Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

CALVIN AND BEZA-SYNODS OF FRENCH CHURCH.

29

marry the sister of his deceased wife; for such marriages are prohibited, not only by the laws of the land (France), but by the Word of God. And although by the law of Moses it was ordained that, when the brother died without children, his brother should raise up seed unto him, yet that law, enacted for the children of Israel, was temporary, relating only to the preservation of the tribes of that people. But the marriage of the sister of a betrothed" (engaged to be married) "and deceased wife is of another nature, because that alliance was not contracted by a commixture of blood; therefore such a marriage may be admitted and approved. Yet, notwithstanding, all possible care shall be taken that neither the civil magistrate nor weak Christians be offended." The same principle is affirmed at the Synods of Poictiers the following year, and of Lyons, of which Beza was a member, in 1563. They had intimate intercourse with Calvin, who met at Geneva with the brethren "come from the Syncd of Lyons." In chap. x. of the Synod of Vertueil, I find the following heading:-"Orders and Decrees concerning Marriage, made by the authority of the National Synod of Vertueil, held in the year 1567, but drawn up at the desire of the fathers in this Synod by the R. Mr Calvin, minister of God's holy Word, pastor and professor in the Church and University of Geneva." Under the ninth decree, it is queried, "What are those cases of affinity which hinder marriage? Answer V.-Let no man marry his brother's widow, nor any woman him who was her sister's husband."* Calvin and Beza were at the framing of these canons, therefore; and how Calvin is quoted on the other side, I am at a loss to comprehend. The Discipline was read over and revised at every Synod. Various special cases were decided, and always on the doctrine of the canon now quoted. In one of these they affirm that though they do not pronounce it forbidden by the Word of God, if the magistrate allow it, yet, civility and decency" were opposed to a man's marrying the sister of the widow of his own deceased brother, which, it will be perceived, is a much stronger case than his marrying the sister of his own deceased wife. The 29th Synod, or Synod of Loudon, held in the year 1659, twelve years after the Westminster Confession was received by the Church of Scotland, and in the spirit of a series of decisions given during one hundred years, has the following remarkable decision (Quick's "Synodicon," vol. ii., p. 528):-" Chap. vii. On reading the Discipline12. The deputies of the province of Xaintonge, demanding what course they might take with those who had espoused the niece or the great-grandniece of their deceased wife, and yet demanded to be received into communion at the Lord's table: this Assembly adviseth, that they direct and govern themselves in this affair by the eleventh of the thirteenth chapter of our Discipline, and the decrees of the national Synods of Vitre, and of the second and third of Charenton, who have declared such marriages to be incestuous;" and it goes on to forbid pastors to solemnise such marriages, or to admit the parties to "partake of the pledges and tokens of the remission of their sins as long as they cohabit together." And yet, in the face of all this, the man to whom I have referred has the impertinence to dole out his small affirmations, as reasons for solemnly calling on the Free Church of Scotland to repent of the sin of pronouncing incestuous what the Church Primitive, the Church Popish, and the Church Reformed pronounce incestuous on the authority of the law of God.

66

*The judgment of Calvin will be given expressly on Lev. xviii. 18.

30

OPINIONS OF LUTHERAN AND DUTCH CHURCHES.

The Lutheran divines of Germany, in reply to the inquiry made by Henry VIII., said "It is manifest and cannot be denied, that the law of Lev. xviii. prohibits a marriage with a sister-in-law. This is to be considered as a DIVINE, a NATURAL, and a MORAL law, against which no other law may be enacted or established. Agreeably to this, the whole church has always retained this law, and judged such marriages INCESTUOUS. Agreeably to this, also, the decrees of synods, the celebrated opinions of the most holy fathers, and even civil laws, prohibit such marriages, and pronounce them incestuous. Wherefore we also judge that this law is to be preserved in all the churches as a DIVINE, a NATURAL, and a MORAL LAW; nor will we dispense with, or permit in our churches, that such marriages shall be contracted; and this doctrine we can, and as God shall enable us, we will resolutely defend."*

On the opinion of the Dutch Reformed Church, I beg to quote the following passage from the valuable little work of Dr Janeway, of America, from which the preceding reply to Henry is extracted :

[ocr errors]

:

"The General Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church, at their last session, having received the reports of their Classes, departed from what had heretofore been the uniform practice of their church, and the Church of Holland, from which they were descended, by resolving, that all resolutions which may have been passed by the General Synod, forbidding a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, be and hereby are rescinded.'-(See their minutes for 1843, p. 221.)

