,transcribed from the #ahfi ,james ,parker and ,co4 edition by ,david ,price1 email ccx#jgdpglaf4org ,marriage with a ,deceased ,wife's ,sister4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,leviticus ,,xviii4 #ah1 ,,considered ,,in ,,connection ,,with ,,the ,,law ,,of ,,the ,,levirate4 99 99 99 99 99 ,a ,,letter ,,to ,,the ,,right ,,hon4 ,,the ,,lord ,,hatherley1 ,,lord ,,high ,,chancellor ,,of ,,england1 c c1 c4 ,,by ,m4 ,w4 ,,mayow1 ,m4,a41 ,,rector ,,of ,,south ,,heighton ,,cum ,,tarring ,,neville1 ,,sussex1 ,,and ,,late ,,student ,,of ,,ch4 ,,ch41 ,,oxford4 99 99 99 99 99 ,second ,edition4 99 99 99 99 99 ,london and ,oxford3 ,,james ,,parker ,,and ,,co4 ,brighton3 ,g4 ,,wakeling4 #ahfi4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,brighton3 ,g4 ,,wakeling1 ,,printer1 ,,north ,,street4 99 99 99 99 99 ,marriage with a ,deceased ,wife's ,sister4 ,a ,,letter ,,to ,,the ,,right ,,hon4 ,,the ,,lord ,,hatherley1 ,lord ,high ,chancellor of ,england1 c41 c41 c4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,my ,,lord1 ,the deep interest which for a long period you have taken in preserving intact our ,table of ,degrees as to prohibited marriages1 will1 ,i hope1 sufficiently account for my wish to address the following remarks to your ,lordship1 and your unvarying kindness will no less account for the ready permission which you have given me to do so4 ,i will not take up any time in preface further than just to observe that of course you are not in any way responsible for the views or the argument of the ensuing pages1 though ,i am1 ,i hope1 justified in believing that1 whatever be their imperfections1 the object at which they aim will meet with your sympathy and approval4 ,my earnest and anxious wish is to do what ,i may1 ,god helping me1 to aid in averting what ,i feel would be a grievous sin if our marriage law were altered in the sense desired by the promoters of the ,wife's ,sister's ,marriage ,bill4 ,i do not purpose to go over the whole ground which has been so often contested1 7to do which would be almost an impertinence in remarks addressed to your ,lordship71 but rather to confine my observations to the ,scriptural argument1 or1 perhaps ,i should say1 to a portion of the ,scriptural argument against the change proposed1 viz4--to the due sense and application of the #ahth verse of the xviii4 chapter of ,leviticus4 ,there is1 ,i suppose1 no room for reasonable doubt that the case of the advocates of a change in our law which may sanction the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister1 rests mainly1 so far as the ,scriptural argument is concerned1 upon the #ahth verse of the xviii4 chapter of ,leviticus4 8,neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister1 to vex her1 to uncover her nakedness1 beside the other1 in her life time10 where1 the translation being assumed to be correct1 the interpretation put upon it is that if such a union is forbidden in the life time of the first wife1 there is a tacit sanction of the same after her decease4 ,if it were not for this one verse thus translated and thus interpreted1 there would1 ,i think1 hardly be a question raised or a doubt felt by one in a thousand that such unions are prohibited1 denounced as incestuous1 and forbidden under ,god's general law1 just as we find them set down in ,archbishop ,parker's table of prohibited degrees4 ,the importance1 then1 of this verse being admitted as to the right understanding of ,god's will in this matter1 ,i propose briefly to call attention to some points connected with it which ,i think have not received the consideration to which they are entitled4 ,my aim will be to show1 even conceding the whole demand as to the correctness of the translation found in the ,text of our authorized version1 and not disputing the inference that there is a certain tacit sanction of such a ,union with the second sister after the death of the first1 yet that upon a careful consideration1 it may most reasonably be maintained that the sanction does not extend to any general permission of the same1 but that the enactment or permission is made and given for one special object only1 and is limited to one particular condition of things1 incident only to the ,jewish economy1 to meet which it is definitely designed and restricted2 that therefore it involves1 rightly understood1 no contradiction at all to the law laid down generally that none shall approach to any near of kin to him 7v4 #f71 nor to the cases which follow illustrating the meaning of that law 7v4 #g-ag71 nor1 therefore to the prohibitions generally1 nor to that one among them particularly1 that a woman shall not marry two brothers--extended by direct analogy to the converse case1 that a man shall not marry two sisters2 in other words1 that though the translation1 and the inference to a certain extent1 be both conceded1 yet there is an ample and true sense for the passage1 and full scope for its intention and enactment1 without its for a moment clashing with the prohibitions of the general law4 ,but first ,i would say a word to clear the position that but for this #ahth verse of the xviii4 chapter of ,leviticus1 no one would doubt1 as to the prohibition in question4 ,how does the case stand8 ,the xviii4 chapter of ,leviticus deals first 7as the heading states71 with 8unlawful marriages40 ,after declaring emphatically1 in the first five verses1 the importance of keeping ,god's law1 and warning the people against falling into the sins of the ,egyptians and the ,canaanites1 the matter itself is opened in the #fth verse--8,none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness3 ,i am the ,lord40 8,this10 as you1 my lord1 observed at the meeting at ,willis's ,rooms1 7,february #ast1 #ahfj17 8is the key-note to all that follows4 ,the law then shows who are near of kin to us1 and proceeds to mention more cases of affinity than of relationship by blood40 #e ,i am aware that it has been contended on philological grounds that the terms 8near of kin0 are necessarily confined in their sense to kindred by blood relationship1 and cannot embrace relationship by marriage2 but ,i do not feel that there is any material weight in the critical examination of such a passage1 as to the general use of a phrase or word1 because it seems to me we have here the comment of the ,holy ,ghost ,himself in what follows as to the sense in which the words 8near of kin0 are1 in the connection in which they there stand1 to be understood2 that is to say1 that which follows gives1 by the details of the enactments ensuing1 ,god's own comment as to what is intended by 8near of kin10 and if these details be found to embrace affinity as well as1 and as much as1 blood relationship1 it appears to me that the consideration of what in other cases is the usage of the term1 must be beside the question we have before us4 ,nay1 is it not1 indeed1 very probable that terms1 which in their ordinary usage would refer simply to blood relationship1 are here chosen by ,divine inspiration to include also relationship by affinity1 for the very purpose of showing that a man and his wife being one flesh1 the nearness of kin here contemplated1 and illustrated by the instances which follow1 was to embrace both relationships alike8 ,i do not know how better to shew that1 in the whole connection of this passage1 the enactment is of the kind which ,i have mentioned1 than by a quotation from the pamphlet of ,mr4 ,keble1 published in #ahdi4 ,though1 my lord1 you and others have said the same things1 you will1 ,i am sure1 bear with me whilst ,i recall the passage as it stands in the words of that revered writer4 ,after shewing the scope of the law to extend not merely to the ,jews by the curse which it entails having been brought upon the very heathen who gave way to such iniquities1 he says3-- 8,now1 what are the customs which were so abominable in the old inhabitants of ,god's ,holy ,land1 and caused the land itself to vomit them out8 7the customs1 ,i mean1 in respect of marriage3 for of the other horrors mentioned in this chapter we are not now compelled to speak47 ,they are all forbidden in one general principle3 #8,none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him1 to uncover their nakedness3 ,i am the ,lord4' ,this being laid down in the #fth verse1 the following verses allege so many instances1 whereby ,god's people might understand what #8near of kin' means4 ,and it is remarkable1 that in this enunciation the law makes no distinction between those who are akin by marriage and those who are akin by blood1 but mentions them indiscriminately1 as if the one sort were precluded from marrying under the same penalties as the other4 8,for these are the degrees expressly forbidden1 in their order4 ,first1 a natural mother1 in v4 #g4 ,next1 a father's wife1 or step-mother1 in v4 #h3 which is the case mentioned in #a ,cor4 v4 #a4 ,next1 a sister1 v4 #i4 ,next1 a grand-daughter1 v4 #aj4 ,next1 a half-sister1 v4 #aa4 ,next1 an aunt by the father's side1 v4 #ab4 ,next1 an aunt by the mother's side1 v4 #ac4 ,next1 an aunt by marriage with an uncle1 v4 #ad4 ,next1 a son's wife1 v4 #ae4 ,next1 a brother's wife1 v4 #af4 ,next1 a wife's daughter1 mother1 or grand-daughter1 v4 #ag4 8,here are thirteen cases in all3 six of kindred by blood1 and seven of kindred by marriage3 and neither by the order in which they follow one another1 nor by any difference of expression regarding them1 is any hint given1 that the one sort of profanation is less heinous in ,god's sight than the other4 ,the world may have come to think there is a difference1 because the world will not believe that man and wife are really one flesh4 ,but the written law of ,god apparently deals