother shall not be admitted (to the communion) till he shall have separated from her." By the way, it may be remembered here, that they had not in those times fallen upon the ingenious distinction of the modern writers in this controversy, that when they spoke of wife, they did not mean widow. The letter referred to was originally written to one Diodorus, of whom little is known, except that Balsamon says he was a bishop of Tarsus. Diodorus had been asked by a man if he could marry the sister of his deceased wife, and had assured the man that it was not forbidden. Basil speaks of this man with amazement, as one who was not horrified at putting the question. He treats the letter shown to him as that of Diodorus as a forgery, and says he would have sent it to him for refutation, but that after it was shown him it was carried away. But, lest injury should be done by that spurious statement, he thinks it necessary that it should receive their double condemnation. He then enters fully on the subject. The man had pled Lev. xviii. 18-exactly as the advocates for such marriages do now. Basil replies, that if it only meant to exclude the marriage of two sisters who both are alive, because of contention, that where there is no contention, and would be none, it would then be lawful. He has recourse to the general principles in the chapter that, in his view, prohibit such marriages; which, he says, were prohibited by such custom as had the force of law, delivered down to them by holy men. He holds that the husband and wife were so much one, that the sister passed over into a kind of consanguinity-something like the principle of the ancient Karaites. He pronounces that such unions were no marriage; and the parties must be excluded from the communion of the church till they are separated. Basil concludes his letter thus-"Space forbids that I should say more, desirous as I am; but I pray that this our dissuasive may turn out stronger than the passions of that person, that this crime may not only be stayed in our region, but in whatever places it may have dared to enter." * This language plainly intimates that it was held to be a daring and presumptuous crime, and so rare as to be almost unknown.

*See "Canones. SS. Apost., Council. Gen. Sanct. Patr. Epist. Canonicæ, &c. Paris, 1620." Pp. 241, 1017.

« PredošláPokračovať »