"In the year 1816, the Venerable Dr John H. Livingston, Professor of Theology in the seminary of that church, prepared and published a dissertation on this question, at the request of the General Synod. It is able and learned.

"As early as 1580, Holland, the doctor shows, declared in an ordinance, 'That no persons related in blood, or by affinity, within the forbidden degrees, shall be permitted to cohabit or be married, under penalty of being declared infamous, and subjected to corporal punishment and heavy fines, and if they persisted in their crime, to banishment.' In another ordinance, the forbidden degrees are enumerated; and it is declared, 'That no man may marry the widow of his deceased brother, nor may any wOMAN MARRY THE HUSBAND OF HER DECEASED SISTER.'-Pp. 49, 50.

"And to prove what construction is put on Levit. xviii. 16, by the Reformed Dutch Church, the doctor quotes from the marginal notes of the translators,+ appointed by the National Synod of Dortrecht, held in 1618 and 1619, the following words :- From this law it necessarily follows, that a woman who has been married with one brother, may not, after his death, marry with another brother; and upon the same principle, a man who has been married to one sister, may not, after her death, marry the other sister.' He quotes also their note on verse 18, which is as follows:

It consequently can by no means from this be concluded, that the husband, after the death of his wife, may marry her sister.'-Pp. 162, 163. In the conclusion of his dissertation, this venerable and profoundly-learned professor, being the brightest ornament of his church, says, The REFORMED CHURCH IN HOLLAND has established by her canons, *Quoted from Dr Livingston's Dissertation, pp. 157, 158, by Janeway on "Unlawful Marriage," pp. 31, 32.

The reader will afterwards find an interesting document proving how much the Synod of Dort both admired and profited by the labours of the translators of our English version.

OPINIONS OF ENGLISH CHURCH-JEWEL.

31

"that no man may marry his sister-in-law, and no woman may marry her brother-in-law," and has never deviated from this rule. The Reformed Dutch Church in America, which is the same with the Church in Holland, has adopted the same canons, corresponds with that church, and is bound by the most sacred obligations to transmit unimpaired to posterity the precious treasure with which she is entrusted. There can, THEREFORE, be no cause for suspense, no motive for hesitation; but, on the contrary, every consideration suggested by faithfulness to God and attachment to his church, renders it an imperious duty to avoid even the appearance of SCHISM, and strictly to abide by the established canons.""-(Janeway's Introduction, pp. 10-13.)

66

Dr Janeway then gives a decision of the Particular Synod of this church in 1788, declaring such marriages to be contrary to the Word of God-of the General Synod in 1797, affirming this judgment-of the General Synod in 1815 delaying the decision of a case; and the following year, on the vote being taken for altering the previous resolution, it was fifteen yeas, and fortyone nays. 'Whereupon it was resolved, nemine contradicente, That it is inexpedient to make any alteration or modification of the decision of the church on the subject of a man's marrying his deceased wife's sister." In 1842, the resolution already quoted was adopted. All this is proof of what was the universal doctrine of the Dutch Church, till very recently, when the American portion had fallen away from the faith of their fathers.