with both alike40 #g ,he then adds3-- 8,the next remark ,i have to make on this1 which is ,god's own table of prohibited marriages1 is one which it seems to me that no fair mind can deny4 ,indeed1 one is half ashamed to enounce it1 it is so obvious3 yet the reasoning on the other side appears to be mainly based on the denial of it4 ,it is simply this3 that nearness of kin not being affected by sex1 what is forbidden to a man is forbidden to a woman in the same degree of kindred or affinity1 though it be not set down in words4 ,for instance1 in v4 #g1 a man is forbidden to marry his mother3 then1 by the same rule1 a woman is forbidden to marry her father1 though the prohibition is not expressed4 ,surely it would be fearful paltering with ,god's law1 not to accept and obey such a plain rule as this4 ,and it is to be observed1 that these ,canons are all addressed to men only3 the woman's duty and the woman's sin are left to be inferred in each case3 but what should we think of the woman who should therefore account herself left at liberty1 so far as the ,levitical laws are concerned8 8,now look at v4 #af2 which1 being expressed in such ,english as we now commonly talk1 would run1 ,i suppose1 as follows3 #8,thou shalt not marry thy brother's widow3 she is one flesh with thy brother1 and is therefore thine own sister4' ,can any other interpretation be put upon it8 and if this be the right interpretation1 are not marriages with a brother's widow plainly forbidden among the ,canaanitish abominations80 #h ,all this appears to me not only a fair and right explanation1 with no unwarrantable deductions or inferences1 but one absolutely irrefutable1 unless ,god ,himself have marked in some other place a dispensation or exception to be made to it4 ,i know such dispensation or exception is just what is claimed4 ,to deal with such allegation is the very object of my addressing you1 and ,i shall shortly come to that part of my subject4 ,but it may not be amiss here just to call attention to the fact that ,dr4 ,m',caul himself 7whom ,i think ,i may designate as the most learned and able of the advocates for the change of the law in question7 seems to admit that1 were there no other ,scripture to override the law as thus proclaimed1 he should acknowledge the force of this part of the xviii4 chapter of ,leviticus as conclusive on the unlawfulness of marriage with the deceased wife's sister2 for he says expressly1 in his first letter on the subject1 addressed to the ,rev4 ,w4 ,h4 ,lyall1 8,on some points1 ,i think1 we agree2 as1 for instance1 that the final appeal in questions relating to marriage must be to the ,word of ,god4 4 4 4 ,i also am convinced that the laws in ,leviticus xviii41 being a part of the moral law1 stand on a totally different footing from circumcision1 or the ,jewish ,sabbaths1 or abstinence from meats4 ,indeed1 ,i believe that this marriage law was given to the ,gentile ,churches in the famous decree of the ,council of ,jerusalem4 ,on this ground1 ,i believe that the prohibitions of ,leviticus xviii4 are binding on all ,christians40 ,that is1 he believes1 that the general law then given1 as being of a moral nature1 and intended for all men1 was distinctly re-enacted1 and re-decreed for the sake of greater perspicuity1 by the ,christian ,church in the ,council at ,jerusalem4 ,and he goes on--8,i agree1 further1 with those who interpret #8woman' or #8wife' in these prohibitions as comprehending widowhood1 so that these females are prohibited1 not only during the lives of their husbands1 but absolutely and forever40 ,and he adds--8,and1 lastly1 ,i admit that from the prohibited marriages enumerated1 compared with other parts of the ,divine legislation1 others not enumerated may be pronounced unlawful40 #i ,where we may see that1 although with a certain reserve1 yet the principle of arguing from analogy1 and from a case to its converse1 in regard to sex1 appears to be admitted4 ,and ,i think ,i do not misrepresent the whole tone and sense of the two letters of ,dr4 ,m',caul1 when ,i say that ,i am convinced1 but for the #ahth verse of the xviii4 chapter1 he would himself readily have allowed the full weight of ,mr4 ,keble's statement1 and considered these unions to be absolutely prohibited4 ,but next as to the exception claimed4 ,it is true that there is an exception to the working of the law laid down in verse #af1 concerning the brother's wife1 by a positive enactment in ,deuteronomy 7chap4 xxv4 v4 #e-aj71 where provision is made for a man 8raising up seed unto his brother10 by taking to him his widow to wife1 if the brother have died childless1 that 8the first-born which she beareth0 may 8succeed in the name of his brother1 which is dead1 that his name be not put out of ,israel0 7v4 #f47 ,but ,i feel justified in saying that this alone would have been no difficulty to ,dr4 ,m',caul 7nor to any man of his reasoning powers71 as to the prevalence of the general law in all cases but the special one excepted1 and that but for the #ahth verse of the xviii4 chapter of ,leviticus1 our #iith ,canon and the table of prohibited degrees would have been almost or quite universally accepted as the true enunciation of the will and law of ,god in this matter of unlawful marriages4 ,it is1 then1 to that particular passage of ,holy ,scripture that it is necessary to draw attention4 ,and here1 my lord1 ,i must take up a word1 which ,i find in your speech before referred to1 which seems to me to be emphatically a word 8of truth and soberness40 ,you say1 8,to over-ride a command1 which is distinct and precise1 you must have a very clear verse and a very clear interpretation40 #aj ,dr4 ,m',caul quotes these words1 with a distinct approval of their statement1 though with exactly the converse of their application4 8,you believe10 he says1 8that a very clear verse and a very clear interpretation might over-ride a command1 even though it be distinct and precise1 and you are right40 ,he goes on1 8,lev4 xviii4 #af1 the verse on which you chiefly rest your ,scriptural arguments1 is1 so far as relates to marriage with a brother's wife1 distinct and precise1 and enunciates a command absolutely and without any limitation2 and yet it is over-ridden by ,deut4 xxv4 #e40 ,he means1 of course1 over-ridden as to the particular case of 8a man's raising up seed unto his brother20 but not so as to sanction the brother taking the brother's wife in any other contingency4 ,and this we1 as well as he1 allow and admit1 for who shall limit the ,almighty's right1 and power to grant or make any special exceptions to ,his general laws1 which ,he may think fit8 ,but we should have deemed it strange indeed if the whole law enacted in one place were definitely repealed in another1 whilst that law was in force among those for whom it was given and designed4 ,but so far we can well go with ,dr4 ,m',caul4 ,he proceeds1 where1 as ,i hope presently to shew1 we have no need to follow him1 and where1 indeed1 if his view were correct1 there would be the total repeal of what is stated as the law in one verse1 in the second verse after it4 ,however1 to go on1--,dr4 ,m',caul adds1 8,and therefore1 a fortiori1 your inferential prohibition with regard to a wife's sister may be over-ridden also by a clear verse and a clear interpretation4 ,if weight of authority is to decide1 ,lev4 xviii4 #ah1 is just such a verse1 and its interpretation has the required condition4 ,here1 then1 the controversy narrows itself into that which is the common and popular view of the matter3 whether the inferential prohibition from verse #af is to over-ride the expressed command of verse #ah1 or the plain letter of this latter verse to over-ride the inference from the former40 #aa ,now1 ,i shall have something further to say presently as to 8the expressed command10 and the 8plain letter of this latter verse20 but at present let me merely remark1 that we have1 at any rate1 ,dr4 ,m',caul's admission that between these two verses there is a conflict and an over-riding4 ,in his view even1 there is discrepancy4 ,what is1 in the one1 he tells us1 at least inferentially prohibited1 is1 in the other1 expressly commanded2 and this1 not in a case or manner parallel to the variation between the #afth verse1 prohibiting as the general law1 and the passage in ,deut4 xxv4 #e1 enjoining in the exceptional contingency named1 but1 on the contrary1 in a case of a universal negative met and confronted1 two verses afterwards1 by a case of a1 not exceptional1 contradictory affirmative4 ,and the only palliation of such a startling discrepancy in ,holy ,scripture is1 we are to understand1 that it is inadmissible to draw the inference from the woman being forbidden to marry two brothers1 that the man is forbidden to marry two sisters4 ,although throughout the restrictions this principle is necessary to prevent the most revolting permissions under the law1 and although1 but for the #ahth verse1 no one1 we believe1 would have dreamed of questioning it in the particular of the man and two sisters1 yet here it must be at once ignored1 or you have an absolute contradiction of commands1 in the same enunciation of law1 within two verses4 #ab ,i notice this point expressly1 because ,i think we cannot too strongly entertain the conviction of the unlikelihood of such a thing occurring thus in the word and law of ,god2 and therefore1 as a reason for the most careful examination1 whether we may not have overlooked the real scope and object of this #ahth verse1 even if we admit the correctness of the translation and of the sense4 ,observe1 there is a great distinction between the sense and the application4 ,admitting the sense1 ,i must deny the application1 as ,i shall presently