diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 19:07:01 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 19:07:01 -0700 |
| commit | df8150eb30425b3076c9549dbf8cfa3d0bb6903d (patch) | |
| tree | c1bff7a380600dfcac00f5c4b8866def9fabfdf8 /48892-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '48892-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 48892-h/48892-h.htm | 1987 |
1 files changed, 1987 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/48892-h/48892-h.htm b/48892-h/48892-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5f338f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/48892-h/48892-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,1987 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>Marriage with a deceased wife's sister, by Mayow Wynell Mayow</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;} + P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; } + .GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4, H5 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + table { border-collapse: collapse; } +table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} + td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} + td p { margin: 0.2em; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-weight: normal; + color: gray; + } + img { border: none; } + img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; } + p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; } + div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; } + div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;} + div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; + margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid; } + div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%; + margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + img.floatleft { float: left; + margin-right: 1em; + margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.floatright { float: right; + margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.clearcenter {display: block; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em} + --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg eBook, Marriage with a deceased wife's sister, by +Mayow Wynell Mayow + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most +other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of +the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have +to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. + + + + +Title: Marriage with a deceased wife's sister + Leviticus xviii. 18, considered in connection with the Law of the Levirate + + +Author: Mayow Wynell Mayow + + + +Release Date: May 7, 2015 [eBook #48892] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S +SISTER*** +</pre> +<p>Transcribed from the 1869 James Parker and Co. edition by +David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<h1>Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister.</h1> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">LEVITICUS XVIII. 18,<br /> +CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW<br /> +OF THE LEVIRATE.</p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">A LETTER<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">TO</span><br /> +THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD HATHERLEY,<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND,</span><br +/> +<span class="GutSmall">&c„ &c, &c.</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span +class="GutSmall">BY</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center">M. W. MAYOW, M.A.,</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">RECTOR OF +SOUTH HEIGHTON CUM TARRING NEVILLE, SUSSEX,</span><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">AND LATE STUDENT OF CH. CH., +OXFORD.</span></p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">Second Edition.</p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">London and Oxford: JAMES PARKER AND +CO.<br /> +Brighton: G. WAKELING.<br /> +1869.</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><a name="page2"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 2</span><span +class="GutSmall">BRIGHTON:</span><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">G. WAKELING, PRINTER,</span><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">NORTH STREET.</span></p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<h2><a name="page3"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 3</span>Marriage +with a Deceased Wife’s Sister.</h2> +<p style="text-align: center">A LETTER<br /> +TO THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD HATHERLEY,<br /> +<i>Lord High Chancellor of England</i>,<br /> +<i>&c.</i>, <i>&c.</i>, <i>&c.</i></p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">My Lord</span>,</p> +<p>The deep interest which for a long period you have taken in +preserving intact our Table of Degrees as to prohibited +marriages, will, I hope, sufficiently account for my wish to +address the following remarks to your Lordship, and your +unvarying kindness will no less account for the ready permission +which you have given me to do so. 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 pages, though I am, I hope, justified in believing +that, whatever be their imperfections, the object at which they +aim will meet with your sympathy and approval. My earnest +and anxious wish is to do what I may, God helping me, 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 Bill. I do not purpose +to go over the whole ground which has been so often contested, +(to do which would be almost an impertinence in remarks addressed +to your Lordship), but rather to confine my observations to the +Scriptural <a name="page4"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +4</span>argument, or, perhaps I should say, to a portion of the +Scriptural argument against the change proposed, viz.—to +the due sense and application of the 18th verse of the xviii. +chapter of Leviticus.</p> +<p>There is, I suppose, 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 sister, +rests mainly, so far as the Scriptural argument is concerned, +upon the 18th verse of the xviii. chapter of Leviticus. +“Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, +to uncover her nakedness, beside the other, in her life +time,” where, the translation being assumed to be correct, +the interpretation put upon it is that if such a union is +forbidden in the life time of the first wife, there is a tacit +sanction of the same after her decease. If it were not for +this one verse thus translated and thus interpreted, there would, +I think, hardly be a question raised or a doubt felt by one in a +thousand that such unions are prohibited, denounced as +incestuous, and forbidden under God’s general law, just as +we find them set down in Archbishop Parker’s table of +prohibited degrees.</p> +<p>The importance, then, of this verse being admitted as to the +right understanding of God’s will in this matter, I propose +briefly to call attention to some points connected with it which +I think have not received the consideration to which they are +entitled. My aim will be to show, even conceding the whole +demand as to the correctness of the translation found in the Text +of our authorized version, 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 first, yet that upon a careful +consideration, it may most reasonably be maintained that the +sanction does not extend to any general permission of the same, +but that the enactment or permission is made <a +name="page5"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 5</span>and given for +one special object only, and is limited to one particular +condition of things, incident only to the Jewish economy, to meet +which it is definitely designed and restricted; that therefore it +involves, rightly understood, no contradiction at all to the law +laid down generally that none shall approach to any near of kin +to him (v. 6), nor to the cases which follow illustrating the +meaning of that law (v. 7–17), nor, therefore to the +prohibitions generally, nor to that one among them particularly, +that a woman shall not marry two brothers—extended by +direct analogy to the converse case, that a man shall not marry +two sisters; in other words, that though the translation, and the +inference to a certain extent, be both conceded, yet there is an +ample and true sense for the passage, and full scope for its +intention and enactment, without its for a moment clashing with +the prohibitions of the general law.</p> +<p>But first I would say a word to clear the position that but +for this 18th verse of the xviii. chapter of Leviticus, no one +would doubt, as to the prohibition in question.</p> +<p>How does the case stand? The xviii. chapter of Leviticus +deals first (as the heading states), with “unlawful +marriages.” After declaring emphatically, in the +first five verses, the importance of keeping God’s law, and +warning the people against falling into the sins of the Egyptians +and the Canaanites, the matter itself is opened in the 6th +verse—“None of you shall approach to any that is near +of kin to him to uncover their nakedness: I am the +Lord.” “This,” as you, my lord, observed +at the meeting at Willis’s Rooms, (February 1st, 1860,) +“is the key-note to all that follows. The law then +shows who are near of kin to us, and proceeds to mention more +cases of affinity than of relationship by blood.” <a +name="citation5"></a><a href="#footnote5" +class="citation">[5]</a> I am aware that it has been +contended on philological grounds that the terms “near of +kin” are <a name="page6"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +6</span>necessarily confined in their sense to kindred by blood +relationship, and cannot embrace relationship by marriage; but I +do not feel that there is any material weight in the critical +examination of such a passage, as to the general use of a phrase +or word, 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 “near of kin” are, in the connection in which +they there stand, to be understood; that is to say, that which +follows gives, by the details of the enactments ensuing, +God’s own comment as to what is intended by “near of +kin,” and if these details be found to embrace affinity as +well as, and as much as, blood relationship, it appears to me +that the consideration of what in other cases is the usage of the +term, must be beside the question we have before us. Nay, +is it not, indeed, very probable that terms, which in their +ordinary usage would refer simply to blood relationship, are here +chosen by Divine inspiration to include also relationship by +affinity, for the very purpose of showing that a man and his wife +being one flesh, the nearness of kin here contemplated, and +illustrated by the instances which follow, was to embrace both +relationships alike? I do not know how better to shew that, +in the whole connection of this passage, the enactment is of the +kind which I have mentioned, than by a quotation from the +pamphlet of Mr. Keble, published in 1849. Though, my lord, +you and others have said the same things, you will, I am sure, +bear with me whilst I recall the passage as it stands in the +words of that revered writer. 