24 LAW OF CHRISTIAN ROMAN EMPERORS. Godfrey, in his notes, understands by the word "ancients," Jews-referring to the permission of the leviral law, in Deut. xxv. 5, and Ruth iv. 4, and to the Egyptians, as well as ancient Romans. Godfrey has the following commentary-"The same woman is forbidden to marry two brothers in succession, and the same man two sisters; or, (which is the same thing) a brother to marry the wife of his brother, and the same to marry the sister of his wife, by the Emperor Constantius, by his law, a.d. 355, equally as by the law of Theod. the Great, Fratris 5 cod. eod. tit. De Incestis Nuptiis; by Arcadius, 1. 3, h. 1; by Theodosius the Younger, 1. ult. h. t.; by Zeno, 1. pen. cod. eod.; and by Anastasius, 1. ult. cod. eod.; and thus there are extant altogether six constitutions concerning the matter and its prohibitions." He then gives a profusion of facts and illustrations and proofs, and refers to the Christian canons already quoted. We have next the laws of Arcadius and Honorius declaring the penalties of incestuous marriages, with an enumeration of the degrees embraced, and among others the marriage of a man with the sister of his wife. It bears date 396. And farther under the same title xii., we have the law of Theodosius the Younger, bearing date 415, declaring the children illegitimate, and excluding them from succession to their father's inheritance. These kinds of marriages, it appears by the Cod. Justinianus, were forbidden by Valentinian, in the year 388. It is remarkable (and remarkable only because part es have rested much on the circumstance that the Levitical law does not use the word "widow" in prohibiting a man from marrying his brother's wife), that in all these canons, and laws, and comments, the phrase "brother's widow" is never once used in relation to the wife of the husband whether dead or alive; but always, without an exception, the phrase is brother's wife,- uxor, uxorem, —a fact which stamps absurdity on the ingenious shifts of some modern critics on the subject. This, says Bush, was the common usage of the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, and such is that of the French, Germans, the Spanish, and the Italians, as well as English. In none of the versions of the Scriptures in these languages is the word widow used in such cases.* 66 99 66 After this historical proof, one may well be surprised at the ignorant asseverations, so industriously circulated by writers on the other side, that the prohibitions of such marriages owe their origin to the Pope of Rome and to Henry VIII. of England, though not at the unscrupulous use made of them by parties involved in difficulties by their own contempt, if not of the laws of God, certainly of the laws of their country. It is unnecessary to attempt to trace human legislation down through the period of the dark ages till the time of the Reformation. Of course it was based throughout Europeon the Canon Law; and was, and is still, therefore, the law in Popish countries. † The weight that is due to this fact must be otherwise determined. Section V.-Opinions of the Waldensian Church. Before adducing the testimony of the Churches of the Reformation, there is one important witness which must not be passed over, viz., the Church of the * Bush's Notes on Leviticus. I had previously verified for myself the correctness of Bush's statement. +I do not hold the power given to the supreme authority, civil or ecclesiastical, to dispense, to be a renouncement of the law, whatever may be the effect of such a power. OPINIONS OF THE WALDENSES. 25 Waldenses. The following is its general doctrine found in the very curious documentary "History of the Churches of the Valleys of Piemont, by L. Morland, Esq., Commissioner Extraordinary for the affairs of the said Valleys," of Oliver Cromwell. In an "Ancient Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, copied out of certain Manuscript Copies, bearing date Anno Dom. 1120, that is to say, near 400 years before the time of Calvin or Luther," there is the general doctrine of the sole authority of the Canonical Scriptures, the rejection of Apocrypha and traditions, and of the inventions of Antichrist, and the denial of marriage as a sacrament. "Article 13. We acknowledge no other sacrament but baptism and the Lord's supper." In another, bearing date 1532, they pronounce the forbidding of marriage to be "a diabolical doctrine." In another, presented by the Waldenses to Ladislaus, king of Bohemia, in the year 1508, they pronounce against the Romish doctrine of celibacy. In a confession published in 1655, they say, "And for a more ample declaration of our faith, we do here reiterate the same protestation which we caused to be printed in the year 1603, that is to say, that we do agree in sound doctrine with all the Reformed Churches of France, Great Britain, the Low Countries, Germany, Switzerland, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and others, as it is represented by them in their Confessions; also we receive the Confession of Augsburg, and as it was published by the author, promising to persevere constantly therein, with the help of God, both in life and death, and being ready to subscribe to that eternal truth of God, with our own blood, even as our ancestors have done from the days of the apostles, and especially in these latter ages." Such is the general language of their Confessions, indicating this, at least, that Popery had very little to say in the formation of their views. In "The Ancient Discipline" of these churches, "extracted out of divers authentic Manuscripts, written in their own language, several hundreds of years before either Calvin or Luther," article viii. is as follows, and I give it both in the Old Provençal and English language : 66 "Le mariage se deo far second li gra liqual Dio a permes non second li gra liqual el a deffend: ma la no se deo gis far de conscientia d'aquilli del Papa, jà cia go que no ly aya gis donna d'or o d'argent per aver dispensation. Car ço que Dio non a deffendu se po far