shew4 ,but here let me repeat1 if there be but a fairly reasonable account to be given of the existence and application of the #ahth verse1 without its running us into the difficulty of this over-riding1 and collision with itself of ,god's law1 and if we hereby avoid the gross unlikelihood which ,i have mentioned1 then surely such account and such application ought to commend itself to every candid mind1 as at least worthy of the most serious consideration4 ,my ,lord1 ,i venture to think such account and application of the #ahth verse there is2 and though it has been touched upon by others1 and ,dr4 ,m',caul himself came very near it1 yet it appears to have been too little dwelt upon by any1 and strangely overlooked by him4 #ac;a ,let me here bring the matter once more to the point of divergence4 ,we have first the general law1 8,none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him0 7v4 #f74 ,we have then the general catalogue of prohibitions which come under this head1 and form the divine comment on the terms 8near of kin30 and these dealing1 with cases of affinity1 in a majority of the prohibitions expressed1 as compared with those of blood relationship 7v4 #g-ag47 ,all these1 moreover1 be it observed1 put in the statement as commands upon the man1 leaving the obligation upon the woman to be inferred4 ,upon this statement we have ,archbishop ,parker's table of degrees1 and of the forbidden unions1 extending exactly to the parallel cases of all those named2--with the like witness also of the #iith ,canon1 declaring all such alliances to be incestuous2--and this table required by our law1 both of ,church and ,state1 to be set up in all ,parish ,churches4 #ac;b ,but we have then the #ahth verse making1 as is alleged1 not merely an exception1 but a contradiction to the parallel case of what is forbidden in verse #af as to the brother's wife1 and permitting the union with a wife's sister1 so that it be not in the lifetime of the former4 ,we thus come to what ,dr4 ,m',caul himself considers to be a case of over-riding1 where we must determine whether 7to use again his own words7 8the inferential prohibition from verse #af is to over-ride the expressed command of verse #ah1 or the plain letter of this latter verse to over-ride the inference from the former40 #ad ,now1 what ,i am anxious to see is1 whether there is any need to force upon us this over-riding at all4 ,i think not4 ,to show what ,i mean1 ,i ask this--,take the prohibition of the brother's wife first in its plain literal terms1 verse #af1 and then is there1 independently of the #ahth verse1 any direct exception to it8 ,certainly there is4 ,when we come to the further explication of the ,jewish polity1 and ,god's designs in reference to it1 we find a special provision in the law of the ,levirate1 7that is1 the law of raising up seed to the deceased brother71 which will clash with that prohibition2 for the brother is required to take his brother's wife and raise up seed to a house in danger of becoming extinct in ,israel4 8,if brethren dwell together1 and one of them die1 and have no child1 the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger3 her husband's brother shall go in unto her1 and take her to him to wife1 and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her4 ,and it shall be1 that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead1 that his name be not put out of ,israel4 ,and if the man like not to take his brother's wife1 then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders1 and say1 ,my husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in ,israel1 he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother4 ,then the elders of his city shall call him1 and speak unto him3 and if he stand to it1 and say1 ,i like not to take her2 then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders1 and loose his shoe from off his foot1 and spit in his face1 and say1 ,so shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house4 ,and his name shall be called in ,israel1 ,the house of him that hath his shoe loosed40 ,deut4 xxv41 #e-aj4 ,in this passage there is1 not what ,i should call a contradiction to the general law1 but an exception in a particular case1 and for a particular case only4 ,it is no general permission over-riding and making of none effect the general prohibition1 but a particular injunction for a special purpose in one defined contingency4 ,if a man's brother die childless1 his brother shall take his wife and raise up seed unto his brother4 ,as it was exactly quoted in the gospel3 8,master1 ,moses said1 ,if a man die1 having no children1 his brother shall marry his wife1 and raise up seed unto his brother40 #ae ,we have already observed that the authority of ,him who gave the prohibitory law is sufficient to give also the permissive1 or more than permissive1 exception1 so that we come into no difficulty as to the one1 in such measure1 over-riding 7to use again the term7 the other4 ,but of course the opponent's rejoinder is3 ,are you not in the very same case as to the other over-riding8 ,is not the authority which gave the prohibition of the #afth verse equal to give the permission of the #ahth8 ,granting that it is so1 yet ,i must again call attention to this2 how wholly unlikely it is that1 without making any special exception1 for any suggested or defined cause1 there should be within two verses of each other two general laws exactly contradictory1 for so they are1 if the argument from parallelism is allowed4 ,and therefore ,i must again urge how probable this makes it1 if there be any other reasonable sense or application of the second passage not involving this contradiction1 that such sense and application should be the true one1 and there should be thus no over-riding at all between those two verses4 ,is there then any such reasonable sense and application of the prohibition of the #ahth verse8 ,i think there is4 ,to see what it is1 go back to the exception under the law of the ,levirate1 #af and ask whether the application of that law might not involve a man's marrying two sisters4 ,undoubtedly it might4 ,suppose two brothers to have married two sisters1 and the one brother to die1 leaving no child1 if1 by the ,leviratical law the brother1 as he would do under that law simply1 took his brother's widow to raise up seed unto his brother1 he would also be taking to wife his own wife's sister1 and this1 it would seem under the injunction in ,deuteronomy1 he would not only be permitted but enjoined to do4 ,but was this to be without exception8 ,i answer1 ,no6 ,if his own wife1 the sister of the other were still alive1 the ,almighty did not intend this rule to be carried out in such case4 ,he1 the surviving brother1 in that contingency1 should not 8take a wife to her sister to vex her1 4 4 4 beside the other in her life-time40 ,the prohibition of the #ahth verse of the xviii4 chapter of ,leviticus comes in4 ,it comes1 in the translation of the authorized version4 ,it comes1 in the sense contended for1 as prohibitory if both sisters are alive together4 ,it comes1 as tacitly sanctioning the union if they are not2 but it comes as limited in its application to this one case and one contemplated contingency1 as ,god's own exception touching the two sisters 8in their life-time30--,his exception1 as to both sisters alive together2 the exception to the exception contained in the law of the ,levirate1 but as having nothing at all to do with the general law3 as therefore in no way interfering with or over-riding the general law of the #afth verse2 in no way making its general provision of none effect1 as it would do if taken in the sense and application of these reformers of our marriage law4 ,and the above-mentioned sense and application which everyone must allow the #ahth verse will bear1 nay1 which ,dr4 ,m',caul tells us all ,jewish authorities claim and sanction1 as at least included in its legislation1 is1 ,i must contend1 ample and sufficient to explain the standing of the #ahth verse1 and its full meaning1 without supposing any other application whatsoever4 ,and let it be observed that this statement of such application to the case of two brothers having married two sisters1 and the consequent duty1 in the case of one brother dying childless1 of the other brother to take his widow under the law of ,deuteronomy1 modified by the exception of the #ahth verse of ,lev4 xviii1 that such union is not to take place1 if his own wife be still alive1 is not mine1 but ,dr4 ,m',caul's1 in a full examination of certain passages in the ,mishna upon this subject4 ,indeed it was ,dr4 ,m',caul's own statement1 in his ,letter addressed1 my ,lord1 to yourself in #ahfj1 which brought to my mind the main line of argument which ,i am endeavouring to unfold4 ,i asked myself2--,if all this in the ,mishna and in ,dr4 ,m',caul's explication of the matter1 be true1 why is it not the sufficient truth and the whole explanation needed8 ,why go on to make a conflict between the two verses in ,leviticus when the #ahth verse is acknowledged to be the enunciation of an exception to the law of the ,levirate1 and when this is a full and sufficient account of it8 ,it will1 ,i think1 be no waste of time to extract the passage to which ,i refer from ,dr4 ,m',caul's letter1 as this will serve both to make what ,i have here said the more distinct1 and shew also1 how entirely both the ,mishna and ,dr4 ,m',caul maintain all which ,i have advanced as to the application of the verse in ,leviticus to the case of the two brothers having married two sisters1 though they refuse 7at least the latter7 to stop at this point4 ,i ought to say thus much as introduction to the ,extract4 ,in his