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 iniquities, he says:—</p> +<blockquote><p>“Now, what are the customs which were so +abominable in the old inhabitants of God’s Holy Land, and +caused the <a name="page7"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +7</span>land itself to vomit them out? (the customs, I mean, in +respect of marriage: for of the other horrors mentioned in this +chapter we are not now compelled to speak.) They are all +forbidden in one general principle: ‘None of you shall +approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their +nakedness: I am the Lord.’ This being laid down in +the 6th verse, the following verses allege so many instances, +whereby God’s people might understand what ‘near of +kin’ means. And it is remarkable, that in this +enunciation the law makes no distinction between those who are +akin by marriage and those who are akin by blood, but mentions +them indiscriminately, as if the one sort were precluded from +marrying under the same penalties as the other.</p> +<p>“For these are the degrees expressly forbidden, in their +order. First, a natural mother, in v. 7. Next, a +father’s wife, or step-mother, in v. 8: which is the case +mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 1. Next, a sister, v. 9. Next, +a grand-daughter, v. 10. Next, a half-sister, v. 11. +Next, an aunt by the father’s side, v. 12. Next, an +aunt by the mother’s side, v. 13. Next, an aunt by +marriage with an uncle, v. 14. Next, a son’s wife, v. +15. Next, a brother’s wife, v. 16. Next, a +wife’s daughter, mother, or grand-daughter, v. 17.</p> +<p>“Here are thirteen cases in all: six of kindred by +blood, and seven of kindred by marriage: and neither by the order +in which they follow one another, nor by any difference of +expression regarding them, is any hint given, that the one sort +of profanation is less heinous in God’s sight than the +other. The world may have come to think there is a +difference, because the world will not believe that man and wife +are really one flesh. But the written law of God apparently +deals with both alike.” <a name="citation7"></a><a +href="#footnote7" class="citation">[7]</a></p> +</blockquote> +<p><a name="page8"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 8</span>He then +adds:—</p> +<blockquote><p>“The next remark I have to make on this, +which is God’s own table of prohibited marriages, is one +which it seems to me that no fair mind can deny. Indeed, +one is half ashamed to enounce it, it is so obvious: yet the +reasoning on the other side appears to be mainly based on the +denial of it. It is simply this: that nearness of kin not +being affected by sex, what is forbidden to a man is forbidden to +a woman in the same degree of kindred or affinity, though it be +not set down in words. For instance, in v. 7, a man is +forbidden to marry his mother: then, by the same rule, a woman is +forbidden to marry her father, though the prohibition is not +expressed. Surely it would be fearful paltering with +God’s law, not to accept and obey such a plain rule as +this. And it is to be observed, that these Canons are all +addressed to men only: the woman’s duty and the +woman’s sin are left to be inferred in each case: but what +should we think of the woman who should therefore account herself +left at liberty, so far as the Levitical laws are concerned?</p> +<p>“Now look at v. 16; which, being expressed in such +English as we now commonly talk, would run, I suppose, as +follows: ‘Thou shalt not marry thy brother’s widow: +she is one flesh with thy brother, and is therefore thine own +sister.’ Can any other interpretation be put upon it? +and if this be the right interpretation, are not marriages with a +brother’s widow plainly forbidden among the Canaanitish +abominations?” <a name="citation8"></a><a href="#footnote8" +class="citation">[8]</a></p> +</blockquote> +<p>All this appears to me not only a fair and right explanation, +with no unwarrantable deductions or inferences, but one +absolutely irrefutable, unless God Himself have marked in some +other place a dispensation or exception to be made to it. I +know such dispensation or exception is just what is +claimed. To deal with such allegation is the very object <a +name="page9"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 9</span>of my +addressing you, and I shall shortly come to that part of my +subject. But it may not be amiss here just to call +attention to the fact that Dr. M’Caul himself (whom I think +I may designate as the most learned and able of the advocates for +the change of the law in question) seems to admit that, were +there no other Scripture to override the law as thus proclaimed, +he should acknowledge the force of this part of the xviii. +chapter of Leviticus as conclusive on the unlawfulness of +marriage with the deceased wife’s sister; for he says +expressly, in his first letter on the subject, addressed to the +Rev. W. H. Lyall, “On some points, I think, we agree; as, +for instance, that the final appeal in questions relating to +marriage must be to the Word of God. . . . I also am convinced +that the laws in Leviticus xviii., being a part of the moral law, +stand on a totally different footing from circumcision, or the +Jewish Sabbaths, or abstinence from meats. Indeed, I +believe that this marriage law was given to the Gentile Churches +in the famous decree of the Council of Jerusalem. On this +ground, I believe that the prohibitions of Leviticus xviii. are +binding on all Christians.” That is, he believes, +that the general law then given, as being of a moral nature, and +intended for all men, was distinctly re-enacted, and re-decreed +for the sake of greater perspicuity, by the Christian Church in +the Council at Jerusalem. And he goes on—“I +agree, further, with those who interpret ‘woman’ or +‘wife’ in these prohibitions as comprehending +widowhood, so that these females are prohibited, not only during +the lives of their husbands, but absolutely and +forever.” And he adds—“And, lastly, I +admit that from the prohibited marriages enumerated, compared +with other parts of the Divine legislation, others not enumerated +may be pronounced unlawful.” <a name="citation9"></a><a +href="#footnote9" class="citation">[9]</a> Where we may see +that, although with a certain <a name="page10"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 10</span>reserve, yet the principle of arguing +from analogy, and from a case to its converse, in regard to sex, +appears to be admitted. And I think I do not misrepresent +the whole tone and sense of the two letters of Dr. M’Caul, +when I say that I am convinced, but for the 18th verse of the +xviii. chapter, he would himself readily have allowed the full +weight of Mr. Keble’s statement, and considered these +unions to be absolutely prohibited.</p> +<p>But next as to the exception claimed. It is true that +there is an exception to the working of the law laid down in +verse 16, concerning the brother’s wife, by a positive +enactment in Deuteronomy (chap. xxv. v. 5–10), where +provision is made for a man “raising up seed unto his +brother,” by taking to him his widow to wife, if the +brother have died childless, that “the first-born which she +beareth” may “succeed in the name of his brother, +which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel” (v. +6.) But I feel justified in saying that this alone would +have been no difficulty to Dr. M’Caul (nor to any man of +his reasoning powers), as to the prevalence of the general law in +all cases but the special one excepted, and that but for the 18th +verse of the xviii. chapter of Leviticus, our 99th 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 marriages.</p> +<p>It is, then, to that particular passage of Holy Scripture that +it is necessary to draw attention. And here, my lord, I +must take up a word, which I find in your speech before referred +to, which seems to me to be emphatically a word “of truth +and soberness.” You say, “To over-ride a +command, which is distinct and precise, you must have a very +clear verse and a very clear interpretation.” <a +name="citation10"></a><a href="#footnote10" +class="citation">[10]</a> Dr. M’Caul quotes these +words, with a distinct approval of their <a +name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 11</span>statement, +though with exactly the converse of their application. +“You believe,” he says, “that a very clear +verse and a very clear interpretation might over-ride a command, +even though it be distinct and precise, and you are +right.” He goes on, “Lev. xviii. 16, the verse +on which you chiefly rest your Scriptural arguments, is, so far +as relates to marriage with a brother’s wife, distinct and +precise, and enunciates a command absolutely and without any +limitation; and yet it is over-ridden by Deut. xxv. +5.” He means, of course, over-ridden as to the +particular case of “a man’s raising up seed unto his +brother;” but not so as to sanction the brother taking the +brother’s wife in any other contingency. And this we, +as well as he, allow and admit, for who shall limit the +Almighty’s right, and power to grant or make any special +exceptions to His general laws, which He may think fit? But +we should have deemed it strange indeed if the whole law enacted +in one place were definitely repealed in another, whilst that law +was in force among those for whom it was given and +designed. But so far we can well go with Dr. +M’Caul. He proceeds, where, as I hope presently to +shew, we have no need to follow him, and where, indeed, if his +view were correct, there <i>would be</i> the total repeal of what +is stated as the law in one verse, in the second verse after +it. However, to go on,—Dr. M’Caul adds, +“And therefore, <i>a fortiori</i>, your inferential +prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister may be +over-ridden also by a clear verse and a clear +interpretation. If weight of authority is to decide, Lev. +xviii. 