CONCLUSIONS ON QUESTION OF POLYGAMY.

169

conduct of the men of that period, to make polygamy more lawful during it than either before the time of Moses or since the time of Christ.

4. That the conduct of polygamists, as polygamists, during the Mosaic period, is severely condemned by God, speaking by the prophet Malachi, chap. ii. 14-17.

5. That it was unlawful in all these periods; and therefore the interpretation put upon Leviticus xviii. 18, by the Libertarians, cannot be maintained on the ground of any Scripture proof that polygamy ever was lawful in the sight of God.

6. That, therefore, our Scripture proof, from other sources, that marriage with the sister of a deceased wife is unlawful, contrary to the law of God, is totally unaffected by Leviticus xviii. 18, which relates to a different subject, and is a prohibition of more wives than one.

IX. In the ninth place, in reference to all the points brought under our review in the preceding pages, it has been shown:

That a world of misrepresentation has been practised by writers on the other side: much of it rash; some of it, it is to be feared, wilful, if not deliberate; and at all events altogether inexcusable in a grave and important controversy, affecting the law of God and the highest interests of human society.

X. In relation to the fourth general head-viz., The effects of the opposite opinions, or the opinions of those who affirm the lawfulness of such marriages—it has been shown:—

(1.) In regard to their principles

1. That while they are of the most inconsistent and opposite kind, they subvert the integrity and authority of Scripture as the rule of faith and manners, and especially of the Old Testament.

2. That they subvert not only all Scripture rule and law on the subject of incestuous marriages, but the authority of the moral law itself.

3. That they not only subvert the Scripture law and authority on such subjects, but they pervert it into a positive sanction of polygamy, and other forms of uncleanness.

4. That many of the parties pursue their ends on principles, and by practices, which go to destroy the duty which we owe to government as an ordinance of God, and encourage human beings to disregard it where no duty to God compels them to do so, and to brave public opinion even in exposing their own shame.

(2.) In regard to the effects, probable or actual—

1. That these effects are of the most immoral and dangerous kind; and felt to be so, as proved by the common consent of Christian men and Christian parents.

2. That the pretended advantages are not for a moment to be compared with the evils of declaring such marriages lawful in the sight of God and by the law of man.

3. That the actual effects, so far as they can be traced, both in Europe and America, have been of the most revolting and alarming description. Let Bible law and principle be unsettled and removed, and nothing can result and remain but the abominations of heathenism.

Of course, I do not say that every one who advocates the lawfulness of

170

EFFECTS OF SUCH MARRIAGES-AUTHORITIES.

such marriages, holds all the opinions justly chargeable with such consequences; still less that they admit or perceive that such consequences are fairly deducible from the opinions which they do hold. But taking a complex view of their whole opinions and actings, I most firmly believe that these are chargeable with the effects and consequences above alleged. Neither do I affirm of all the men who advocate the lawfulness of such marriages, that they are neither good nor pious men. To their own Master they stand or fall. Men who have been, or have been thought, good and pious men have many times broached the worst opinions. Our rule is, "To the law and to the testimony." Their opinions, reasonings, and practices are the fair subjects of discussion and judgment; and we are not to be deterred from canvassing either their nature or effects by the alleged excellence of their authors. If their opinions are bad, their piety, real or supposed, makes them all the more dangerous, and the duty of exposing them, however painful, all the more imperative. Mere declamation as to the want of charity to the opinions of good or pious men, will neither remove facts nor answer arguments. The exposure of erroneous or dangerous opinions is not an attack upon men's persons; on the contrary, it may often, and should always be, intended for their good. Men can only claim the right to show that their opinions are not chargeable with the bad consequences alleged, or that such opinions are not theirs. But for the opinions we hold we cannot claim exemption from responsibility; or if we do, neither truth nor the interests of society can afford to grant it. It is impossible to observe with any degree of attention what is passing in the world, and not to see that, with all men's contempt for authority, no argument is more commonly pleaded, in this and other matters of opinion and conduct, than what we have called the " good man" argument. Few things are more hurtful to truth and

morals.

XI. In relation to my fifth general head-viz., The weight due to authorities on this question—it has been shown:—

1. How little mere authorities are to be relied on; and still more how little the testimony of those who allege that these authorities are in favour of the marriages in question is to be relied on.

2. That to estimate the value of authorities, certain rules must be observed.

3. That the allegation of mere numbers in favour of such marriages is irrelevant and unwarrantable.

4. That some names of great celebrity in other departments, and quoted as authorities in favour of such marriages, have given no proof of their having studied this particular subject, or that they were even general Biblical scholars.

XII. In relation to certain alleged facts, published by the London " Marriage Law Reform Association," it has been shown:

Either that they are not facts at all, or are altogether irrelevant to the settlement of a question which must rest ultimately on the authority of the law of God, revealed in the sacred Scriptures.