first letter ,dr4 ,m',caul had mentioned the ,mishna as confirming his view4 8,the ,mishna compiled in the second century testifies that it 7this permission of the marriage7 was the common and received sense of the ,hebraizing ,jews40 #ah ,this drew some remarks from the writer of one of the ,tracts published by the ,marriage ,law ,defence ,association1 7,tract #h1 p4 #d1 and ,appendix1 quoted also by yourself in the ,appendix to your speech17 upon the statements of the ,mishna1 which again caused ,dr4 ,m',caul in rejoinder to examine those statements and to comment upon them afresh in his letter to yourself4 ,i need not go back to the first two pamphlets4 ,dr4 ,m',caul's explanations in his second letter will shew all which ,i want to exhibit4 ,complaining of inaccurate quotation on the part of the writer of ,tract #h1 he says1 8,i will give the passages as they stand in the ,mishna1 and you1 ,sir1 may judge of the faithfulness of this writer in making quotations4 ,the words of the ,mishna are3-- 8#8,suppose three brothers1 two of them married to two sisters1 and one of them married to a stranger--one of the sister's husbands dies1 and he who is married to the stranger takes his widow--then the wife of the second dies1 and after that he that is married to the stranger dies1 behold this widow1 7i4e41 the surviving sister7 is prohibited to him for ever1 because she was prohibited to him for one hour4' 8,now1 ,sir1 you will perceive several differences between this statement of the ,mishna and that of the ,appendix4 #ast1 ,the ,appendix says1--#8,it is declared1 that if that brother's wife is his own wife's sister1 he may not marry her4' ,the ,mishna makes no such general statement1 but confines itself to a particular case4 #b;dly1 ,the reason the ,mishna gives for the prohibition of the surviving sister is that #8she had been prohibited to him for one hour1' which the ,appendix omits altogether4 #crdly1 ,the ,appendix says1 #8,and the reason assigned is1 that the man and his wife's sister are related within the degrees forbidden by the holy law to intermarry1' not one word of which is in the text of the ,mishna1 as you see4 ,the ,mishna gives the reason correctly1 she had been prohibited to the second brother for one hour1 i4e41 her widowhood commenced whilst her sister was still alive and the wife of the other brother1 in which case the ,rabbis rule that she is prohibited for ever4 8,to make this plain1 ,i will put letters as in the ,appendix3-- 8,two brothers ,a_/,b marry ,m_/,n ,two sisters4 8,a third brother1 ,c1 marries ,s1 a stranger1 i4e41 no relation4 8,a dies2 ,m is left a widow4 8,c marries ,m1 ,a's ,widow1 to fulfil a brother-in-law's duty1 which ,b could not do1 because to marry two sisters simultaneously is forbidden by ,lev4 xviii4 #ah4 ,this is the #8one hour' during which ,m is prohibited to ,b4 8,n then dies1 and ,b is left a widower2 but he is not allowed to marry ,m1 left a second time a widow1 because on the death of ,a1 whilst ,n1 his wife1 was alive1 ,m was prohibited4 ,out of this particular case1 by putting in words not in the ,mishna1 and by leaving out the words #8one hour1' which are in the ,mishna1 the writer has made a new ,rabbinic law1 unknown to the ,mishna and its commentators1 and from a particular case has drawn a general conclusion1 opposed to ,jewish law and practice4 ,for1 take the deaths in a different order1 so as to avoid the #8one hour1' and then ,b might marry ,m4 ,thus3-- 8,two brothers ,a_/,b marry ,m_/,n ,two sisters4 8,a third brother1 ,c1 marries ,s1 a stranger4 8,suppose that ,n dies first1 and after she is dead ,a dies without children1 then ,b may marry ,m1 because she had not been #8prohibited to him for one hour1' i4e41 she had not been a widow whilst his own wife was alive4 ,the second case alluded to is exactly similar3-- 8,mishna ,,iii4 #i4--#8,suppose two brothers ,a and ,b married two sisters ,m and ,n4 ,if one of the brothers ,a die1 and afterwards the wife of the second ,n die1 then the widow ,m is prohibited to the surviving brother ,b because she had been prohibited to him one hour4' 8,but suppose that ,n had died first1 and then ,a died without children1 then it would have been lawful for ,b to marry ,m1 as may be seen in ,maimonides1 ,yad ,hachazakah1 ,hilchoth ,yibbum1 ch4 vii41 #c1 #d1 where there is an analogous case4 ,the prohibition in the one case1 and the permission in the other1 depends1 not upon the words of the law1 but upon a general rule laid down by the ,rabbis2 that the lawfulness or unlawfulness1 as well as the obligation to perform the duty of a brother-in-law1 is regulated by the state of things existing at the moment when the brother died40 #bj ,i have extracted the above at full length1 because at the same time that it shews all ,i want and even more than ,i want for my purpose1 it yet also shews no contradiction to what ,i want1 whilst it shews also that ,i suppress no part of ,dr4 ,m',caul's statement or argument4 ,i say that it shews something more than ,i want1 though nothing contradictory to it2 because ,i have no need to consider either the third case of a brother marrying a stranger1 or the case of the one hour commented upon by the ,mishna1 or at least this case no further than as it brings out into the plainest prominence ,dr4 ,m',caul's own witness to the sense of ,lev4 xviii4 #ah1 that it forbids 8,b to marry ,a's widow1 because to marry two sisters simultaneously is forbidden by ,lev4 xviii4 #ah40 ,that is1 by the law of the ,levirate simply1 this would have been required1 but by the exception of the above verse it is forbidden4 #ba ,and this is what ,i mean by saying the passage shews all ,i want4 ,it proves incontestably that according to the ,mishna1 according to the ,jewish ,rabbis1 according to ,dr4 ,m',caul1 the enactment of the #ahth verse of the xviii4 of ,leviticus was inserted1 for the very purpose which ,i have all along supposed3--that it was the declaration of ,god's will1 that when the operation of the law of the ,levirate per se would bring about the brother taking his own wife's sister to wife to raise up seed unto his brother1 then the exception to the exception came in and forbade him to do so1 if her sister1 his own wife1 were alive4 ,and this is what made me say 7p4 #ac7 that ,dr4 ,m',caul came very near to the application of that text which ,i have been unfolding1 though ,i was obliged to add1 he overlooked its importance in interpreting the law as contained in ,leviticus1 for he allows that the #ahth verse of ,leviticus xviii4 reaches to1 is intended to reach to1 and to forbid1 this especial union1 which otherwise would have been enjoined by the law in ,deut4 xxv41 but it appears never to have occurred to him that this is the ample and sufficient explanation of the existence of that #ahth verse4 ,he never seems to have conceived it possible that it should be restricted to being the exception to the ,leviratical ,law1 and not be a general ,law itself4 ,i would1 my ,lord1 for many reasons1 had it so pleased ,god1 that ,dr4 ,m',caul were alive4 ,his ability and learning1 his strong sense and true piety1 and not least his willing readiness to join with those who might differ from him in many points in the defence of our common ,church and common faith against the assaults of infidelity and rationalism1 make his death a no ordinary loss to us in days like these4 ,but beyond this1 ,i own1 had it so been possible1 ,i should have liked to point out to him how his own statements1 his own authorities1 and his own reasoning had been the very means to lead me to the conclusion1 that we find a very complete and sufficient explanation of the existence and meaning of the #ahth verse of ,lev4 xviii41 without any occasion to resort to so violent an over-riding one statement of ,scripture by another1 as he has advocated4 ,and this too without having to question the ordinary translation of the verse1 or to find any difficulty in the sense of the words1 8in her lifetime40 ,all this1 at any rate for the sake of argument1 ,i seem able to concede to ,dr4 ,m',caul1 to take his own account of an application of the passage1 and only add1 that it seems to me to be the application1 and the only application needed4 ,i cannot forbear adding1 that if there be but a chance of this being so1 it makes it a most serious thing for anyone to speak lightly of the restrictions in question--not merely of this one of the brother's wife1 but of all those laid down in this chapter of ,leviticus1 or to think even of relaxing that code2 for who shall say that we shall not thus 8haply be found to fight against ,god10 and be bringing ourselves and our country under the curse of ,his ,word1 denounced against all who defile themselves in these things3 8,ye shall therefore keep ,my statutes and ,my judgments2 and shall not commit any of these abominations1 neither any of your own nation1 nor any stranger that sojourneth among you3 7for all these abominations have the men of the land done which were before you1 and the land is defiled37 that the land spue not you out also1 as it spued out the nations that were before you4 ,for whosoever shall commit any of these abominations1 even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people4 ,therefore shall ye keep ,mine ordinance1 that ye commit not any of these abominable customs which were committed before you1 and that ye defile not yourselves therein3 ,i am the ,lord40 #bc ,in these days1 my lord1 we have many things to make us anxious--many things1 ,i do not go too far in saying1 to make us tremble2 but ,i hardly know anything which should fill us more with anxiety1 fear and trembling1 than the thought that our legislature should bring us