18, is just such a verse, and its interpretation has the +required condition. Here, then, the controversy narrows +itself into that which is the common and popular view of the +matter: whether the inferential prohibition from verse 16 is to +over-ride the expressed command of verse 18, or the plain letter +of this latter verse to over-ride the inference from the +former.” <a name="citation11"></a><a href="#footnote11" +class="citation">[11]</a> Now, I shall <a +name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 12</span>have +something further to say presently as to “the expressed +command,” and the “plain letter of this latter +verse;” but at present let me merely remark, that we have, +at any rate, Dr. M’Caul’s admission that between +these two verses there <i>is a conflict and an +over-riding</i>. In his view even, there is +discrepancy. What is, in the one, he tells us, at least +inferentially prohibited, is, in the other, expressly commanded; +and this, not in a case or manner parallel to the variation +between the 16th verse, <i>prohibiting</i> as the general law, +and the passage in Deut. xxv. 5, <i>enjoining</i> in the +exceptional contingency named, but, on the contrary, in a case of +a universal negative met and confronted, two verses afterwards, +by a case of a, not exceptional, contradictory affirmative. +And the only palliation of such a startling discrepancy in Holy +Scripture is, we are to understand, that it is inadmissible to +draw the inference from the woman being forbidden to marry two +brothers, that the man is forbidden to marry two sisters. +Although throughout the restrictions this principle is necessary +to prevent the most revolting permissions under the law, and +although, but for the 18th verse, no one, we believe, would have +dreamed of questioning it in the particular of the man and two +sisters, yet here it must be at once ignored, or you have an +absolute contradiction of commands, in the same enunciation of +law, within two verses. <a name="citation12"></a><a +href="#footnote12" class="citation">[12]</a> I notice this +point expressly, because I think we cannot too strongly entertain +the conviction of the <i>unlikelihood</i> of such a thing +occurring thus in the word and law of God; and therefore, as a +reason for the most careful examination, whether we may not have +overlooked the real scope and object of this 18th verse, even if +we admit the correctness of the translation and of the +sense. Observe, there is a great distinction between the +sense and the application. Admitting the sense, I must deny +the application, as I shall presently shew. But here <a +name="page13"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 13</span>let me +repeat, if there be but a fairly reasonable account to be given +of the existence and application of the 18th verse, without its +running us into the difficulty of this over-riding, and collision +with itself of God’s law, and if we hereby avoid the gross +unlikelihood which I have mentioned, then surely such account and +such application ought to commend itself to every candid mind, as +at least worthy of the most serious consideration.</p> +<p>My Lord, I venture to think such account and application of +the 18th verse there is; and though it has been touched upon by +others, and Dr. M’Caul himself came very near it, yet it +appears to have been too little dwelt upon by any, and strangely +overlooked by him. <a name="citation13a"></a><a +href="#footnote13a" class="citation">[13a]</a></p> +<p>Let me here bring the matter once more to the point of +divergence. We have first the general law, “None of +you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him” (v. +6). We have then the general catalogue of prohibitions +which come under this head, and form the divine comment on the +terms “near of kin:” and these dealing, with cases of +affinity, in a majority of the prohibitions expressed, as +compared with those of blood relationship (v. 7–17.) +All these, moreover, be it observed, put in the statement as +commands upon the <i>man</i>, leaving the obligation upon the +<i>woman</i> to be inferred. Upon this statement we have +Archbishop Parker’s table of degrees, and of the forbidden +unions, extending exactly to the parallel cases of all those +named;—with the like witness also of the 99th Canon, +declaring all such alliances to be incestuous;—and this +table required by our law, both of Church and State, to be set up +in all Parish Churches. <a name="citation13b"></a><a +href="#footnote13b" class="citation">[13b]</a> But we have +then the 18th verse making, as is alleged, not merely an +exception, but a contradiction to the parallel case of what is +forbidden in verse 16 as to the brother’s <a +name="page14"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 14</span>wife, and +permitting the union with a wife’s sister, so that it be +not in the lifetime of the former. We thus come to what Dr. +M’Caul himself considers to be a case of +<i>over-riding</i>, where we must determine whether (to use again +his own words) “the inferential prohibition from verse 16 +is to over-ride the expressed command of verse 18, or the plain +letter of this latter verse to over-ride the inference from the +former.” <a name="citation14"></a><a href="#footnote14" +class="citation">[14]</a></p> +<p>Now, what I am anxious to see is, whether there is any need to +force upon us this <i>over-riding</i> at all. I think +not.</p> +<p>To show what I mean, I ask this—Take the prohibition of +the brother’s wife first in its plain literal terms, verse +16, and then is there, independently of the 18th verse, any +direct exception to it? Certainly there is. When we +come to the further explication of the Jewish polity, and +God’s designs in reference to it, we find a special +provision in the law of the Levirate, (that is, the law of +raising up seed to the deceased brother), which will clash with +that prohibition; for the brother is required to take his +brother’s wife and raise up seed to a house in danger of +becoming extinct in Israel. “If brethren dwell +together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the +dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s +brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and +perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. +And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall +succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name +be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take +his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up +to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother +refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will +not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. Then +the elders of his city <a name="page15"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 15</span>shall call him, and speak unto him: +and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; then +shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of +the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his +face, and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not +build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be +called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe +loosed.” Deut. xxv., 5–10.</p> +<p>In this passage there is, not what I should call a +contradiction to the general law, but an exception in a +particular case, and for a particular case only. It is no +general permission over-riding and making of none effect the +general prohibition, but a particular injunction for a special +purpose in one defined contingency. If a man’s +brother die childless, his brother shall take his wife and raise +up seed unto his brother. As it was exactly quoted in the +gospel: “Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no +children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed +unto his brother.” <a name="citation15"></a><a +href="#footnote15" class="citation">[15]</a></p> +<p>We have already observed that the authority of Him who gave +the prohibitory law is sufficient to give also the permissive, or +more than permissive, exception, so that we come into no +difficulty as to the one, in such measure, <i>over-riding</i> (to +use again the term) the other.</p> +<p>But of course the opponent’s rejoinder is: Are you not +in the very same case as to the other over-riding? Is not +the authority which gave the prohibition of the 16th verse equal +to give the permission of the 18th?</p> +<p>Granting that it is so, yet I must again call attention to +this; how wholly unlikely it is that, without making any special +exception, for any suggested or defined cause, there should be +within two verses of each other two general laws exactly +contradictory, for so they are, if the argument from parallelism +is allowed. And therefore I must again urge how <a +name="page16"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 16</span>probable this +makes it, if there be any other reasonable sense or application +of the second passage not involving this contradiction, that such +sense and application should be the true one, and there should be +thus no over-riding at all between those two verses.</p> +<p>Is there then any such reasonable sense and application of the +prohibition of the 18th verse? I think there is. To +see what it is, go back to the exception under the law of the +Levirate, <a name="citation16"></a><a href="#footnote16" +class="citation">[16]</a> and ask whether the application of that +law might not involve a man’s marrying two sisters. +Undoubtedly it might. Suppose two brothers to have married +two sisters, and the one brother to die, leaving no child, if, by +the Leviratical law the brother, as he would do under that law +simply, took his brother’s widow to raise up seed unto his +brother, he would also be taking to wife his own wife’s +sister, and this, it would seem under the injunction in +Deuteronomy, he would not only be permitted but enjoined to +do. But was this to be without exception? I answer, +No! If his own wife, the sister of the other were still +alive, the Almighty did not intend this rule to be carried out in +such case. He, the surviving brother, in that contingency, +should <i>not</i> “take a wife to her sister to vex her, . +. . beside the other in her life-time.” The +prohibition of the 18th verse of the xviii. chapter of Leviticus +comes in. It comes, in the translation of the authorized +version. It comes, in the sense contended for, as +prohibitory if both sisters are alive together. It comes, +as tacitly sanctioning the union if they are not; but it comes as +limited in its application to this one case and one contemplated +contingency, as God’s own exception touching the two +sisters “in their life-time:”—His exception, as +to both sisters alive together; the exception to the exception +contained in the <a name="page17"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +17</span>law of the Levirate, but as having nothing at all to do +with the general law: as therefore in no way interfering with or +over-riding the general law of the 16th verse; in no way making +its general provision of none effect, as it would do if taken in +the sense and application of these reformers of our marriage +law. And the above-mentioned sense and application which +everyone must allow the 18th verse will bear, nay, which Dr. +M’Caul tells us all Jewish authorities claim and sanction, +as at least included in its legislation, is, I must contend, +ample and sufficient to explain the standing of the 18th verse, +and its full meaning, without supposing any other application +whatsoever.