The opinion of the English Reformers accorded with that of the Continental. Mr Badeley quotes the following letter of Bishop Jewell, which is found in the Appendix to Strype's Life of Archbishop Parker, vol. iii. of Oxford ed., p. 55:-" Yet will you say, although this manner of reason be weak, and the words make little for you, thus far the reason is good enough, for these words make not against you; which thing, notwithstanding I might grant, yet will not this reason follow of the other side ;-there are no express words in the Levitical law whereby I am forbidden to marry my wife's sister; ergo, by the Levitical law such marriage is to be accounted lawful. For notwithstanding the statutes in that case make relation unto the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, as unto a place wherein the degrees of consanguinity and affinity are touched most at large, yet you must remember that certain degrees are there left out untouched, within which, nevertheless, it was never thought lawful for a man to marry. For example, there is nothing provided there by express words, but that a man may marry his grandmother, or his grandfather's second wife, or the wife of his uncle by the mother's side. No, nor is there any express prohibition in all this chapter but that a man may marry his own daughter. Yet will no man say, that any of these degrees may join together in lawful marriage; wherefore we must needs think that God in that chapter has especially and namely forbidden certain degrees, not as leaving all marriages lawful which he had not there expressly forbidden; but that thereby, as by infallible precepts, we might be able to rule the rest; as when God saith, no man shall marry his mother, we understand that under the name mother is contained both the grandmother, and the grandfather's wife, and that such marriage is forbidden. And when God commands that no man shall marry the wife of his uncle by his father's side, we doubt not but that in the same is included the wife of the uncle by the mother's side. Thus you see God himself would have us expound one degree by another."

32

OPINIONS OF EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES—HUME'S HISTORY.

After the historical proof already adduced, one is at a loss to account, on any supposition of actual acquaintance with the facts, for the following statement of Dr Eadie, on this subject :-" I profess no anxiety to see Mr Wortley's bill (for a change of the present law of Britain on the subject) passed into a law. But the law he seeks to amend is quite another thing. It had its origin in the ferocious sensuality of Henry VIII., and the dissolution of his marriage with his first wife, who had been previously wedded to his brother." This statement is followed by the usual jeers at the Canonists, and their Popish additions of first-cousins and god-children, and the like, which, of course, if good for discrediting the prohibitions of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, because they held such marriages prohibited, are equally good for discrediting prohibitions of the marriages of father and daughter, sister and brother, or any conceivable incestuous abominations. But such a mode of arguing is not worthy of so grave a subject. And as to the historical accuracy of the above assertion, with regard to the origin of the law of England, and Henry's influence in introducing it, any one has only to consult Hume's History, to see that, whether Henry's scruples from first to last were those of conscience or of passion, the whole previous law of Europe settled the point, that the dispensation granted by Pope Julius the Second to Henry, to marry his brother's widow, was contrary to the universal law of Europe-and the decision of the universities in his favour were honest decisions, whatever were his character or wishes in the transaction. The following is Hume's account :

He says, had the question of Henry's marriage with Catherine been examined by the "principles of sound philosophy, exempt from superstition, it seemed not liable to much difficulty." After adducing reasons "founded on the principles of philosophy," which are more flexible than those of Scripture, and suit those who hold his views somewhat better, he adds, "But, in opposition to these reasons, and many more which might be collected, Henry had custom and precedent on his side; the principles by which men are almost wholly governed in their actions and opinions. The marrying of a brother's widow was so unusual, that no other instance of it could be found in any history or record of any Christian nation; and, though the Popes were accustomed to dispense with more essential precepts of morality, and even permitted marriages within other prohibited degrees, such as those of uncle and niece, the imaginations of men were not yet reconciled to this particular exercise of his authority. Several (ten) universities of Europe, therefore, without hesitation, as well as without interest or reward, gave verdict in the King's favour; not only those of France-Paris, Orleans, Bourges, Toulouse, Angiers-which may be supposed to lie under the influence of their prince, ally to Henry, but also those of Italy-Venice, Ferrara, Padua, even Bologna itself, though under the immediate jurisdiction of Clement. Oxford alone, and Cambridge, made some difficulty; because these universities, alarmed at the progress of Lutheranism, and dreading a defection from the Holy See, scrupled to give their sanction to measures whose consequences, they feared, would prove fatal to the ancient religion. Their opinion, however, conformable to that of the other universities of Europe, was at last obtained," &c.* The

*It is somewhat curious to see how Hume deals with this question, and how perfectly his infidel theories of Scripture authority on the point pervade the arguments of our Libertarians. In a note he says, "Even judging of this question by the Scripture" (of course it was no rule to him), "to which the appeal was every moment made, the arguments for the king's cause appear but lame and imperfect. Marriage, in the degree of affinity which

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES-HENRY VIII.