under this terrible curse of ,god1 by sanctioning1 as the act of a people among whom 8,christianity is0 still 8the law of the land10 any one of those abominations1 for which even the nations of ,canaan were cut off and spued out4 ,and as to individuals1 ,i must say1 there are to me few things more calculated to raise mixed feelings of pity1 contempt and horror1 than the levity and recklessness of some of those who are advocating the change--pity for the ignorance of many who have been misled by mere bold assertion1 contempt for the reasoning powers of others who seem never to dream of looking at any side of the question except that on which their own passions1 prejudices1 or wishes are enlisted1 and horror at the fearful temerity of those who dare approach and argue upon such a subject1 without at least a sense of its importance1 of the reverence with which all discussion relative to it should be conducted1 and an awe1 at any rate1 as to the possibility1 after all1 of ,god's law and will being in accordance with the ,church's interpretation of it for so long a time1 and wholly against the 8new thing0 which the spirit of modern lawlessness seems anxious to introduce6 ,my ,lord1 ,i have not designed or attempted to go through the whole argument on the question of the alteration of the ,marriage law as now proposed1 but have sought to confine myself to these points3 ,i4 ,that the whole strength of the case of the promoters of the change1 so far as ,holy ,scripture is concerned1 rests upon the text1 ,lev4 xviii4 #ah1 this text being taken to override the prohibition of ,lev4 xviii4 #af4 ,,ii4 ,that the contradiction of two general laws in ,god's ,word1 the one to the other1 in the course of three verses is highly unlikely and improbable2 so improbable that we are justified in expecting to find some other solution of the difficulty4 ,,iii4 ,that in the case in hand1 there is another solution falling very naturally into its place by careful comparison of ,scripture with ,scripture4 ,to sum up the general argument1 even at the risk of some repetition1 we may state it thus3-- 7i47 ,we have the general rule laid down3 8,none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him0 7verse #f74 7ii47 ,we have the instances and exemplifications of what this 8nearness of kin0 means1 all of these given directly with reference to the man1 leaving the corresponding woman's duty to be inferred 7verses #g-ag74 7iii47 ,we have the particular case of the brother's wife 7verse #af72 whereupon1 by parity of reasoning1 is inferred the prohibition of the wife's sister1 it being here to be observed1 that unless the cases of the different sex1 by parity of reason1 be taken as contemplated by the ,holy ,ghost in giving this ,scripture1 we have no written law against several most frightful kinds of incest4 #bd 7iv47 ,we have an exception to the very letter of the law as to the brother's wife1 by the injunction of the law of the ,levirate1 in the provision for preventing the extinction of a house in ,israel1 by the brother's taking his deceased brother's wife 7if he have died childless71 and raising up seed unto his brother3 this1 not in the nature of a prohibition1 but of an exceptional injunction or command4 7,deut4 xxv4 #e-aj47 7v47 ,we have an exception to the above exception1 forbidding its being extended to the taking the wife's sister in the case of the above injunction working 7as in one special case it might work71 to the result of a brother1 in taking his deceased brother's widow1 taking also1 by the same act1 his own wife's sister1 and thus1 if his own wife were still alive1 having the two sisters together as wives4 ,for this would be the case1 were there no exceptional prohibition1 when two brothers had married two sisters1 and when1 though one of the brothers had died childless1 yet both sisters were alive4 ,then there comes in the exception3 8,neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister1 to vex her 4 4 4 beside the other in her lifetime0 7verse #ah72 as if it were said1 ,in no case--no1 not when the law of the ,levirate would otherwise require it--no1 not when the saving of a house in ,israel from extinction would otherwise demand it--shall a man take his wife's sister1 his own wife1 her sister1 being yet alive3 where1 too1 we may observe1 that the parallelism in the cases of the two brothers and the two sisters is strictly and exactly maintained2 for the woman in no case could take a second brother1 the other being alive2 for her husband1 the first brother1 must be dead before the law of the ,levirate could operate at all2 therefore the wife's sister could not 7even when two brothers had married two sisters7 take her husband's brother beside the other in his lifetime1 and thus the wife's sister is exactly equally restrained from taking the sister's husband1 when the circumstances would lead to it by a man taking 8a wife to her sister 4 4 4 beside the other in her lifetime40 ,thus1 too1 it is clear that the law of this #ahth verse is a law of prohibition1 not of relaxation1 and therefore naturally and properly comes in its place with the other prohibitions of this #ahth chapter of ,leviticus4 ,and ,i venture to submit1 that this is the whole meaning and application of this much controverted verse3 viz41 that it is not in the nature of a general law at all1 but is merely the declaration of an exception to an exception--an exception to preclude two living sisters being simultaneously the wives of one man1 even when the law of the ,levirate1 but for this prohibition1 would lead to such result4 ,i must add1 that to me it seems to be a full1 natural and sufficient explanation of the passage without any further application at all1 that is1 without supposing it to have anything to do with the general law1 or to be any relaxation of the prohibition of the #afth verse as to the brother's wife1 or the converse case to it1 by analogy1 as to the wife's sister4 ,possibly the exact bearing of the foregoing argument may be made plainer by a paraphrase of the ,scriptural statements1 putting them something into the form of statute law1 by which means the different provisions of the several passages may be combined and their connection be seen1 as various provisions in the clauses or sections of an ,act of ,parliament are read together4 ,i dare say ,i shall expose myself to not unjust criticism for technical blunders1 in attempting to adopt ,act-of-,parliament phraseology2 but ,i shall be content to bear this1 if ,i may attain my main object1 viz41 to shew how the different parts of the law combine and should be read in connection with each other1 and especially what is the force and due application of what will be1 so to speak1 the last clause or section in the ,act4 ,suppose1 then1 ,god's law as to these marriages to stand in the statute-book of a ,jewish ,parliament1 imagining for the moment such to have existed4 ,might not the principal enactments stand something in this way8 ,it will be understood that a permission or tacit sanction of polygamy must be assumed1 as part of the common law of the community4 ,say1 then1 that the enactments in question stood thus3-- ,none to intermarry with those near of kin4 #a4 ,be it enacted1 that none shall inter-marry with any related to them1 whether by blood relationship or by affinity1 within the following degrees1 as set forth in the annexed schedule3-- ,schedule of ,prohibited ,degrees4 7,then suppose ,archbishop ,parker's ,table of ,prohibited ,degrees here annexed as the schedule47 ,the ,act would then continue3-- ,brother to marry deceased ,brother's ,wife1 to raise up seed to his ,brother4 #b4 ,provided always1 that1 in reference to the above prohibition of the brother taking his brother's widow1 it shall yet be lawful1 authorized and required 7under penalty of a stigma of disgrace1 to be attached to him who fails in compliance71 that in the case of a man's brother dying childless1 in order to prevent the extinction of a house in ,israel1 his brother shall take the deceased brother's wife1 and raise up seed unto his brother2 and1 therefore1 that the first-born child of such union shall succeed in the name of the brother who is dead1 and be accounted and taken by the law of this land as not of the family of the second brother1 but of the first1 and shall be the heir1 both in name and possessions1 of that deceased brother1 whose widow's child he is4 ,but none to take a wife to her sister1 beside the other in her life-time4 #c4 ,but1 inasmuch as in the case of two brothers having married two sisters1 the enactment of the preceding section might1 and1 in the event of one brother dying childless1 would1 authorize and require a man to take to wife two sisters1 his brother's widow being in such case his own wife's sister1 and whereas1 if his own wife should at such time be alive1 this might lead to rivalry and vexation1 be it further enacted1 that nothing herein enacted1 in the previous section or in any part of this ,act1 shall authorize1 permit or require any brother1 even for the purpose of saving a house and family from extinction1 to take to wife the sister of his own wife1 his said wife her sister being yet alive2 and be it therefore enacted1 that in such case1 where such would be the result of the enactment of the previous section of this ,act the provision of the said previous section shall become inoperative and of none effect1 rather than a man take a wife to her sister to vex her1 beside the other1 in her lifetime4 ,upon this illustration ,i will only ask--,would not such an ,act of ,parliament be perfectly distinct and clear8 ,could any one possibly misunderstand it8 ,would not every clause and section have its own plain and