</p> +<p>And let it be observed that this statement of such application +to the case of two brothers having married two sisters, and the +consequent duty, in the case of one brother dying childless, of +the other brother to take his widow under the law of Deuteronomy, +modified by the exception of the 18th verse of Lev. xviii, that +such union is not to take place, if his own wife be still alive, +is not mine, but Dr. M’Caul’s, in a full examination +of certain passages in the Mishna upon this subject. Indeed +it was Dr. M’Caul’s own statement, in his Letter +addressed, my Lord, to yourself in 1860, which brought to my mind +the main line of argument which I am endeavouring to +unfold. I asked myself;—If all this in the Mishna and +in Dr. M’Caul’s explication of the matter, be true, +why is it not the sufficient truth and the whole explanation +needed? Why go on to make a conflict between the two verses +in Leviticus when the 18th verse is acknowledged to be the +enunciation of an exception to the law of the Levirate, and when +this is a full and sufficient account of it?</p> +<p>It will, I think, be no waste of time to extract the passage +to which I refer from Dr. M’Caul’s letter, as this +will serve both to make what I have here said the more <a +name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 18</span>distinct, and +shew also, how entirely both the Mishna and Dr. 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 sisters, though they refuse (at least the latter) to stop at +this point.</p> +<p>I ought to say thus much as introduction to the Extract. +In his first letter Dr. M’Caul had mentioned the Mishna as +confirming his view. “The Mishna compiled in the +second century testifies that it (this permission of the +marriage) was the common and received sense of the Hebraizing +Jews.” <a name="citation18"></a><a href="#footnote18" +class="citation">[18]</a> This drew some remarks from the +writer of one of the Tracts published by the Marriage Law Defence +Association, (Tract 8, p. 4, and Appendix, quoted also by +yourself in the Appendix to your speech,) upon the statements of +the Mishna, which again caused Dr. M’Caul in rejoinder to +examine those statements and to comment upon them afresh in his +letter to yourself. I need not go back to the first two +pamphlets. Dr. M’Caul’s explanations in his +second letter will shew all which I want to exhibit. +Complaining of inaccurate quotation on the part of the writer of +Tract 8, he says,</p> +<blockquote><p>“I will give the passages as they stand in +the Mishna, and you, Sir, may judge of the faithfulness of this +writer in making quotations. The words of the Mishna +are:—</p> +<p>“‘Suppose three brothers, two of them married to +two sisters, and one of them married to a stranger—one of +the sister’s husbands dies, and he who is married to the +stranger takes his widow—then the wife of the second dies, +and after that he that is married to the stranger dies, behold +this <i>widow</i>, (<i>i.e.</i>, the surviving sister) is +prohibited to him for ever, because she was prohibited to him for +<i>one hour</i>.’</p> +<p>“Now, Sir, you will perceive several differences between +this statement of the Mishna and that of the Appendix. 1st, +The Appendix says,—‘It is declared, that if that <a +name="page19"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +19</span><i>brother’s wife is his own wife’s +sister</i>, <i>he may not marry her</i>.’ The Mishna +makes no such general statement, but confines itself to a +particular case. 2dly, The reason the Mishna gives for the +prohibition of the surviving sister is that ‘she had been +prohibited to him <i>for one hour</i>,’ which the Appendix +omits altogether. 3rdly, The Appendix says, ‘And the +reason assigned is, that <i>the man and his wife’s +sister</i> are related <i>within the degrees forbidden by the +holy law</i> to intermarry,’ not one word of which is in +the text of the Mishna, as you see. The Mishna gives the +reason correctly, <i>she had been prohibited to the second +brother for one hour</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, her widowhood commenced +whilst her sister was still alive and the wife of the other +brother, in which case the <i>Rabbis</i> rule that she is +prohibited for ever.</p> +<p>“To make this plain, I will put letters as in the +Appendix:—</p> +<p>“Two brothers | A/B | marry | M/N | Two sisters.</p> +<p>“A third brother, C, marries S, a stranger, <i>i.e.</i>, +no relation.</p> +<p>“A dies; M is left a widow.</p> +<p>“C marries M, A’s Widow, to fulfil a +brother-in-law’s duty, which B could not do, because to +marry two sisters simultaneously is forbidden by Lev. xviii. +18. This is the ‘one hour’ during which M is +prohibited to B.</p> +<p>“N then dies, and B is left a widower; but he is not +allowed to marry M, left a second time a widow, because on the +death of A, whilst N, his wife, was alive, M was +prohibited. Out of this particular case, by putting in +words not in the Mishna, and by leaving out the words ‘one +hour,’ which are in the Mishna, the writer has made a new +Rabbinic law, unknown to the Mishna and its commentators, and +from a particular case has drawn a general conclusion, opposed to +Jewish law and practice. For, take the <a +name="page20"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 20</span>deaths in a +different order, so as to avoid the ‘one hour,’ and +then B might marry M. Thus:—</p> +<p>“Two brothers | A/B | marry | M/N | Two sisters.</p> +<p>“A third brother, C, marries S, a stranger.</p> +<p>“Suppose that N dies first, and after she is dead A dies +without children, then B may marry M, because she had not been +‘prohibited to him for <i>one hour</i>,’ <i>i.e.</i>, +she had not been a widow whilst his own wife was alive. The +second case alluded to is exactly similar:—</p> +<p>“Mishna III. 9.—‘Suppose two brothers [A and +B] married two sisters [M and N]. If one of the brothers +[A] die, and afterwards the wife of the second [N] die, then the +widow [M] is prohibited to the surviving brother [B] because she +had been prohibited to him <i>one hour</i>.’</p> +<p>“But suppose that N had died first, and then A died +without children, then it would have been lawful for B to marry +M, as may be seen in Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, Hilchoth Yibbum, +ch. vii., § 3, 4, where there is an analogous case. +The prohibition in the one case, and the permission in the other, +depends, not upon the words of the law, but upon a general rule +<i>laid down by the Rabbis</i>; that the lawfulness or +unlawfulness, as well as the obligation to perform the duty of a +brother-in-law, is regulated by the state of things existing at +the moment when the brother died.” <a +name="citation20"></a><a href="#footnote20" +class="citation">[20]</a></p> +</blockquote> +<p>I have extracted the above at full length, because at the same +time that it shews all I want and even more than I want for my +purpose, it yet also shews no contradiction to what I want, +whilst it shews also that I suppress no part of Dr. +M’Caul’s statement or argument. I say that it +shews something more than I want, though nothing contradictory to +it; because I have no need to consider either the third case of a +brother marrying a stranger, <a name="page21"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 21</span>or the case of the <i>one hour</i> +commented upon by the Mishna, or at least this case no further +than as it brings out into the plainest prominence Dr. +M’Caul’s own witness to the sense of Lev. xviii. 18, +that it forbids “B to marry A’s widow, because <i>to +marry two sisters simultaneously is forbidden by Lev. xviii.</i> +18.” That is, by the law of the Levirate simply, this +would have been required, but by the exception of the above verse +it is forbidden. <a name="citation21"></a><a href="#footnote21" +class="citation">[21]</a></p> +<p>And this is what I mean by saying the passage shews all I +want. It proves incontestably that according to the Mishna, +according to the Jewish Rabbis, according to Dr. M’Caul, +the enactment of the 18th verse of the xviii. of Leviticus was +inserted, for the very purpose which I have all along +supposed:—that it was the declaration of God’s will, +that when the operation of the law of the Levirate <i>per se</i> +would bring about the brother taking his own wife’s sister +to wife to raise up seed unto his brother, <i>then</i> the +exception to the exception came in and forbade him to do so, if +her sister, his own wife, were alive. And this is what made +me say (p. 13) that Dr. M’Caul came very near to the +application of that text which I have been unfolding, though I +was obliged to add, he overlooked its importance in interpreting +the law as contained in Leviticus, for he allows that the 18th +verse of Leviticus xviii. reaches to, is intended to reach to, +and to forbid, this especial union, which otherwise would have +been enjoined by the law in Deut. xxv., but it appears never to +have occurred to him that this is the ample and sufficient +explanation of the existence of that 18th verse. He never +seems to have conceived it possible that it should be restricted +to being the exception to the Leviratical Law, and not be a +general Law itself.</p> +<p>I would, my Lord, for many reasons, had it so pleased God, +that Dr. M’Caul were alive. His ability and learning, +his strong sense and true piety, and not least his willing +readiness to <a name="page22"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +22</span>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 rationalism, make his death a no +ordinary loss to us in days like these. But beyond this, I +own, had it so been possible, I should have liked to point out to +him how his own statements, his own authorities, and his own +reasoning had been the very means to lead me to the conclusion, +that we find a very complete and sufficient explanation of the +existence and meaning of the 18th verse of Lev. xviii., without +any occasion to resort to so violent an over-riding one statement +of Scripture by another, as he has advocated. And this too +without having to question the ordinary translation of the verse, +or to find any difficulty in the sense of the words, “in +her lifetime.” All this, at any rate for the sake of +argument, I seem able to concede to Dr. M’Caul, to take his +own account of <i>an</i> application of the passage, and only +add, that it seems to me to be <i>the</i> application, and the +only application needed. I cannot forbear adding, that if +there be but a chance of this being so, 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 +wife, but of all those laid down in this chapter of Leviticus, or +to <i>think</i> even of relaxing that code; for who shall say +that we shall not thus “haply be found to fight against +God,” and be bringing ourselves and our country under the +curse of His Word, denounced against all who defile themselves