sen luy." "Marriage ought to be performed according to the rules prescribed by God, and not within those degrees which he hath forbidden. And there need no scruple of conscience be made concerning what the Pope hath forbidden, although we neither give him gold or silver for a dispensation; for that which God hath not forbidden may very well be done without his permission" (literally, without him.) It is clear, then, that whatever was the opinion of these churches it was not derived from the Pope, whom they denounced and formally proved to be Antichrist, four hundred years before the time of Calvin, and of which churches it may be said they were a people "terrible," as they were hateful to the Popes "from their beginning hitherto." What they believed, they believed on the authority of God's Word; and there is not only no 26 LETTER OF DR REVEL, WALDENSIAN CHURCH. evidence that they held views on the subject different from the Reformed Churches, but there is evidence to the reverse. Through the kindness of the Rev. Dr Stewart of Leghorn, I have been favoured with the following statement of the case in the Waldensian Church at the present time, conveyed in a note, dated September 30, 1853, in answer to one from me, dated September 9, 1853, requesting his good offices to procure me the requisite information. It is from the Rev. Dr Revel, present moderator of the Waldensian Church : "As to the principles maintained by our church respecting marriages between brothers and sisters-in-law, they are those which we find in the holy Scriptures, on marriages between relations. Our Ecclesiastical Discipline, reviewed in 1839, says :- Marriages between brothersin-law and sisters-in-law, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, and between relations at one degree more near, are forbidden.' I find this same prohibition in the Acts of the Synods of 1833, 1828, 1801, and 1798. Our civil law does not permit alliances between a brother-in-law and a sister-inlaw, that is to say, between a widower and the sister of the deceased wife, no more than between a widow and the brother of the dead husband. It has sometimes happened that the king by a special decree has authorised such a union, and pastors have, contrary to our discipline, blessed it" (as unfaithful men have done in America when the civil law favours them.) "Nevertheless, since the constitution, the king's ministers reject on principle demands of this nature. It seems, in certain given cases, that it might be convenient and very desirable that the sister of the deceased mother who has left many little children, might come to charge herself with the care of bringing them up-nevertheless, I doubt that in practice the effects would be as good as some imagine them. These unions appear prohibited by Leviticus xviii. 18, xx. 21, and in point of public and social morality, persons most competent to judge see in them very grave inconveniences, so that we are very glad that the civil code does not admit of them. (Signed) "J. P. REVEL, Moderator."* The discerning reader will perceive the importance of this statement by M. Revel, especially when viewed in connection with the preceding extracts from the ancient Vaudois creeds : 1. They repudiated the authority of the Pope on the subject of marriage. 2. They rest their doctrine on the authority of the holy Scripture. * The following is the original French :-"Quant aux principes suivès par notre Eglise touchant les mariages entre beaux frères et belles sœurs, ils sont ceux que nous trouverons dans l'Ecriture sainte sur les mariages entre parens. Notre Discipline Ecclesiastique revue en 1839 dit: Les mariages entre beaux frères et belles sœurs, oncles et nieces, tantes et neveux, et entre parens a un degre plus rapproché sont defendu. Je trouve cette même défense consignée dans les Actes des Synodes de 1833, 1828, 1801, et 1798. Notre loi civile ne permet pas les alliances entre beau frère et belle sœur, c'est a dire entre un veuf et la sœur de la femme décedée, comme non plus entre une veuve et le frère du mari mort. Il est arrivé quelque fois que le roi par un decret special a autorisé une telle union, et des pasteurs l'ont benie contrairement à notre discipline. Cependant depuis la constitution, les ministres du roi repoussent par principe les demandes de cette nature. Il semble, dans certains cas donnés qu'il serait convenable et fort à desirer que la sœur de la mère défunte qui a laissé plusieurs petits enfants, vint se charger du soin de les élever; neanmoins je doute que dans la pratique les effets fussent aussi bons qu'on se les imagine. Ces unions paraissent interdictes par Lev. xviii. 18, xx. 21, et au point de vue de la morale publique et sociale, des personnes tres competentes y' voient de graves inconvenients, de sorte que nous sommes bien aise que le code civil ne les admette point. (Signed) "J. P. REVEL, Moderator." DOCTRINE OF THE REFORMED. 27 3. They assert that they trace their practice from the days of the apostles. 4. They never submitted to Rome. 5. They appear to have renewed their decree on this subject in their Acts of Synod in 1798 and 1801, evidently when French armies and French principles invaded them, and at succeeding times, when endangered by modern and lax notions. 6. This testimony ought to put an end for ever to the rash assertion, that the views held in the Churches of England and Scotland, and other Reformed countries, were traceable to Popery, either directly or indirectly; and they cast ridicule on the Henry VIII. origin of these views. 7. This is a proof, among many others, that the opinion of churches on the special relations prohibited, is to be found almost universally in their codes of discipline and synodical acts, rather than in their creeds, which contain only general principles, but do not define the specialities of their application. It is either ignorance of, or inattention to this fact that has made Dr Eadie say, as if it were of any weight in the question,"Out of fifteen Protestant Confessions, that of Westminster is the only one which formally enacts forbidden degrees." The Westminster does not formally enact forbidden degrees." It only declares the general principle which involves them and determines them. Perhaps a more miserable instance of ignorance, or dishonesty, among the multitude of instances which controversy unhappily furnishes, is hardly to be found than that which traces the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, on the question under consideration, to Popery. Section VI.