164 FACT XXIII. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. Under the Legacy Duty Act, a widow pays no duty-a child 1 per cent.-a cousin (ever so distant) 3 per cent.-but a wife's sister 10 per cent., because she is "A STRANGER IN BLOOD." Association has been REPUDIATED and PUT DOWN in Scotland. Besides, public meetings generally speak the sentiments of those who have organised and called them. ACTUAL FACT XXIII. What relation the legacy duty paid by a widow or a child has to such a question it is impossible to discover. The reason of 10 per cent. exacted from a wife's sister, not related in blood to the party bequeathing the legacy, is manifest, viz., that the rule of succession and inheritance has always been held to be different in relationships by affinity from that of relationships by consanguinity, even where the law has been most stringent in prohibiting such marriages. See p. 76, at bottom. ACTUAL FACT XXIV. I venture to add another ACTUAL FACT. It is very strange if Scripture, reason, history, governments, parliaments, and public opinion, are all, as the Association alleges, in favour of such marriages, that nevertheless the courts, civil and ecclesiastical, and the Parliament of Great Britain, have decided against their legality, and against the propriety of legalising them. A subsequent, or second series of the same kind of facts has been published by the same parties. They are certainly not more trustworthy than the first, and might be exposed with equal facility. Some of them are directly untrue, many of them irrelevant, others of them absurd, and all of them deceptive; and it would be trifling with the reader to continue the proof and illustration after the specimen already furnished of a whole first series. It may be added, that the materials for their contradiction, on every point relevant to the argument, it is believed, will be found in the preceding pages. The specimen we have given is fitted to put the public on their guard against the machinations of parties who seem to have only one end-that of gaining their object—an object upon which they are so intent, that the end seems in their eye to sanctify the means. As to "OPINIONS," such an exposure and examination of them, whether actual or alleged, we believe has been furnished in the course of our inquiry as will enable any one, who truly desires to ascertain the truth, to determine for himself. GENERAL AND PARTICULAR CONCLUSIONS. I HAVE thus brought the main portion of this subject to a close. I have purposely avoided all discussions as to the mode of determining the degrees CONCLUSIONS IN REGARD TO THE JEWS. 165 of kindred, the giving of general schemes and tables of the relative degrees and prohibitions, and such matters. I wished to keep as closely to the one point as possible. For the sake of those curious in such matters some of these are given in the Appendix. In the meantime, let us see what has been done in these pages. I. On the historical part of the question, in relation to the Jews, it has been shown:— 1. That, if no great argument in favour of the unlawfulness of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife can be drawn from the direct opinions of the uninspired Jewish writers, as little can any be derived in support of the opposite view. 2. That the Jews have always held the prohibitions in Leviticus xviii. to relate to incestuous marriages. The contrary assertion is contradicted by all their writings on the subject. 3. That even the Talmudists held that these prohibitions applied equally to cases of "nearness of kin" by affinity as to cases of " by consanguinity. nearness of kin" 4. That, in interpreting Leviticus xviii., they held that the law in regard to the sexes was convertible, and that they held also the principle of parity of reasoning—that is, that what is forbidden to a man is forbidden to a woman, and vice versa. 5. That wherein there is any appearance of their maintaining that this principle did not hold in relation to the sister of a deceased wife, it arose from the views of the Talmudists on the supposed lawfulness of polygamy. 6. That whatever were the views of the Talmudists, and they are certainly not all on the side of the lawfulness of the marriages in question, they are of no force or effect to determine the decisions of the law of God. That law is as open to us as to any Jews whatever, ancient or modern, and as capable of being understood by us as by them. Nay, if we are true Christians, "willing to do the will of God," it is much more likely to be understood by us than by them. 7. That they held such views as to their obtaining salvation by their own self-righteousness, and from their natural descent from Abraham and other patriarchs, as led them, in the matter of polygamy, to hold that what these patriarchs did was an example, sanction, and rule to them, whatever might be the decisions of the law of God itself. 8. That, therefore, the opinions of Jews as Jews are to be dreaded and shunned rather than followed. II. In relation to the Christian church, it has been shown: 1. That the early Christian church did not adopt any new law or principle, different from the Levitical, in deciding on the lawfulness or unlaw, fulness of the degrees in marriage. They served themselves heir to the Levitical law, and pleaded its authority as the Word and Law of God. 2. That the first decisions of the Christian church on the question, of which we have any record, are against the lawfulness of such marriages, and assume that it never was otherwise in the Christian church. 