intelligible sense8 ,especially would not the last clause or section have a full and sufficient both sense and application without any man's dreaming for a single moment of there being contained in it a repeal of any portion of the table or schedule of degrees8 ,i say contained in it1 because no doubt the second section would contain something of this kind1 and yet1 be it observed1 not a repeal1 but a partial exception2 that is1 in one particular case1 and for one particular specified purpose1 the second section would modify one entry in the table1 that of the brother's wife or sister's husband 7as it is confessed on all hands1 the law of the ,levirate1 ,deut4 xxv41 does modify the law of the #afth verse of ,lev4 xviii471 but even so1 ,i must insist upon it1 not repealing it2 for the exception would operate only when the brother had died childless1 leaving the entry in the schedule in fulness of prohibition in all other cases4 ,and it is beyond all question that that modification would be due to the second and not to the third section of the ,act4 ,the third or last section would have nothing to do with any relaxation of the law1 but would be merely a restrictive provision in relation to the working of the previous section1 being1 as ,i have all along been shewing1 a narrowing1 not an enlarging the liberty given under the exception in the previous clause and having no further bearing3--therefore having nothing to do with any entry in the schedule2 nothing to do with the permission to take the brother's wife or the sister's husband1 and1 if so1 nothing at all to do with the object for which that clause1 so to speak1 is used by the promoters of the change in our law1 as proposed in the ,wife's ,sister's ,marriage ,bill4 ,moreover1 does not this account make it perfectly intelligible why the first section should remain in the integrity of its enactment1 and all the entries find their place in the schedule1 because no single entry is repealed even by the modification caused by section #b8 ,but surely it would have been absurd to enact1 or to retain in the table1 the entry as to a brother's wife or sister's husband1 if an almost immediately subsequent contradictory enactment were wholly to repeal it1 as contended by the promoters of the ,bill in question4 ,i do not know that ,i have more to add unless it be to meet briefly a possible objection from the law of the ,levirate not being found in the same place with the other two passages1 nor indeed in the same book of ,leviticus1 but in another book of ,holy ,scripture4 ,it may1 perhaps1 be asked--,is it not strange and unnatural to find the exception to an exception entered where the first exception itself is not recorded1 and perhaps even before that exception was made at all8 ,i would reply1 first-- ,if this be an objection1 it is one to which the ,mishna1 and the ,jewish ,rabbis1 and ,dr4 ,m',caul are open just as much as ,i am4 ,for they all acknowledge and maintain that upon that #ahth verse of xviii4 ,leviticus is founded the prohibition which they all claim as to the brother in the case of two brothers having married two sisters2 of the one not being permitted to obey the injunction of the law of the ,levirate1 as to taking the other's wife in the particular case of the one brother leaving a widow whilst the other brother's wife is yet living4 ,i would reply1 secondly-- ,that the objection1 from the exception in ,deut4 xxv4 not possibly having been then made1 is as nothing when the lawgiver is not man but ,god1 who knows from the beginning all which ,he intends4 #cj ,i would reply1 thirdly-- ,that a fair and reasonable account of the statements in ,leviticus xviii4 not alluding directly to the law of ,deut4 xxv41 and not in any way indicating the exception there made or to be made to the prohibition of verse #af1 is to be found in this3 that all the statements in that chapter of ,leviticus are prohibitions1 whilst the record in ,deuteronomy is a permission or indeed a command2 that1 therefore1 it is perfectly reasonable and natural that we should not find prohibitions and relaxations of the law mixed up together4 ,thus ,leviticus keeps to its prohibitions1 verse after verse1 with the warnings and denunciation of penalties proper to its subject2 and ,deuteronomy deals with its exceptional relaxation1 and the duties and consequences therewith connected4 ,and it may be just worth while to add that although the #ahth verse of ,leviticus xviii4 is an exception1 it is still in the sense and application which ,i have been enforcing1 a prohibitory not a permissive exception2 a consideration which not only shows it is in its due place among the other prohibitions1 but also strengthens the view taken in this letter of its being no more than a prohibition4 ,it prohibits the taking two sisters simultaneously1 even under circumstances which1 but for its existence1 would have required such union1 and it does not permit anything as against the laws of the #fth and #afth verses4 ,were ,dr4 ,m',caul's view1 and the view of the promoters of the alteration of our law of marriage correct1 we should at least have the anomaly of a permissive precept foisted in1 if ,i may so say1 among the prohibitory sentences of this chapter1 dealing in all else with prohibitions only4 ,for1 it is plain1 to read the verse as meaning a man may marry two sisters1 if it be not simultaneously1 is a permission upon the previous restriction2 whilst to say a man may not marry two sisters simultaneously1 even when the law of the ,levirate would seem to demand it1 is a prohibition4 ,the law of ,deuteronomy1 therefore1 7the law of the ,levirate17 being a permission or command1 not a prohibition1 makes it no marvel that that injunction is not found among the prohibitions1 whilst that the prohibitional exceptional decree of the #ahth verse of ,lev4 xviii41 should be found where it is1 among the prohibitions1 is no marvel either4 ,i would reply1 fourthly-- ,that to find the law of the ,levirate in this place in the ,book of ,leviticus would have been to find a provision solely and simply of the ,jewish economy and polity1 most unnaturally intermixed with the provisions of ,god's general moral law3--that is1 what is applicable solely to ,moses and the people under him1 confused with the law intended for all nations and people1 as witnessed by the denunciations of that chapter of the book of ,leviticus with which we have been concerned4 ,how is it possible to suppose the ,leviratical injunction of ,deuteronomy could have found a place among the things prohibited and condemned as the abominations of the ,canaanites and ,egyptians8 ,i would reply1 fifthly-- ,that if any further answer to the above objection be needed1 there is1 at least1 the general and most sufficient reply1 that we are no judges of the right collocation of different points in ,god's revelation to man4 ,when we see the fitness of anything1 even as we can judge1 we may glorify ,him and be thankful2 when we cannot1 we may and should 8put our mouth in the dust0 and be humble4 ,if things are not made more plain to us than they are1 or even are less plain than they might have been1 let us remember our state of trial1 and acknowledge that all such may be1 for ought we know1 exactly so revealed as they are1 and so placed as they are1 for our trial4 ,there is no reason why we should not be tried just as much as to difficulties put before our intellect1 as by temptations appealing to our passions2 and1 as ,bishop ,butler has remarked1 there are some men who1 but for the former1 might be found to have hardly any trial at all4 7,analogy1 ,part ii41 chapter #f47 ,if the particular objection here advanced be analyzed1 it will be found to be but this3--,why should there have been an omission of this law of the ,levirate in ,leviticus1 when1 in the same place1 there is the record of a prohibitory exception to it8 ,but who shall pretend to account for the omissions of ,holy ,scripture8 ,take but that one record in ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel of the two disciples who1 on the morning of the ,resurrection1 walked to ,emmaus1 and were met by ,jesus on the way1 as they talked of those things which had come to pass1 and were sad4 ,what can be more wonderful to our conception than what we find1 and what we do not find6 ,after their converse concerning ,jesus of ,nazareth1 which was a ,prophet mighty in word and deed before ,god and all the people1 we find that ,he himself1 8beginning at ,moses and all the ,prophets1 expounded unto them in all the ,scriptures the things concerning ,himself40 #cb ,but we do not find a single syllable of all this discourse recorded in the ,gospel4 ,if we judged by what seemed to us likely1 how sure should we feel that it would have been set down6 ,oh6 how many difficulties might have been met6 how many objections have been answered6 how many heresies have been avoided6 how great a flood of light have been thrown upon various points of history1 prophecy1 and doctrine6 and how great a guide have been given for all in life and conduct6 had it seemed good to the ,holy ,ghost to let the ,evangelist record that discourse4 ,if we judged by our sense of likelihood1 should we not say1 8,what could be so full of interest and of edification6 ,how important6 how needful for us to know what our ,lord said1 when beginning at ,moses and all the ,prophets1 ,he expounded unto them in all the ,scriptures the things concerning ,himself60 ,but not one word of it is set down1 and1 perchance1 for the very cause that it would have too much abridged our trial had we possessed such an exposition1 and that we may learn in all things not to judge amiss as to the hard things or the