in +these things: “Ye shall therefore keep My statutes and My +judgments; and shall not commit any of these abominations, +neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth +among you: (for all these abominations have the men of the land +done which were before you, and the land is defiled:) that the +land spue not you out also, as it spued out the nations that were +before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these <a +name="page23"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 23</span>abominations, +even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their +people. Therefore shall ye keep Mine ordinance, that ye +commit not any of these abominable customs which were committed +before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the +Lord.” <a name="citation23"></a><a href="#footnote23" +class="citation">[23]</a> In these days, my lord, we have +many things to make us anxious—many things, I do not go too +far in saying, to make us tremble; but I hardly know anything +which should fill us more with anxiety, fear and trembling, than +the thought that our legislature should bring us under this +terrible curse of God, by sanctioning, as the act of a people +among whom “Christianity is” still “the law of +the land,” any one of those abominations, for which even +the nations of Canaan were cut off and spued out. And as to +individuals, I must say, there are to me few things more +calculated to raise mixed feelings of pity, contempt and horror, +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 assertion, 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 passions, +prejudices, or wishes are enlisted, and horror at the fearful +temerity of those who dare approach and argue upon such a +subject, without at least a sense of its importance, of the +reverence with which all discussion relative to it should be +conducted, and an awe, at any rate, as to the possibility, after +all, of God’s law and will being in accordance with the +Church’s interpretation of it for so long a time, and +wholly against the “new thing” which the spirit of +modern lawlessness seems anxious to introduce!</p> +<p>My Lord, I have not designed or attempted to go through the +whole argument on the question of the alteration of <a +name="page24"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 24</span>the Marriage +law as now proposed, but have sought to confine myself to these +points:</p> +<p>I. That the whole strength of the case of the promoters +of the change, so far as Holy Scripture is concerned, rests upon +the text, Lev. xviii. 18, this text being taken to override the +prohibition of Lev. xviii. 16.</p> +<p>II. That the contradiction of two general laws in +God’s Word, the one to the other, in the course of three +verses is highly unlikely and improbable; so improbable that we +are justified in expecting to find some other solution of the +difficulty.</p> +<p>III. That in the case in hand, there is another solution +falling very naturally into its place by careful comparison of +Scripture with Scripture.</p> +<p>To sum up the general argument, even at the risk of some +repetition, we may state it thus:—</p> +<p>(i.) We have the general rule laid down: “None of +you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him” +(verse 6).</p> +<p>(ii.) We have the instances and exemplifications of what +this “nearness of kin” means, all of these given +directly with reference to the <i>man</i>, leaving the +corresponding <i>woman’s</i> duty to be inferred (verses +7–17).</p> +<p>(iii.) We have the particular case of the +brother’s wife (verse 16); whereupon, by parity of +reasoning, is inferred the prohibition of the wife’s +sister, it being here to be observed, that unless the cases of +the different sex, by parity of reason, be taken as contemplated +by the Holy Ghost in giving this Scripture, we have no written +law against several most frightful kinds of incest. <a +name="citation24"></a><a href="#footnote24" +class="citation">[24]</a></p> +<p>(iv.) We have an exception to the very letter of the law +as to the brother’s wife, by the injunction of the law of +the Levirate, in the provision for preventing the extinction of a +house in Israel, by the brother’s taking his deceased +brother’s <a name="page25"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +25</span>wife (if he have died childless), and raising up seed +unto his brother: this, not in the nature of a prohibition, but +of an exceptional injunction or command. (Deut. xxv. +5–10.)</p> +<p>(v.) We have an exception to the above exception, +forbidding its being extended to the taking the wife’s +sister in the case of the above injunction working (as in one +special case it might work), to the result of a brother, in +taking his deceased brother’s widow, taking also, by the +same act, his own wife’s sister, and thus, if his own wife +were still alive, having the two sisters together as wives. +For this would be the case, were there no exceptional +prohibition, when two brothers had married two sisters, and when, +though one of the brothers had died childless, yet both sisters +were alive. Then there comes in the exception: +“Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her . +. . beside the other in her lifetime” (verse 18); as if it +were said, In no case—no, not when the law of the Levirate +would otherwise require it—no, not when the saving of a +house in Israel from extinction would otherwise demand +it—shall a man take his wife’s sister, his own wife, +her sister, being yet alive: where, too, we may observe, that the +parallelism in the cases of the two brothers and the two sisters +is strictly and exactly maintained; for the woman in no case +<i>could</i> take a second brother, the other being alive; for +her husband, the first brother, <i>must be dead</i> before the +law of the Levirate could operate at all; therefore the +wife’s sister <i>could not</i> (even when two brothers had +married two sisters) take her husband’s brother beside the +other in his lifetime, and thus the wife’s sister is +exactly equally restrained from taking the sister’s +husband, when the circumstances would lead to it by a man taking +“a wife to her sister . . . beside the other in her +lifetime.”</p> +<p>Thus, too, it is clear that the law of this 18th verse is a +law of prohibition, not of relaxation, and therefore naturally <a +name="page26"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 26</span>and properly +comes in its place with the other prohibitions of this 18th +chapter of Leviticus.</p> +<p>And I venture to submit, that this is the whole meaning and +application of this much controverted verse: viz., that it is not +in the nature of a general law at all, but is merely the +declaration of an exception to an exception—an exception to +preclude two living sisters being simultaneously the wives of one +man, even when the law of the Levirate, but for this prohibition, +would lead to such result. I must add, that to me it seems +to be a full, natural and sufficient explanation of the passage +without any further application at all, that is, without +supposing it to have anything to do with the general law, or to +be any relaxation of the prohibition of the 16th verse as to the +brother’s wife, or the converse case to it, by analogy, as +to the wife’s sister.</p> +<p>Possibly the exact bearing of the foregoing argument may be +made plainer by a paraphrase of the Scriptural statements, +putting them something into the form of statute law, by which +means the different provisions of the several passages may be +combined and their connection be seen, as various provisions in +the clauses or sections of an Act of Parliament are read +together. I dare say I shall expose myself to not unjust +criticism for technical blunders, in attempting to adopt +Act-of-Parliament phraseology; but I shall be content to bear +this, if I may attain my main object, viz., to shew how the +different parts of the law combine and should be read in +connection with each other, and especially what is the force and +due application of what will be, so to speak, the last clause or +section in the Act.</p> +<p>Suppose, then, God’s law as to these marriages to stand +in the statute-book of a Jewish Parliament, imagining for the +moment such to have existed. Might not the principal +enactments stand something in this way? It will be +understood <a name="page27"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +27</span>that a permission or tacit sanction of polygamy must be +assumed, as part of the common law of the community. Say, +then, that the enactments in question stood thus:—</p> +<p style="text-align: right">[None to intermarry with those near +of kin.]</p> +<p>§ 1. Be it enacted, that none shall inter-marry +with any related to them, whether by blood relationship or by +affinity, within the following degrees, as set forth in the +annexed schedule:—</p> +<p style="text-align: right">[Schedule of Prohibited +Degrees.]</p> +<p>(Then suppose Archbishop Parker’s Table of Prohibited +Degrees here annexed as the schedule.)</p> +<p>The Act would then continue:—</p> +<p style="text-align: right">[Brother to marry deceased +Brother’s Wife, to raise up seed to his Brother.]</p> +<p>§ 2. Provided always, that, in reference to the +above prohibition of the brother taking his brother’s +widow, it shall yet be lawful, authorized and required (under +penalty of a stigma of disgrace, to be attached to him who fails +in compliance), that in the case of a man’s brother dying +childless, in order to prevent the extinction of a house in +Israel, his brother shall take the deceased brother’s wife, +and raise up seed unto his brother; and, therefore, that the +first-born child of such union shall succeed in the name of the +brother who is dead, and be accounted and taken by the law of +this land as not of the family of the second brother, but of the +first, and shall be the heir, both in name and possessions, of +that deceased brother, whose widow’s child he is.</p> +<p style="text-align: right">[But none to take a wife to her +sister, beside the other in her life-time.]</p> +<p>§ 3. But, inasmuch as in the case of two brothers +having married two sisters, the enactment of the preceding +section might, and, in the event of one brother dying childless, +would, authorize and require a man to take to wife two sisters, +his brother’s widow being in such case his own wife’s +sister, and whereas, if his own wife should at such time be +alive, this might lead to rivalry and vexation, be it further +enacted, that nothing herein enacted, in the previous section <a +name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 28</span>or in any +part of this Act, shall authorize, permit or require any brother, +even for the purpose of saving a house and family from +extinction, to take to wife the sister of his own wife, his said +wife her sister being yet alive; and be it therefore enacted, +that in such case, 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 +effect, rather than a man take a wife to her sister to vex her, +beside the other, in her lifetime.