3. That the judgment of the church, down to the period of the Reformation, was uniformly to the same effect. 4. That this uniformity could not be attributed to the corruptions of the Papacy, which only added other prohibitions, neither warranted by Scrip 166 HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL AND CIVIL. ture nor early custom; but this in no way altered the fact, which was fact before the Papacy as such was known or developed. The fact that unwarranted additions were made by the Papacy to the law of God no more subverts that law than its idol-worship, and human mediators, overthrow the unity of God, and the divinity and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ. 5. That what renders this fourth conclusion indisputable is the historical fact, that the Waldenses, who have all along repudiated the authority of the Papacy, and continued to trace up their views to the time of the apostles, as well as founded them on the written Word of God, have held, and do to this day hold, such marriages to be unlawful. 6. That it is therefore an entire misrepresentation of historical fact to assert that the doctrine which maintains that such marriages are unlawful is derived from Popery and the Canon Law. 7. That the Canon Law professed, on this question, to be based on Scripture, particularly on Lev. xviii. 16, xx. 21, and the relative Scripture principles. 8. That, to the time of the Reformation,—that is, for 1500 years,—there was only one opinion in the professing Christian church, viz., that such marriages were unlawful. 9. That while, at the Reformation, the Reformers threw off entirely the authority of the Papacy, and professed and acted on the great principle that nothing was binding on the conscience of Christians but what was binding by the authority of God revealed in the written Word, all the churches of the Reformation, without any exception, held such marriages to be unlawful, as is proved by their codes of discipline and creeds, as well as by universal ecclesiastical law. 10. That this continued to be universal till a comparatively very recent period. That the exceptions can be traced to the prevalence of principles altogether different from, if not actually hostile to, the Word of God. So that whatever value is to be attached to the views held by the Christian church for nearly 1800 years, without any difference of opinion, it is altogether on the side of those who maintain the unlawfulness of such marriages. III. On the relative testimony of human legislation, it has been proved:1. That as soon as the Roman Empire became professedly Christian, its legislation on this subject was to the same effect, and on the same principles, as the decisions of the Church. 2. That this continued in all professedly Christian States down to the period of the Reformation. 3. That at, and after, the period of the Reformation, down almost to the present day, and certainly till about the end of the last century, when Neological and French principles began to prevail, and threatened the subversion of social morality and of society itself, human legislation continued the same in all the Protestant countries of Europe and America. IV. From a comprehensive view of these facts, this historical deduction may be drawn, viz. :-THAT IN ALL COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE PROFESSED TO RECOGNISE THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE, AS A BASIS OF HUMAN LEGISLATION, SUCH MARRIAGES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED UNLAWFUL: and in a question of this kind the authority of others is entitled to no respect. CONCLUSIONS FROM SCRIPTURE. 167 V. The inquiry has next been raised, How is this to be accounted for? or, in other words, On what grounds were they warranted to come to such a conclusion? Under this inquiry it has been shown:— 1. That the Old Testament, as well as the New, is our rule of faith and manners, in this as in all questions of social duty or morality. 2. That on the present question we are to be mainly guided by what we find in chapter xviii. of Leviticus, and relative portions of the Old Testament; otherwise we have no law on the subject; although a law is imperatively needed. 3. That the principles of Leviticus xviii. are of universal applicationapplicable to Gentiles as well as to Jews as has been held not only by the ablest divines, but by the ablest jurists, in all Christian countries. 4. That where the prohibitions are addressed to the man, it is as head of the woman; and that what is forbidden as sin to the one, is forbidden as sin to the other. 5. That the general principle of the prohibitions in this eighteenth chapter is "nearness of kin." 6. That this principle, " nearness of kin," applies to cases of affinity as certainly as to cases of consanguinity.* 7. That marriage with the widow of a deceased brother is prohibited in express words in Lev. xviii. 