secret things in ,god's ,word nor to think 8,his ways are as our ways40 ,had that discourse been placed before us1 perchance there had never been an ,arian or a ,socinian in the world4 7,how good we might think it67 ,had the whole marriage law of ,god1 if we may so say1 been systematically set down in ,his holy ,word1 it may be there would have been none now to tamper with it4 7,how happy1 too1 we should think it67 ,but we might as well say1 8,how happy if ,adam had had no trial put upon him1 and so had never fallen60 ,but our duty is1 as it is1 and as ,god has thought fit to set it before us4 ,he has revealed to us ,his law and will in such manner and degree as seemed to ,him good4 ,it is our's to receive it and to seek to understand it as most humbly and reverently we may1 and1 asking ,his grace and help1 to do our best to keep it3 to keep it individually in our own lives1 and so far as ,he permits us1 to keep it from all defilement or breach in the laws of our country4 ,we call ourselves1 and rightly1 a ,christian country1 for we are1 as baptized into the body of ,christ1 ,his members4 ,let us remember1 if even carelessly1 much more if wilfully1 we go against ,his commands1 and set human law in its permission against the divine law in its prohibition1 we are rebellious against ,him who is our ,god and our ,king2 we are going back from our ,christian state and profession2 we are placing ourselves on the level of the nations--the ,egyptians and the ,canaanites--who committed all those abominations1 against which ,his curse is denounced who is 8the same yesterday and today1 and for ever40 ,i have the honour to be1 ,my ,lord1 ,your ,lordship's very faithful and humble servant1 ,m4 ,w4 ,,mayow4 ,buckingham ,road1 ,brighton1 ,july #adth1 #ahfi4 ,p4,s4--,whilst these sheets are passing through the press1 ,i am reminded of an objection taken to the whole line of the argument of my letter upon the very strength of the law of the ,levirate4 ,i am told 7and ,i think the view was touched upon in the report of the ,commission7 that there are some who deem the law of the ,levirate to be the total repeal of the prohibition as to the brother's wife 7which most certainly it is not71 and who would then go on to say1 ,and1 upon your own shewing1 after the wife's death this very law of the ,levirate will bring you to the conclusion of marrying the wife's sister4 ,i should1 perhaps1 hardly deem it necessary to notice seriously such an objection1 but that ,i hear of it as actually made or revived at the present time4 ,i will then say a few words upon it4 ,i reply2 ,consider what must be assumed1 and what must be denied1 to bring this argument in any way to bear upon the question before the ,legislature4 ,first--,it must be assumed that the law of the ,levirate is a law binding upon ,christians2 that it is a law1 not simply intended for the ,jewish economy1 but that a ,christian man is intended to take his brother's widow1 if he have died childless1 and raise up seed unto his brother4 ,secondly--,it must be assumed that this object is to be attained1 not by the taking the brother's widow1 but by taking the wife's sister1 which is the object of the ,bill1 but was not the object at all of the ,jewish legislation1 and which1 moreover1 is absolutely absurd as to the end of raising up seed unto a brother4 ,thirdly--,it must be denied that polygamy is forbidden to ,christians2 for if the brother in the case supposed have a wife previously to his brother's death1 7this wife being still alive1 but not the sister of his deceased brother's wife17 then1 according to the law of the ,levirate hereby assumed to be in force1 he must still take his brother's widow to wife to raise up seed unto his brother4 ,or1 ,fourthly1 if the argument be not carried quite so far1 and it be maintained that the brother should say1 8,i cannot take her1 lest ,i mar my own inheritance20 or1 8,i cannot take her1 as ,i have already a wife20 or1 8,i like not to take her for ,i am engaged to another20 or1 if he should for any cause refuse1 then1 at least1 if the law of the ,levirate be binding upon us 7which is the argument2 for if not1 it does not help the promoters of the ,bill at all71 the refuser should undergo the penalty provided in the case1 and we should have to witness the scene of the widow1 or the wife's sister1 calling together the elders of her city1 and loosing the shoe of her husband's brother1 or sister's husband1 and spitting in his face and saying1 8,so shall it be clone unto that man that will not to build up his brother's house20 and we should have to revive the name of 8the house of him that hath his shoe loosed40 ,no6 ,who does not see that the whole scope and intention of the law of the ,levirate was ,judaical1 and limited to and exhausted by that economy4 ,and1 therefore1 if the connection between the law of the ,levirate and the #ahth verse of ,lev4 xviii4 be established1 as ,i have endeavoured to shew it is1 it will follow that the exception to that law must belong exclusively to it and expire with it2 and1 therefore1 that the supposed permission to take the sister1 8beside the other10 if it be not 8in her life-time10 has1 as ,i have all along been arguing1 nothing to do with us as ,christians at all1 but is tied to and restrained by the law of the ,levirate1 and of the ,jewish dispensation4 ,under it1 it was lawful1 it was enjoined1 when a brother died childless1 for the brother to take his wife and raise up seed unto his brother2 and this would be lawful and enjoined in that particular case even when his brother's widow was his own wife's sister1 if his own wife1 the sister of the other were dead4 ,but among ,christians ,i cannot believe that any one seriously believes for a moment that the law of the ,levirate remains1 and so no one can suppose1 if the #ahth verse of ,lev4 xviii4 be merely the exception to that law1 that it has any bearing upon1 or gives any permission to1 ,christians in their marriages at all4 #cf ,m4 ,w4 ,m4 ,,appendix ,a4 ,the only two passages which ,i have met with taking the same line of argument with that of the foregoing letter are the following4 ,in an appendix to the ,speech of ,vice-,chancellor ,sir ,w4 ,page ,wood1 ,feb4 #ast1 #ahfj1 ,i find this comment upon the statements in the ,mishna3-- 8,the passages from the ,mishna afford singular support to the view which the ,bishop of ,oxford1 at the late meeting1 stated to be held by some divines in ,america1 viz41 that the difficult #ahth verse of the #ahth chapter of ,leviticus was1 in fact1 a special prohibition against a wife's sister being married to her brother-in-law1 even when the exceptional ,levirical law 7or law by which the brother-in-law was to raise up seed to his deceased brother7 might otherwise have appeared to supersede the general code of the #ahth chapter40 ,in an article recently reprinted from the ,church ,review1 of ,february1 #ahfa1 understood to be from the pen of the ,rev4 ,t4 ,w4 ,perry1 ,i find also this3-- 8,may it not be1 then1 that the prohibition simply related to the 7apparently7 ,patriarchal requirement 7see ,gen4 xxxviii4 #h71 enforced in ,deut4 xxv4 #e-aj 7that is1 after the ,levitical prohibitions were given71 which commanded the next kinsman to marry the widow of one who died without issue1 in order to preserve the inheritance8 ,for if the next kinsman was a brother of the deceased1 the duty of raising up seed to his brother first devolved upon him4 ,but he might refuse to perform it4 ,in that instance he underwent a kind of punishment4 ,the widow loosed his shoe and spat in his face before the elders of his city 7,deut4 xxv4 #h and #i71 and he became stigmatized as #8the house of him that hath his shoe loosed' 7v4 #aj74 ,this liberty to refuse 7see also ,ruth iii4 #ab and iv4 #f7 may have been a ,divine relaxation of the ,patriarchal rule1 designed1 perhaps1 to render more effectual the prohibition in ,lev4 xviii4 #ah4 ,but it may not improbably be1 that the penalty attached was meant to secure the custom from contempt1 by deterring the kinsman from excusing himself on grounds which the law of the ,levirate 7i4e41 the law of raising up seed to the deceased brother7 did not mean to recognize40 ,then1 after some remarks upon the jealousy or vexation likely to arise1 the writer continues3-- 8,may it not1 therefore1 have been that ,god designed1 in ,lev4 xviii4 #ah1 to provide against this evil1 which was very likely to attend upon the performance of the existing rule1 and of his own command 7then to be given7 touching the marriage of the deceased brother's wife8 8,yet1 how does this explanation meet the difficulty arising from the alleged permission contained in the words 7v4 #ah7 #8in her life-time8' ,thus--,if the next kinsman's wife were already dead1 or if she died before the kinsman's part had been done to the widow1 or after that part had been done by another kinsman1 who had died leaving the widow still childless then1 as she could not be vexed1 the widow's brother-in-law was free to marry her1 for the purpose specified in the ,levirate law40 ,and again3-- 8,since this first suggested itself to us1 we have learnt 7see ,tract x4 p4 #ba1 of the ,marriage ,law ,association7 that the ,mishna1 treating of the civil law of the ,jews as to marrying the deceased brother's wife1 says that he may not marry her if she is his own wife's sister1 and1 moreover1 that the prohibition holds good after the wife's death4 ,it is possible that this latter part of the tradition may be akin to what our ,lord called 7,s4 ,mark vii4 #i7 #8your own tradition1' and so may have tended to #8frustrate the commandment of ,god1' in ,lev4 xviii4 #ah1 by perplexing the interpretation of the words1 #8in her