</p> +<p>Upon this illustration I will only ask—Would not such an +Act of Parliament be perfectly distinct and clear? Could +any one possibly misunderstand it? Would not every clause +and section have its own plain and intelligible sense? +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 degrees? +I say contained <i>in it</i>, because no doubt the second section +would contain something of this kind, and yet, be it observed, +not a repeal, but a partial exception; that is, in one particular +case, and for one particular specified purpose, the second +section would modify one entry in the table, that of the +brother’s wife or sister’s husband (as it is +confessed on all hands, the law of the Levirate, Deut. xxv., does +modify the law of the 16th verse of Lev. xviii.), but even so, I +must insist upon it, not <i>repealing</i> it; for the exception +would operate <i>only</i> when the brother had died childless, +leaving the entry in the schedule in fulness of prohibition in +all other cases. And it is beyond all question that that +modification would be due to the second and not to the third +section of the Act. The third or last section would have +nothing to do with any relaxation of the law, but would be merely +a restrictive provision in relation to the working of the +previous section, being, as I have all along been shewing, <a +name="page29"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 29</span>a narrowing, +not an enlarging the liberty given under the exception in the +previous clause and having no further bearing:—therefore +having nothing to do with any entry in the schedule; nothing to +do with the permission to take the brother’s wife or the +sister’s husband, and, if so, nothing at all to do with the +object for which that clause, so to speak, is used by the +promoters of the change in our law, as proposed in the +Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Bill.</p> +<p>Moreover, does not this account make it perfectly intelligible +why the first section should remain in the integrity of its +enactment, and all the entries find their place in the schedule, +because no single entry is repealed even by the modification +caused by section 2? But surely it would have been absurd +to enact, or to retain in the table, the entry as to a +brother’s wife or sister’s husband, if an almost +immediately subsequent contradictory enactment were wholly to +repeal it, as contended by the promoters of the Bill in +question.</p> +<p>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 passages, nor +indeed in the same book of Leviticus, but in another book of Holy +Scripture. It may, perhaps, be asked—Is it not +strange and unnatural to find the exception to an exception +entered where the first exception itself is not recorded, and +perhaps even before that exception was made at all?</p> +<p>I would reply, first—</p> +<p>If this be an objection, it is one to which the Mishna, and +the Jewish Rabbis, and Dr. M’Caul are open just as much as +I am. For they all acknowledge and maintain that upon that +18th verse of xviii. Leviticus is founded the prohibition which +they all claim as to the brother in the case of two brothers +having married two sisters; of the one <a name="page30"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 30</span>not being permitted to obey the +injunction of the law of the Levirate, 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 +living.</p> +<p>I would reply, secondly—</p> +<p>That the objection, from the exception in Deut. xxv. not +possibly having been then made, is as nothing when the lawgiver +is not man but God, who knows from the beginning all which He +intends. <a name="citation30"></a><a href="#footnote30" +class="citation">[30]</a></p> +<p>I would reply, thirdly—</p> +<p>That a fair and reasonable account of the statements in +Leviticus xviii. not alluding directly to the law of Deut. xxv., +and not in any way indicating the exception there made or to be +made to the prohibition of verse 16, is to be found in this: that +all the statements in that chapter of Leviticus are +<i>prohibitions</i>, whilst the record in Deuteronomy is a +<i>permission</i> or indeed a <i>command</i>; that, therefore, it +is perfectly reasonable and natural that we should not find +prohibitions and relaxations of the law mixed up together. +Thus Leviticus keeps to its prohibitions, verse after verse, with +the warnings and denunciation of penalties proper to its subject; +and Deuteronomy deals with its exceptional relaxation, and the +duties and consequences therewith connected. And it may be +just worth while to add that although the 18th verse of Leviticus +xviii. is an exception, it is still in the sense and application +which I have been enforcing, a prohibitory not a permissive +exception; a consideration which not only shows it is in its due +place among the other prohibitions, but also strengthens the view +taken in this letter of its being no more than a +prohibition. It <i>prohibits</i> the taking two sisters +simultaneously, even under circumstances which, but for its +existence, would have <a name="page31"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 31</span>required such union, and it does not +permit anything as against the laws of the 6th and 16th +verses. Were Dr. M’Caul’s view, and the view of +the promoters of the alteration of our law of marriage correct, +we should at least have the anomaly of a permissive precept +foisted in, if I may so say, among the prohibitory sentences of +this chapter, dealing in all else with prohibitions only. +For, it is plain, to read the verse as meaning a man may marry +two sisters, if it be not simultaneously, is a permission upon +the previous restriction; whilst to say a man may <i>not</i> +marry two sisters simultaneously, even when the law of the +Levirate would seem to demand it, is a prohibition. The law +of Deuteronomy, therefore, (the law of the Levirate,) being a +permission or command, not a prohibition, makes it no marvel that +that injunction is not found among the prohibitions, whilst that +the prohibitional exceptional decree of the 18th verse of Lev. +xviii., should be found where it is, among the prohibitions, is +no marvel either.</p> +<p>I would reply, fourthly—</p> +<p>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 polity, most unnaturally +intermixed with the provisions of God’s general moral +law:—that is, what is applicable solely to Moses and the +people under him, confused with the law intended for all nations +and people, as witnessed by the denunciations of that chapter of +the book of Leviticus with which we have been concerned. +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 +Egyptians?</p> +<p>I would reply, fifthly—</p> +<p>That if any further answer to the above objection be <a +name="page32"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 32</span>needed, there +is, at least, the general and most sufficient reply, that we are +no judges of the right collocation of different points in +God’s revelation to man. When we see the fitness of +anything, even as we can judge, we may glorify Him and be +thankful; when we cannot, we may and should “put our mouth +in the dust” and be humble. If things are not made +more plain to us than they are, or even are less plain than they +might have been, let us remember our state of trial, and +acknowledge that all such may be, for ought we know, exactly so +revealed as they are, and so placed as they are, for our +trial. There is no reason why we should not be tried just +as much as to difficulties put before our intellect, as by +temptations appealing to our passions; and, as Bishop Butler has +remarked, there are some men who, but for the former, might be +found to have hardly any trial at all. (Analogy, Part ii., +chapter 6.) If the particular objection here advanced be +analyzed, it will be found to be but this:—Why should there +have been <i>an omission</i> of this law of the Levirate in +Leviticus, when, in the same place, there is the record of a +prohibitory exception to it? But who shall pretend to +account for the omissions of Holy Scripture? Take but that +one record in St. Luke’s Gospel of the two disciples who, +on the morning of the Resurrection, walked to Emmaus, and were +met by Jesus on the way, as they talked of those things which had +come to pass, and were sad. What can be more wonderful to +our conception than what we find, and what we do not find! +After their converse concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a +Prophet mighty in word and deed before God and all the people, we +find that He himself, “beginning at Moses and all the +Prophets, expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things +concerning Himself.” <a name="citation32"></a><a +href="#footnote32" class="citation">[32]</a> But we <i>do +not find</i> a single syllable of all this discourse recorded in +the Gospel. <a name="page33"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +33</span>If we judged by what seemed to us likely, how sure +should we feel that it would have been set down! Oh! how +many difficulties might have been met! how many objections have +been answered! how many heresies have been avoided! how great a +flood of light have been thrown upon various points of history, +prophecy, and doctrine! and how great a guide have been given for +all in life and conduct! had it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to +let the Evangelist record that discourse. If we judged by +our sense of likelihood, should we not say, “What could be +so full of interest and of edification! How important! how +needful for us to know what our Lord said, when beginning at +Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded unto them in all the +Scriptures the things concerning Himself!” But not +one word of it is set down, and, perchance, for the very cause +that it would have too much abridged our trial had we possessed +such an exposition, 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 “His ways are as our +ways.” Had that discourse been placed before us, +perchance there had never been an Arian or a Socinian in the +world. (How good we might think it!) Had the whole +marriage law of God, if we may so say, been systematically set +down in His holy Word, it may be there would have been none now +to tamper with it. (How happy, too, we should think +it!) But we might as well say, “How happy if Adam had +had no trial put upon him, and so had never fallen!”