The author has now brought this work to a close. He sends it forth to the world under a deep conviction of the inherent and relative importance of the questions involved. He has no end to gain in this discussion but

the honour of God and of His truth and law, and the promotion of the best interests of the church of Christ, and of man in all his domestic and social relations. If it shall, by the blessing of God, which he continues to implore upon it, be honoured to promote these ends, he has all the reward he has ever contemplated or sought in its preparation. Believing in the prevalence and danger of many principles to which he has had occasion to advert, he is most anxious that his brethren in the ministry, and religious, intelligent men in general, should know the real state of the case, be awakened to see its importance, and be furnished with the means of effectually opposing the further progress of opinions and schemes which he deems most injurious and pernicious to all the high interests to which reference has just been made. He hopes his countrymen are yet very far from being willing to plunge into the gulf of continental opinions and manners; and that when men venture to plead, as they have the hardihood to do, not only the practices of continental nations, steeped in neology, infidelity, pantheism, and licentiousness, but even the numbers of Mahometans and Pagans who are alleged to hold their views, as reasons for influencing the conduct of Christian men or Christian governments, they will be so far from being looked upon as examples to follow, that they will be regarded as beacons to warn of "snares, pitfalls, and death," and those who put them forth as lures, regarded with the righteous indignation which such conduct deserves from Britons and Christian men. Forbearance may be shown, and may be a duty, in regard to those who either erroneously or rashly come to wrong conclusions on a question of this kind; but they who plead the practice of those whom Christianity condemns, as an example to follow, and carry on a system of organised agitation, and stick at no means of confusing the minds of men, and do what they can to seduce them into a violation of the laws of their country, that the law may become contemptible, and its removal compelled, and all this for the purpose of extricating men who have, with their eyes open, and under no constraint of religion, morality, or conscience, plunged themselves and others into serious difficulties, deserve no such charitable consideration. Rather do they owe it to religion and society to repent of their sin; and religion and society owe it to themselves to take all careful means to secure their own defence and protection against their pernicious acts and influence. If my voice could reach the ministers of the gospel, or influence ecclesiastical bodies, or the organs of public opinion whose views are not committed in favour of such marriages, I would most earnestly entreat them to give the subject full and serious consideration; and I would urgently call upon those whose views are opposed to them, to take all proper means and opportunities of expressing them, and of preventing the spread of opinions which threaten to subvert the foundations of Scripture truth and morals, and most seriously to endanger the purity and peace of our domestic constitution, and to destroy what has hitherto been a peculiar character and charm of our beloved country, viz., a secure, confiding, unsuspecting, and happy home-the solace of life and the safeguard of virtue.

APPENDIX.

A.

LAW OF ENGLAND.-P. 43.

The author has received the kind permission of Mr Parker, of Oxford, the publisher of Mr Badeley's speech referred to at p. 43, to give the following important extract on the Law of England :

In reference to that, my Lords, as to the effect in this respect of the canons of 1603, I would direct your Lordships again to a case which I cited in my former address, that of Butler v. Gastrill, which is in Gilbert's Reports, p. 156. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading again the passages to which I then referred for a different purpose, but I turn now to a passage which will be found in the judgment, at page 159, with reference to the canons. "The intention of our Statute" (that is, the Statute of 32 Henry VIII.)" was to restore every thing according to the prohibition expressed in the law of God, and plainly the Levitical computation of degrees was in the manner they computed in the civil law, which was from the propositus up to the common stock, and so down again to the other relations. And by the canons confirmed by Jac. 1, in 1603, the 99th canon expressly saith thus, No person shall marry within the degrees prohibited by the laws of God, and expressed in a table set forth by authority in the year of our Lord 1563; and all marriages so made and contracted shall be adjudged incestuous and unlawful, and consequently shall be dissolved as void from the beginning; and the parties so married shall by the course of law be separated. And the aforesaid Table shall be in every church publicly set up, and fixed at the charge of the parish." Then the judgment goes on thus,-" And it appears by that Table that to marry a wife's mother's sister is incestuous. Indeed, it has been duly objected to this manner of argumentation, that the canons charged only ecclesiastical persons, and do not bind the laity, because they are made only by the clergy in convocation, and so they only are bound by these rules; and laymen are not bound, because such canons have not the consent of the Commons and temporal Lords, and as such cannot bind the laity as a law." Then comes the most important part of the judgment, to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention: "But to this I answer, that these Tables do show the sense of the Church of England, and so are a proper exposition of the law of God, and, by consequence, ought to have great weight with the Judges when they expound the Levitical law; and they are plainly the decision of the Reformed Church, touching the crime of incest; and they do retrench the exorbitant and unwarrantable construc