16, and Lev. xx. 21; and by consequence marriage with the widower of a deceased sister. If the woman cannot marry the widower, the widower cannot marry her. In other words, marriage with the sister of a deceased wife is forbidden. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact, that marriages in cases of relationship by affinity more remote are prohibited in express words. † 8. That the law of the levirite being exceptional and peculiar, and declared to be for a specific purpose, is a clear proof of the general prohibition of the marriage of a man with a brother's widow in all other cases, and so of her sister with the widower. 9. That the specific end of this peculiar law having ceased with its fulfilment, the general law is left intact and alone. 10. That the prohibitions in Leviticus xviii. can in no sense be said to be ceremonial. 11. That they cannot be said to be judicial in the sense of being applicable only to the peculiar polity of the Israelites-there being no such pecu * By turning back to pp. 64, 65, the reader will find an answer to an attempt which has been made to show, as if by divine authority, that "nearness of kin," from the use of the phrase, Lev. xxi. 2, 3, must be understood of certain definite blood relations. The answer we have there given to this attempt is confirmed and rendered unquestionable, by the repetition of the same law in Ezekiel xliv. 25, " And they (the priests) shall come at no dead person to defile themselves: but for father, or for mother, or for son, or for daughter, for brother, or for sister that hath had no husband, they may defile themselves." + The following opinion of Archbishop Whitgift is important, and throws light upon the passage quoted from Selden, at p. 11, and on the fact that the wife's sister, SOROR SORORIS, is one of the degrees set down by him in his scheme as expressly forbidden in Scripture, according to the Talmudists. I was at first a little puzzled to account for this fact in consistency with their opposition to the principle of the Karaites. The opinion of Archbishop Whitgift explains it" I see not how you differ from that opinion which is THE GROUND OF ALL PAPISTRY, that is, that all things necessary unto salvation are not EXPRESSED in the Scriptures. There is nothing necessary to eternal life which is not both commanded and expressed in the Scripture. I count it expressed, when it is either in manifest words contained in Scripture, or thereof gathered by necessary collection."-Quoted by Goode, in his important work entitled, "The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice," London, 1853. 168 CONCLUSIONS FROM SPECIAL SCRIPTURES. liarity about them. They have in them principles of natural equity; and, as they relate to universal society, are still binding. 12. That the most eminent Protestant divines and jurists have held these views of the law of Leviticus. VI. In the sixth place, on a farther consideration of special Scripture texts, it has been shown: 1. That Leviticus xviii. 18 cannot be held in the light of an exception to Leviticus xviii. 16, and at the same time a repeal of the original law of marriage found in Genesis ii. 23, 24, repeated in Malachi ii. and in Matt. xix.; and that it has neither the position nor the form of an exception to Lev. xviii. 16. 2. That Leviticus xviii. 18 is the introduction, and has the form of the introduction, of a new subject-that subject being the prohibition of polygamy, or more wives than one. 3. That those who maintain that Leviticus xviii. 18 is a sanction to polygamy, maintain it on the most inconsistent and even ridiculous grounds. 4. That writers and others who maintain the lawfulness of the marriages in question, have most grievously misrepresented the views of the most eminent commentators on the subject; who, with scarcely one exception, hold the unlawfulness of the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife. VII. In the seventh place, in regard to the marginal reading of Lev. xviii. 18—viz., “One to another"—it has been shown:— 1. That our argument is complete without the marginal reading, and does not depend on it. 2. That the translators of the authorised version of the English Bible deemed the marginal reading the true reading. 3. That it was so deemed by the most eminent scholars, translators, lexicographers, commentators, divines, and jurists of the Protestant world. 4. That the marginal reading can be fully vindicated on its own merits, and that it cannot, by any thing yet attempted, be proved to be false or be set aside. 5. But unless it can be proved to be false and be set aside on purely critical grounds, and the interpretation of the opposite party proved true on critical grounds-viz., that it sanctions polygamy-their whole argument is without foundation. 6. That Leviticus xviii. 18, the meaning of which is disputed, cannot be pled in proof of its own meaning, viz., of the meaning which our opponents put upon it. VIII. In the eighth place, on the subject of polygamy, it has been shown: 1. That polygamy was unlawful from the creation to the time of Moses, by the original law of God, Gen. ii. 23, 24,-that is, for the space of 2,500 years. 2. That it has been unlawful since the time of Christ by his own clear decision. 3. That there is nothing in the Mosaic period, or in the character and |