</p> +<p>But our duty is, as it is, and as God has thought fit to set +it before us. He has revealed to us His law and will in +such manner and degree as seemed to Him good. It is +our’s to receive it and to seek to understand it as most +humbly and reverently we may, and, asking His grace and help, to +do our best to keep it: to keep it individually in our own lives, +<a name="page34"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 34</span>and so far +as He permits us, to keep it from all defilement or breach in the +laws of our country. We call ourselves, and rightly, a +Christian country, for we are, as baptized into the body of +Christ, His members. Let us remember, if even carelessly, +much more if wilfully, we go against His commands, and set human +law in its permission against the divine law in its prohibition, +we are rebellious against Him who is our God and our King; we are +going back from our Christian state and profession; we are +placing ourselves on the level of the nations—the Egyptians +and the Canaanites—who committed all those abominations, +against which His curse is denounced who is “the same +yesterday and today, and for ever.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">I have the honour to be,<br /> +My Lord,<br /> +Your Lordship’s very faithful and humble servant,</p> +<p style="text-align: right">M. W. MAYOW.</p> +<p><i>Buckingham Road</i>, <i>Brighton</i>, <i>July</i> +14<i>th</i>, 1869.</p> +<p>P.S.—Whilst these sheets are passing through the press, +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 +Levirate. I am told (and I think the view was touched upon +in the report of the Commission) 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 (which most certainly it is not), and +who would then go on to say, And, upon your own shewing, after +the wife’s death this very law of the Levirate will bring +you to the conclusion of marrying the wife’s sister.</p> +<p>I should, perhaps, hardly deem it necessary to notice +seriously such an objection, but that I hear of it as actually +made or revived at the present time. I will then say a few +words upon it. I reply; Consider what must be assumed, <a +name="page35"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 35</span>and what must +be denied, to bring this argument in any way to bear upon the +question before the Legislature.</p> +<p>First—It must be assumed that the law of the Levirate is +a law binding upon Christians; that it is a law, not simply +intended for the Jewish economy, but that a Christian man is +intended to take his brother’s widow, if he have died +childless, and raise up seed unto his brother.</p> +<p>Secondly—It must be assumed that this object is to be +attained, not by the taking the brother’s widow, but by +taking the wife’s sister, which is the object of the Bill, +but was not the object at all of the Jewish legislation, and +which, moreover, is absolutely absurd as to the end of raising up +seed unto a brother.</p> +<p>Thirdly—It must be denied that polygamy is forbidden to +Christians; for if the brother in the case supposed have a wife +previously to his brother’s death, (this wife being still +alive, but not the sister of his deceased brother’s wife,) +then, according to the law of the Levirate hereby assumed to be +in force, he must still take his brother’s widow to wife to +raise up seed unto his brother.</p> +<p>Or, Fourthly, if the argument be not carried quite so far, and +it be maintained that the brother should say, “I cannot +take her, lest I mar my own inheritance;” or, “I +cannot take her, as I have already a wife;” or, “I +like not to take her for I am engaged to another;” or, if +he should for any cause refuse, then, at least, if the law of the +Levirate be binding upon us (which is the argument; for if not, +it does not help the promoters of the Bill at all), the refuser +should undergo the penalty provided in the case, and we should +have to witness the scene of the widow, or the wife’s +sister, calling together the elders of her city, and loosing the +shoe of her husband’s brother, or sister’s husband, +and spitting in his face and saying, “So shall it be clone +unto that man that will not to build up his brother’s +house;” and we should <a name="page36"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 36</span>have to revive the name of “the +house of him that hath his shoe loosed.”</p> +<p>No! Who does not see that the whole scope and intention +of the law of the Levirate was Judaical, and limited to and +exhausted by that economy. And, therefore, if the +connection between the law of the Levirate and the 18th verse of +Lev. xviii. be established, as I have endeavoured to shew it is, +it will follow that the exception to that law <i>must</i> belong +exclusively to it and expire with it; and, therefore, that the +supposed permission to take the sister, “beside the +other,” if it be not “in her life-time,” has, +as I have all along been arguing, nothing to do with us as +Christians at all, but is tied to and restrained by the law of +the Levirate, and of the Jewish dispensation. Under it, it +was lawful, it was enjoined, when a brother died childless, for +the brother to take his wife and raise up seed unto his brother; +and this would be lawful and enjoined in that particular case +even when his brother’s widow was his own wife’s +sister, if his own wife, the sister of the other were dead. +But among Christians I cannot believe that any one seriously +believes for a moment that the law of the Levirate remains, and +so no one can suppose, if the 18th verse of Lev. xviii. be merely +the exception to that law, that it has any bearing upon, or gives +any permission to, Christians in their marriages at all. <a +name="citation36"></a><a href="#footnote36" +class="citation">[36]</a></p> +<p style="text-align: right">M. W. M.</p> +<h2><a name="page37"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +37</span>APPENDIX A.</h2> +<p>The only two passages which I have met with taking the same +line of argument with that of the foregoing letter are the +following. In an appendix to the Speech of Vice-Chancellor +Sir W. Page Wood, Feb. 1st, 1860, I find this comment upon the +statements in the Mishna:—</p> +<blockquote><p>“The passages from the <i>Mishna</i> afford +singular support to the view which the Bishop of Oxford, at the +late meeting, stated to be held by some divines in America, viz., +that the difficult 18th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus +was, in fact, a special prohibition against a wife’s sister +being married to her brother-in-law, even when the exceptional +<i>Levirical</i> law (or law by which the brother-in-law was to +raise up seed to his deceased brother) might otherwise have +appeared to supersede the general code of the 18th +chapter.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>In an article recently reprinted from the Church Review, of +February, 1861, understood to be from the pen of the Rev. T. W. +Perry, I find also this:—</p> +<blockquote><p>“May it not be, then, that the prohibition +simply related to the (apparently) Patriarchal requirement (see +Gen. xxxviii. 8), enforced in Deut. xxv. 5–10 (that is, +<i>after</i> the Levitical prohibitions were given), which +commanded the <i>next kinsman</i> to marry the widow of one who +died without issue, in order to preserve the inheritance? +For if the next kinsman was a brother of the deceased, the duty +of raising up seed to his brother first devolved upon him. +But he might refuse to perform it. In that instance he +underwent a kind of punishment. The widow loosed his shoe +and spat in his face before the elders of his city (Deut. xxv. 8 +and 9), and he became stigmatized as ‘the house of him that +hath his shoe loosed’ (v. 10). This liberty to refuse +(see also Ruth iii. 12 and iv. 6) may have been a Divine +relaxation of the Patriarchal rule, designed, perhaps, to render +more effectual the prohibition in Lev. xviii. 18. But it +may not improbably be, that the penalty attached was meant to +secure the custom from contempt, by deterring the kinsman from +excusing himself on grounds which the law of the Levirate +(<i>i.e.</i>, the law of raising up seed to the deceased brother) +did not mean to recognize.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Then, after some remarks upon the jealousy or vexation likely +to arise, the writer continues:—</p> +<blockquote><p>“May it not, therefore, have been that God +designed, in Lev. xviii. 18, to provide against this evil, which +was very likely to attend upon the performance of the existing +rule, and of his own command (then to be given) touching the +marriage of the deceased brother’s wife?</p> +<p>“Yet, how does this explanation meet the difficulty +arising from the alleged permission contained in the words (v. +18) ‘in her life-time?’ Thus—If the next +kinsman’s wife were already dead, or if she died before the +kinsman’s part had been done to the widow, or after that +part had been done by another kinsman, who had died leaving the +widow still childless then, as she <i>could not be vexed</i>, the +widow’s brother-in-law was free to marry her, for the +purpose specified in the Levirate law.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>And again:—</p> +<blockquote><p>“Since this first suggested itself to us, we +have learnt (see Tract x. p. 21, of the Marriage Law Association) +that the <i>Mishna</i>, treating of the civil law <a +name="page38"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 38</span>of the Jews +as to marrying the deceased brother’s wife, says that he +may not marry her <i>if she is his own wife’s sister</i>, +and, moreover, that the prohibition holds good <i>after</i> the +wife’s death. It is possible that this latter part of +the tradition may be akin to what our Lord called (S. Mark vii. +9) ‘your own tradition,’ and so may have tended to +‘frustrate the commandment of God,’ in Lev. xviii. +18, by perplexing the interpretation of the words, ‘in her +life-time.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>I may add, however, as shewing my argument to be an +independent witness to the same sense and application of +Leviticus xviii. 18, that I had no knowledge of either of these +statements when I sketched out the argument of the preceding +letter.</p> +<h2>APPENDIX B.</h2> +<p>I have said that I have no need to enter into the question of +the “one hour” mentioned in the Mishna. And +this is certainly true, because the question which I have been +considering is not whether, 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 “in her life-time” be not explained and +accounted for by its being a prohibition, narrowing the +requirements of the law of the Levirate, and nothing more. +But it may be added that the statement of the Mishna as to the +“one hour” is certainly rather confirmatory than not +of the second sister being wholly forbidden, except under that +law’s provision in the case of the death of the one +previous to the widowhood of the other, because if the being +forbidden for one hour forbids for ever, the second sister, +whether herself a virgin or the widow of a stranger, being (like +the brother’s widow left a widow in her sister’s +life-time) marriageable to any other man than her brother-in-law, +during all the time of her sister’s married life, (she, I +say,) would be all that time forbidden to him. This would +answer certainly to the one hour, and if so, under the Rule of +the Mishna, she would be forbidden to him for ever, which brings +us to the general prohibition under the general law.