33

farther steps it is unnecessary to describe. So much has been said on this point to let ordinary readers see how little dependence is to be placed on the rash and unscrupulous assertions of the advocates for the marriages in question.

No one can peruse this account of Hume, who gives his authorities in the margin, without seeing the historical falsehood, as well as absurdity of the allegations, that the law of England had its origin with Henry VIÍII., or that the universities, as is commonly alleged, were bribed by Henry to decide in his favour. The whole Civil Law of Europe, for 1200 years, had been in his favour; and the Canon Law never knew anything else for 1500 years. It was by a violation of it that his marriage took place at first; and it is no proof, at best, of its non-existence or unsoundness, that he tried to take advantage of it to get his marriage annulled, when he found it disagreeable to him; or that the men who declared what it was, were either rogues or sycophants. That he had willing agents, who wished to get hold of funds, under the pretext of bribing them, will not overthrow the whole facts of history. The following passage from an American work, much in the spirit of Dr Eadie's statement above quoted, prefaced, as his is followed, by the usual throwing into the scale, as make-weights, of first-cousins, and god-fathers, and god-mothers, is worthy of notice:-"The marriage of Henry VIII., being to the widow of his childless brother, was understood to be forbidden, not by the laws of Moses, but of the Romish Church, and therefore to be within the dispensing power of her head, the Pope. Dr Livingston, referring to the marriage of a sister-in-law, says This sin was always condemned by the Church of Rome.' True, indeed, it was condemned, as well as the marriage of her (sic) seventh cousin ; but it was never condemned in that church as unscriptural, and without the dispensing power, until the influence of Henry VIII., himself a Roman Catholic at the time, obtained a contrary opinion from some (!) of the Roman Catholic doctors." "Some," indeed. There was scarcely any other opinion to be got. Again, this writer says "To show what little respect is due to the opinions obtained by Henry VIII., or that they are not to be received as the general opinions of either Protestants or Roman Catholics at that time, let us hear the testimonies of a competent witness. Cavendish, in his Life of Wolsey, says, 'that the foreign universities were fed with such large

6

had taken place between Henry and Catherine, is, indeed, prohibited by Leviticus: but it is natural (?) to interpret that prohibition as a part of the Jewish ceremonial or municipal law; and though it is there said, in the conclusion, that the Gentile nations, by violating these degrees of consanguinity, had incurred the divine displeasure, the extension of this maxim to every case before specified, is supposing the Scriptures to be composed with a minute accuracy and precision to which we know with certainty (!!) the sacred penmen did not think proper to confine themselves. The descent of mankind from one common father, obliged them, in the first generation, to marry in the nearest degrees of consanguinity: instances of a like nature occur among the patriarchs; and the marriage of a brother's widow was, in certain cases, not only permitted, but even enjoined as a positive precept, by the Mosaical law. It is in vain to say that this precept was an exception" (he ought to have said, it is in vain to say that all these cases were exceptions) "to the rule; and an exception merely confined to the Jewish nation. The inference is still just, that such a marriage" (why not say such marriages as brothers and sisters, if his argument be good ?) can contain no natural or moral turpitude, otherwise God, who is the author of all purity, would never, in any case, have enjoined it."-Hume's History, A.D. 1529, chap. xxx. One is not surprised at such reasoning in the mouth of an infidel, and of one who maintained that murder was only changing the current of a little red fluid called blood, and adultery no harm if it were not known. But Christian men should dread to use his arguments. In one thing he is fully as honest as they. He yields to the facts of history; and admits that such marriages are prohibited in Leviticus. His argument, as used by others, will be noticed in its proper place.

[ocr errors]

C

« PredošláPokračovať »