life-time40 ,i may add1 however1 as shewing my argument to be an independent witness to the same sense and application of ,leviticus xviii4 #ah1 that ,i had no knowledge of either of these statements when ,i sketched out the argument of the preceding letter4 ,,appendix ,b4 ,i have said that ,i have no need to enter into the question of the 8one hour0 mentioned in the ,mishna4 ,and this is certainly true1 because the question which ,i have been considering is not whether1 if a wife's sister be forbidden at all she is forbidden for ever by both being alive together at a certain time but simply whether the whole matter involved in the words 8in her life-time0 be not explained and accounted for by its being a prohibition1 narrowing the requirements of the law of the ,levirate1 and nothing more4 ,but it may be added that the statement of the ,mishna as to the 8one hour0 is certainly rather confirmatory than not of the second sister being wholly forbidden1 except under that law's provision in the case of the death of the one previous to the widowhood of the other1 because if the being forbidden for one hour forbids for ever1 the second sister1 whether herself a virgin or the widow of a stranger1 being 7like the brother's widow left a widow in her sister's life-time7 marriageable to any other man than her brother-in-law1 during all the time of her sister's married life1 7she1 ,i say17 would be all that time forbidden to him4 ,this would answer certainly to the one hour1 and if so1 under the ,rule of the ,mishna1 she would be forbidden to him for ever1 which brings us to the general prohibition under the general law4 ,whether the above inference of the ,mishna be a legitimate one from the words 8in her life-time10 that is1 that the forbidding should depend for ever upon the state of things at the time of the brother's death 7as ,dr4 ,m',caul expresses it71 ,i need not determine4 ,mr4 ,perry1 in one of the extracts above1 seems to think it might rather be one of the additions by which the ,jews frustrated 8the ,word of ,god by their tradition10 and possibly it was so4 ,but at least we may say that there appears to be a weighty moral consideration to support the view of the prohibition extending from one hour to the future life4 ,because thus1 in the case of a man finding his brother's wife a widow1 being his own wife's sister1 and perchance preferring her to his own wife1 he might otherwise be tempted to get rid of his own wife1 by divorce 7so easily obtainable as divorce became among the ,jews7 or otherwise1 if such after-release set him at liberty to marry his brother's wife1 being a widow3 a temptation be it observed not occurring as to any other woman left a widow by his brother's death1 because the tacit sanction given to polygamy under the ,jewish dispensation would in that case render it unnecessary to obtain release from his own wife at all in order to take her4 ,if the brother had died childless1 he would be enjoined to take her1 irrespectively of his own wife being alive4 ,if not childless1 he could never take her at all4 ,and this moral reason is not perhaps wholly unworthy of consideration as applying to the general question of marriage with a wife's sister in a state of things in which polygamy is forbidden4 ,if the greater intimacy arising between a man and his wife's sister might1 if unrestrained by the knowledge that she can never under any circumstances become his wife1 tend to produce attachment1 who shall say it is not a merciful and a wholesome restraint1 that she should be forbidden to him for ever8 ,and this restraint1 be it remarked1 would be wholly lost under the change in our law now sought4 ,,appendix ,c4 ,the drift of the objection considered in the ,postscript may receive an illustration from that great moral drama1 in the plot and conduct of which horror at the incestuous connection of the king with his brother's widow bears so prominent a part4 ,the case of the objector who would make the law of the ,levirate a dispensation for ,christians1 is just as if ,claudius king of ,denmark had pleaded that law1 though his brother had not died childless 7for no modern legislation proposes to regard this limitation71 as a reason for taking to wife his brother's widow2--or1 as if1 yet further1 had ,queen ,gertrude died1 leaving a sister1 he should plead again that same law 7for all modern legislation proposes to go to this extent71 to sanction his afterward taking her also to wife4 ,surely all this1 as the king says of another matter1 is 8absurd to reason40 ,,note ,,to ,,page #ab4 ,it is of much importance to mark clearly how absolute1 upon ,dr4 ,m',caul's reading of ,leviticus xviii4 #ah1 is the contradiction involved4 ,i add1 therefore3--,let it be well observed that a time beyond that expressed by the words 8in her life-time0 must be understood to be of the essence of all the prohibitions4 ,that is to say 7and the awful importance of the matter requires it to be stated plainly71 that it is incest and not adultery which is the subject of the prohibitions throughout4 ,a man is prohibited from marrying his ,mother not merely during his ,father's life time1 but always--his ,sister1 not merely1 if she be married1 and1 if so1 during her husband's life-time1 but always4 ,so of the ,brother's ,wife1 and the rest4 ,therefore according to the interpretation insisted upon1 the collision is1 as stated in the text1 a complete contradiction2 a universal negative on the one side met by a particular affirmative on the other1 just as if one should say1 negatively1 8,no horses are black10 and then immediately add1 affirmatively1 8,some horses are black40 ,for1 the statements drawn out in full1 including the case by parity of reasoning from verse #af1 would stand thus3-- ,thou shalt not take thy ,brother's ,wife1 whether in thy ,brother's life-time or not4 ,thou shalt not take thy ,wife's ,sister1 whether in her ,sister's life-time or not4 ,thou mayest take thy ,wife's ,sister1 if it be not in her ,sister's life-time4 ,such is the over-riding demanded by ,dr4 ,m',caul's position1 and necessary to the argument if this #ahth verse is to be made in any way available for the purpose of the promoters of the change in our marriage law4 ,the improbability of such a contradiction within two verses1 including an assumed change in the subject matter1 from incest to adultery1 in a continuous catalogue of the enormities denounced1 can1 as it appears to me1 hardly be exaggerated4 ,there is one consideration further to which it may be well to call attention1 viz41 that the translation of ,lev4 xviii4 #ah1 is not to be confused with its interpretation4 ,dr4 ,m',caul naturally insists much upon the translation1 and in addition to his own critical judgment1 allowed to be of great weight from his known eminence as an ,hebrew ,scholar1 he gives many authorities in favour of the rendering as it stands in the text of our authorized version4 ,still it is to be remarked that the authorities whom he cites for the translation are by no means at one with him as to the interpretation4 ,this point will be found very fully treated of in the second letter of the present ,lord ,chancellor to the ,dean of ,westminster1 printed in #ahfa1 #dj and1 if ,i remember rightly1 it was also examined and the result put very forcibly by the ,bishop of ,exeter in the postscript to his letter to the late ,bishop of ,lichfield1 published1 ,i believe1 in #ahfj1 where it is observantly noted that of all our ,reformers cited by ,dr4 ,m',caul as having accepted the authorized version as to the rendering of ,lev4 xviii4 #ah1 there is not one who has gone with him in the application of it which he advocates1 inasmuch as they have all either explicitly or implicitly received our table of prohibited degrees3 a proof that even from ,dr4 ,m',caul's premise1 as to the translation1 they have not come to his conclusion as to the interpretation4 ,and it is plainly in the interpretation1 not in the mere translation1 that the above-mentioned contradiction is involved4 ,footnotes4 #e ,speech of ,vice-,chancellor ,sir ,w4 ,p4 ,wood4 p4 #e4 #g ,against profane dealing with ,holy ,matrimony1 by the ,rev4 ,john ,keble1 pp4 #ab1 #ac4 ,j4 ,h4 ,parker4 #ahdi4 #h ,ibid4 pp4 #ac1 #ad4 #i ,letter to ,rev4 ,w4 ,h4 ,lyall1 by ,rev4 ,a4 ,m',caul1 ,d4,d41 pp4 #a-d4 ,wertheim1 ,mackintosh1 and ,hunt4 #ahei4 #aj ,speech of ,sir ,w4 ,p4 ,wood1 pp4 #e1 #f4 #aa ,dr4 ,m',caul's ,letter to ,sir ,w4 ,p4 ,wood1 #ahfj1 p4 #ee4 #ab ,see ,note at the end of ,appendix4 #ac;a ,appendix ,a4 #ac;b ,canon #ii4--8,none to marry within the degrees prohibited40 8,and all such marriages so made shall be judged incestuous and unlawful40 ,a ,table of kindred and affinity1 wherein whosoever are related are forbidden in ,scripture and our laws to marry together4--,book of ,common ,prayer4 #ad ,letter1 p4 #ee4 #ae ,st4 ,matt4 xxii4 #bd4 #af ,it may be useful just to state that the law termed the law of the ,levirate is that law laid down in ,deut4 xxv4 #e-aj1 that in case a ,jew dying childless1 his brother should take his wife and raise up seed unto his brother4 #ah ,letter to ,rev4 ,w4 ,h4 ,lyall1 p4 #ad4 #bj ,letter to ,vice-,chancellor ,sir ,w4 ,page ,wood1 p4 #bi-ca4 #ba ,appendix ,b4 #bc ,lev4 xviii41 #bj-cj4 #bd ,see ,dr4 ,pusey's ,evidence before the ,royal ,commission1 ,first ,report1 p4 #cg1 questions #dca-c4 #cj ,it is1 moreover1 evident that something of the kind of the law of the ,levirate was a usage of the ,patriarchal times1 from the history recorded as to the sons of ,judah in the book of ,genesis4 #cb ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #bg4 #cf ,appendix ,c4 #dj ,second ,letter of ,vice-,chancellor ,sir ,w4 ,page ,wood1 pp4 #dg-fc4