</p> +<p>Whether the above inference of the Mishna be a legitimate one +from the words “in her life-time,” that is, that the +forbidding should depend for ever upon the state of things at the +time of the brother’s death (as Dr. M’Caul expresses +it), I need not determine. Mr. Perry, in one of the +extracts above, seems to think it might rather be one of the +additions by which the Jews frustrated “the Word of God by +their tradition,” and possibly it was so. 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 life. Because thus, in the case +of a man finding his brother’s wife a widow, being his own +wife’s sister, and perchance preferring her to his own +wife, he might otherwise be tempted to get rid of his own wife, +<a name="page39"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 39</span>by divorce +(so easily obtainable as divorce became among the Jews) or +otherwise, if such after-release set him at liberty to marry his +brother’s wife, being a widow: a temptation be it observed +not occurring as to any other woman left a widow by his +brother’s death, 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 her. If the brother had died childless, he +would be enjoined to take her, irrespectively of his own wife +being alive. If not childless, he could never take her at +all. 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 forbidden. If the greater intimacy arising between a man +and his wife’s sister might, if unrestrained by the +knowledge that she can never under any circumstances become his +wife, tend to produce attachment, who shall say it is not a +merciful and a wholesome restraint, that she should be forbidden +to him for ever? And this restraint, be it remarked, would +be wholly lost under the change in our law now sought.</p> +<h2>APPENDIX C.</h2> +<p>The drift of the objection considered in the Postscript may +receive an illustration from that great moral drama, in the plot +and conduct of which horror at the incestuous connection of the +king with his brother’s widow bears so prominent a +part. The case of the objector who would make the law of +the Levirate a dispensation for Christians, is just as if +Claudius king of Denmark had pleaded that law, though his brother +had not died childless (for no modern legislation proposes to +regard this limitation), as a reason for taking to wife his +brother’s widow;—or, as if, yet further, had Queen +Gertrude died, leaving a sister, he should plead again that same +law (for all modern legislation proposes to go to this extent), +to sanction his afterward taking her also to wife. Surely +all this, as the king says of another matter, is “absurd to +reason.”</p> +<h2>NOTE TO PAGE 12.</h2> +<p>It is of much importance to mark clearly how absolute, upon +Dr. M’Caul’s reading of Leviticus xviii. 18, is the +contradiction involved. I add, therefore:—Let it be +well observed that a time beyond that expressed by the words +“<i>in her life-time</i>” must be understood to be of +the essence of all the prohibitions. That is to say (and +the awful importance of the matter requires it to be stated +plainly), that it is incest and not adultery which is the subject +of the prohibitions throughout. A man is prohibited from +marrying his Mother not merely during his Father’s life <a +name="page40"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 40</span>time, but +always—his Sister, not merely, if she be married, and, if +so, during her husband’s life-time, but always. So of +the Brother’s Wife, and the rest. Therefore according +to the interpretation insisted upon, the collision is, as stated +in the text, a complete contradiction; a universal negative on +the one side met by a particular affirmative on the other, just +as if one should say, negatively, “No horses are +black,” and then immediately add, affirmatively, +“Some horses are black.” For, the statements +drawn out in full, including the case by parity of reasoning from +verse 16, would stand thus:—</p> +<p>Thou shalt not take thy Brother’s Wife, whether in thy +Brother’s life-time or not.</p> +<p>Thou shalt not take thy Wife’s Sister, whether in her +Sister’s life-time or not.</p> +<p>Thou mayest take thy Wife’s Sister, if it be not in her +Sister’s life-time.</p> +<p>Such is the over-riding demanded by Dr. M’Caul’s +position, and necessary to the argument if this 18th verse is to +be made in any way available for the purpose of the promoters of +the change in our marriage law. The improbability of such a +contradiction within two verses, including an assumed change in +the subject matter, from incest to adultery, in a continuous +catalogue of the enormities denounced, can, as it appears to me, +hardly be exaggerated.</p> +<p>There is one consideration further to which it may be well to +call attention, viz., that the <i>translation</i> of Lev. xviii. +18, is not to be confused with its <i>interpretation</i>. +Dr. M’Caul naturally insists much upon the translation, and +in addition to his own critical judgment, allowed to be of great +weight from his known eminence as an Hebrew Scholar, he gives +many authorities in favour of the rendering as it stands in the +text of our authorized version. 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 interpretation. This point +will be found very fully treated of in the second letter of the +present Lord Chancellor to the Dean of Westminster, printed in +1861, <a name="citation40"></a><a href="#footnote40" +class="citation">[40]</a> and, if I remember rightly, 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 Lichfield, +published, I believe, in 1860, where it is observantly noted that +of all our Reformers cited by Dr. M’Caul as having accepted +the authorized version as to the rendering of Lev. xviii. 18, +there is not one who has gone with him in the application of it +which he advocates, inasmuch as they have all either explicitly +or implicitly received our table of prohibited degrees: a proof +that even from Dr. M’Caul’s premise, as to the +translation, they have not come to his conclusion as to the +interpretation. And it is plainly in the interpretation, +not in the mere translation, that the above-mentioned +contradiction is involved.</p> +<h2>Footnotes.</h2> +<p><a name="footnote5"></a><a href="#citation5" +class="footnote">[5]</a> Speech of Vice-Chancellor Sir W. +P. Wood. p. 5.</p> +<p><a name="footnote7"></a><a href="#citation7" +class="footnote">[7]</a> Against profane dealing with Holy +Matrimony, by the Rev. John Keble, pp. 12, 13. J. H. +Parker. 1849.</p> +<p><a name="footnote8"></a><a href="#citation8" +class="footnote">[8]</a> Ibid. pp. 13, 14.</p> +<p><a name="footnote9"></a><a href="#citation9" +class="footnote">[9]</a> Letter to Rev. W. H. Lyall, by +Rev. A. M’Caul, D.D., pp. 1–4. Wertheim, +Mackintosh, and Hunt. 1859.</p> +<p><a name="footnote10"></a><a href="#citation10" +class="footnote">[10]</a> Speech of Sir W. P. Wood, pp. 5, +6.</p> +<p><a name="footnote11"></a><a href="#citation11" +class="footnote">[11]</a> Dr. M’Caul’s Letter +to Sir W. P. Wood, 1860, p. 55.</p> +<p><a name="footnote12"></a><a href="#citation12" +class="footnote">[12]</a> See Note at the end of +Appendix.</p> +<p><a name="footnote13a"></a><a href="#citation13a" +class="footnote">[13a]</a> Appendix A.</p> +<p><a name="footnote13b"></a><a href="#citation13b" +class="footnote">[13b]</a> Canon 99.—“None to +marry within the degrees prohibited.” “And all +such marriages so made shall be judged incestuous and +unlawful.”</p> +<p>A Table of kindred and affinity, wherein whosoever are related +are forbidden in Scripture and our laws to marry +together.—<i>Book of Common Prayer</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote14"></a><a href="#citation14" +class="footnote">[14]</a> Letter, p. 55.</p> +<p><a name="footnote15"></a><a href="#citation15" +class="footnote">[15]</a> St. Matt. xxii. 24.</p> +<p><a name="footnote16"></a><a href="#citation16" +class="footnote">[16]</a> It may be useful just to state +that the law termed the law of the Levirate is that law laid down +in Deut. xxv. 5–10, that in case a Jew dying childless, his +brother should take his wife and raise up seed unto his +brother.</p> +<p><a name="footnote18"></a><a href="#citation18" +class="footnote">[18]</a> Letter to Rev. W. H. Lyall, p. +14.</p> +<p><a name="footnote20"></a><a href="#citation20" +class="footnote">[20]</a> Letter to Vice-Chancellor Sir W. +Page Wood, p. 29–31.</p> +<p><a name="footnote21"></a><a href="#citation21" +class="footnote">[21]</a> Appendix B.</p> +<p><a name="footnote23"></a><a href="#citation23" +class="footnote">[23]</a> Lev. xviii., 20–30.</p> +<p><a name="footnote24"></a><a href="#citation24" +class="footnote">[24]</a> See Dr. Pusey’s Evidence +before the Royal Commission, First Report, p. 37, questions +431–3.</p> +<p><a name="footnote30"></a><a href="#citation30" +class="footnote">[30]</a> It is, moreover, evident that +something of the kind of the law of the Levirate was a usage of +the Patriarchal times, from the history recorded as to the sons +of Judah in the book of Genesis.</p> +<p><a name="footnote32"></a><a href="#citation32" +class="footnote">[32]</a> St. Luke xxiv. 27.</p> +<p><a name="footnote36"></a><a href="#citation36" +class="footnote">[36]</a> Appendix C.</p> +<p><a name="footnote40"></a><a href="#citation40" +class="footnote">[40]</a> Second Letter of Vice-Chancellor +Sir W. Page Wood, pp. 47–63.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S +SISTER***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 48892-h.htm or 48892-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/8/8/9/48892 + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United +States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive +specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this +eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given +away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks +not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the +trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country outside the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you + are located before using this ebook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The +Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the +mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its +volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous +locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt +Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to +date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and +official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +</pre></body> +</html> |