-Doctrine of the Reformed. What then was the doctrine of the Reformed on this point? Before formally answering this question, it may not be improper to notice the prejudice that has been widely diffused, and studiously nursed, by parties whose interest it is to discredit their testimony when it happens to cross their path-viz., that coming out of the darkness of Popery, they still retained much of the darkness and bigotry of the Man of Sin. That there might be individuals of whom this was true, we have no disposition to debate. But that it characterised either their leading men, or the Confessions of the Reformed Church, we deny. Whatever were their views, they rigidly professed to adhere closely to the written Word. This was their watchword. They were more in danger of rejecting, than of continuing to hold a doctrine, because it was held by the Popish Church. In fact, had they not held closely by the Bible, the long period of tyranny and persecution under which the church had groaned, and which they felt had entered into the very soul, would have driven them, on the recovery of their freedom, as it always does in similar circumstances, into every kind of extravagance and excess. Had many of our modern advocates for freedom in the article of marriage lived at that period, the probability is, if we may judge from their arguments in support of polygamy, that they would have been found among the Anabaptists of Munster, advocating and indulging in every degree of sensual license, instead of limiting themselves, as the Reformers so rigorously did, by the question, What saith the Scripture? Moreover, he is very ignorant of their history indeed who imagines that the question was answered either in haste or in ignorance. 28 OPINIONS OF THE REFORMED-FRENCH CHURCH. The direct evidence as to the doctrine of the Reformed Church is not so abundant and accessible as on many other points, for the simple reason that it was not so much an article of their Confessions of Faith as of their Codes and Practice of Discipline. There is enough, however, to satisfy us on the point. They proceeded on the general principle that the prohibitions in Leviticus were binding on Christians-that these prohibitions involved degrees not expressed, and were determined on the principle of parity of reasoning. This statement refers to Luther, Calvin, Beza, and others. Mr Badeley, in his speech in a case before the Court of Queen's Bench, dated Jan. 15, 1847, says "And, my lords, in 'Boehmer Jus Ecclesiasticum Protestantium,' a valuable book, showing the views of the Canon Law as adopted by Protestant nations on the continent, vol. iv. p. 198, it is said (giving his conclusions generally), I thus think that the marriages referred to in Leviticus xviii. were not only prohibited as to persons there expressly named, but also as to those who are contained under those prohibited by the same respect and reason, and that evident and clear."" Mr Badeley quotes another important treatise on the law on the Continent, "Brouwer De Jure Connubiorum," p. 507, to the same effect. That they decided on this principle is undoubted. But this principle rules the question of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife by as necessary a consequence as that, in a moral point of view, a woman and a man are one and the same. This accordingly is what we mean in this case by parity of reasoning, and not a case of crime by construction at all, as some have attempted to represent this argument. The opinions of Calvin and Beza may be reached in another way. In one of those productions circulated by the agitators in this country for a change of the law, the writer is very eager to get quit of the authority of the Westminster Confession of Faith ; and he tells us that he has a French Bible, published by the founders of the French Protestant Church, and that in a reference to Lev. xviii. 16, 18, the word "vivante" (living) is introduced before the word "wife ;" and then adds, "The founders of the French Church agree with the Westminster Assembly, that there are degrees of affinity as well as of consanguinity prohibited; but they hold that the prohibition as to affinity was in force only while the first husband or first wife lived." He then says, it is probable that the Westminster Assembly adopted the views of the French Church, because certain Scotchmen-Cameron, Boyd, and Welsh -had been professors of divinity and ministers in France! But though the members of the Westminster Assembly had been all Scotchmen, instead of being, as they were, all Englishmen, assisted by certain five Scotchmen who were not members of it at all, it would not have mended the matter; because the French Church held no such doctrine as is here, with rashness as culpable as the ignorance is complete, attributed to it. Where this man has got his second-hand information I know not; but, small as is the occasion, I have taken the trouble to go over the whole of Quick's "Synodicon," and find the doctrine of the Reformed Church of France to have been neither lax nor doubtful on the subject. It is found, not in their Confession of Faith, but in their "Discipline," which was held to be a masterpiece by their most judicious divines, in Quick's time, whose preface is dated 1691. It was adopted in their first National Synod, held at Paris in 1559, one year before Protestantism was declared to be the established religion of Scotland. It was revised by twenty-three succeeding National Synods. The ninth canon of the thirteenth chapter is as follows:-" It is not lawful for any man to |