diff options
Diffstat (limited to '48892-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 48892-0.txt | 1764 |
1 files changed, 1764 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/48892-0.txt b/48892-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6e07f40 --- /dev/null +++ b/48892-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1764 @@ +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: UTF-8 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S +SISTER*** + + +Transcribed from the 1869 James Parker and Co. edition by David Price, +email ccx074@pglaf.org + + + + + + Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister. + + + * * * * * + + LEVITICUS XVIII. 18, + CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW + OF THE LEVIRATE. + + * * * * * + + A LETTER + TO + THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD HATHERLEY, + LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND, + &c„ &c, &c. + + BY + + M. W. MAYOW, M.A., + + RECTOR OF SOUTH HEIGHTON CUM TARRING NEVILLE, SUSSEX, + AND LATE STUDENT OF CH. CH., OXFORD. + + * * * * * + + Second Edition. + + * * * * * + + London and Oxford: JAMES PARKER AND CO. + Brighton: G. WAKELING. + 1869. + + * * * * * + + BRIGHTON: + G. WAKELING, PRINTER, + NORTH STREET. + + * * * * * + + + + +Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister. + + + A LETTER + TO THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD HATHERLEY, + _Lord High Chancellor of England_, + _&c._, _&c._, _&c._ + + * * * * * + +MY LORD, + +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 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. + +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. + +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 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. + +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. + +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.” {5} I am aware that it has been contended on philological +grounds that the terms “near of kin” are 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:— + + “Now, what are the customs which were so abominable in the old + inhabitants of God’s Holy Land, and caused the 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. + + “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. + + “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.” {7} + +He then adds:— + + “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? + + “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?” {8} + +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 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.” {9} +Where we may see that, although with a certain 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. + +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. + +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.” {10} Dr. M’Caul quotes these words, +with a distinct approval of their 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 _would be_ 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, _a fortiori_, 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.” {11} Now, I shall 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 _is a +conflict and an over-riding_. 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, _prohibiting_ as the +general law, and the passage in Deut. xxv. 5, _enjoining_ 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. {12} I +notice this point expressly, because I think we cannot too strongly +entertain the conviction of the _unlikelihood_ of such a thing occurring +thus in the word and law of 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 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. + +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. {13a} + +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 _man_, leaving the obligation upon the +_woman_ 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. {13b} 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 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 _over-riding_, 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.” {14} + +Now, what I am anxious to see is, whether there is any need to force upon +us this _over-riding_ at all. I think not. + +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 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. + +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.” {15} + +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, _over-riding_ (to use again the term) the other. + +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? + +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 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. + +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, {16} 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 _not_ “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 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. + +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? + +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 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. + +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.” {18} 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, + + “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:— + + “‘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 _widow_, (_i.e._, the surviving sister) is + prohibited to him for ever, because she was prohibited to him for + _one hour_.’ + + “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 _brother’s wife is his own wife’s + sister_, _he may not marry her_.’ 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 _for one hour_,’ which the + Appendix omits altogether. 3rdly, The Appendix says, ‘And the reason + assigned is, that _the man and his wife’s sister_ are related _within + the degrees forbidden by the holy law_ to intermarry,’ not one word + of which is in the text of the Mishna, as you see. The Mishna gives + the reason correctly, _she had been prohibited to the second brother + for one hour_, _i.e._, her widowhood commenced whilst her sister was + still alive and the wife of the other brother, in which case the + _Rabbis_ rule that she is prohibited for ever. + + “To make this plain, I will put letters as in the Appendix:— + + “Two brothers | A/B | marry | M/N | Two sisters. + + “A third brother, C, marries S, a stranger, _i.e._, no relation. + + “A dies; M is left a widow. + + “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. + + “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 deaths in a different order, so as to + avoid the ‘one hour,’ and then B might marry M. Thus:— + + “Two brothers | A/B | marry | M/N | Two sisters. + + “A third brother, C, marries S, a stranger. + + “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 _one hour_,’ _i.e._, she had not been a widow whilst his own + wife was alive. The second case alluded to is exactly similar:— + + “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 _one + hour_.’ + + “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 _laid down by the Rabbis_; 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.” {20} + +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, or the case of the _one hour_ 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 _to marry two sisters +simultaneously is forbidden by Lev. xviii._ 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. {21} + +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 _per se_ would bring about +the brother taking his own wife’s sister to wife to raise up seed unto +his brother, _then_ 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. + +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 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 _an_ application of +the passage, and only add, that it seems to me to be _the_ 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 _think_ 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 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.” {23} 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! + +My Lord, I have not designed or attempted to go through the whole +argument on the question of the alteration of the Marriage law as now +proposed, but have sought to confine myself to these points: + +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. + +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. + +III. That in the case in hand, there is another solution falling very +naturally into its place by careful comparison of Scripture with +Scripture. + +To sum up the general argument, even at the risk of some repetition, we +may state it thus:— + +(i.) We have the general rule laid down: “None of you shall approach to +any that is near of kin to him” (verse 6). + +(ii.) We have the instances and exemplifications of what this “nearness +of kin” means, all of these given directly with reference to the _man_, +leaving the corresponding _woman’s_ duty to be inferred (verses 7–17). + +(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. {24} + +(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 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.) + +(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 _could_ take a second brother, the +other being alive; for her husband, the first brother, _must be dead_ +before the law of the Levirate could operate at all; therefore the wife’s +sister _could not_ (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.” + +Thus, too, it is clear that the law of this 18th verse is a law of +prohibition, not of relaxation, and therefore naturally and properly +comes in its place with the other prohibitions of this 18th chapter of +Leviticus. + +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. + +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. + +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 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:— + + [None to intermarry with those near of kin.] + +§ 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:— + + [Schedule of Prohibited Degrees.] + +(Then suppose Archbishop Parker’s Table of Prohibited Degrees here +annexed as the schedule.) + +The Act would then continue:— + + [Brother to marry deceased Brother’s Wife, to raise up seed to his + Brother.] + +§ 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. + + [But none to take a wife to her sister, beside the other in her + life-time.] + +§ 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 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. + +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 _in +it_, 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 +_repealing_ it; for the exception would operate _only_ 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 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. + +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. + +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? + +I would reply, first— + +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 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. + +I would reply, secondly— + +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. {30} + +I would reply, thirdly— + +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 _prohibitions_, whilst the record in Deuteronomy is a +_permission_ or indeed a _command_; 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 _prohibits_ the +taking two sisters simultaneously, even under circumstances which, but +for its existence, would have 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 _not_ 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. + +I would reply, fourthly— + +That to find the law of the Levirate in this place in the Book of +Leviticus would have been to find a provision solely and simply of the +Jewish economy and 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? + +I would reply, fifthly— + +That if any further answer to the above objection be 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 _an omission_ 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.” {32} But we _do not find_ a single syllable +of all this discourse recorded in the Gospel. 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!” + +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, 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.” + + I have the honour to be, + My Lord, + Your Lordship’s very faithful and humble servant, + + M. W. MAYOW. + +_Buckingham Road_, _Brighton_, _July_ 14_th_, 1869. + +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. + +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, and what must be denied, to bring this argument in +any way to bear upon the question before the Legislature. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 have to revive +the name of “the house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” + +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 _must_ 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. {36} + + M. W. M. + + + + +APPENDIX A. + + +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:— + + “The passages from the _Mishna_ 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 _Levirical_ 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.” + +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:— + + “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, _after_ the Levitical prohibitions were + given), which commanded the _next kinsman_ 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.e._, the law of raising + up seed to the deceased brother) did not mean to recognize.” + +Then, after some remarks upon the jealousy or vexation likely to arise, +the writer continues:— + + “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? + + “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 _could not be vexed_, the widow’s + brother-in-law was free to marry her, for the purpose specified in + the Levirate law.” + +And again:— + + “Since this first suggested itself to us, we have learnt (see Tract + x. p. 21, of the Marriage Law Association) that the _Mishna_, + treating of the civil law of the Jews as to marrying the deceased + brother’s wife, says that he may not marry her _if she is his own + wife’s sister_, and, moreover, that the prohibition holds good + _after_ 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.” + +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. + + + + +APPENDIX B. + + +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. + +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, 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. + + + + +APPENDIX C. + + +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.” + + + + +NOTE TO PAGE 12. + + +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 “_in her life-time_” 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 +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:— + +Thou shalt not take thy Brother’s Wife, whether in thy Brother’s +life-time or not. + +Thou shalt not take thy Wife’s Sister, whether in her Sister’s life-time +or not. + +Thou mayest take thy Wife’s Sister, if it be not in her Sister’s +life-time. + +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. + +There is one consideration further to which it may be well to call +attention, viz., that the _translation_ of Lev. xviii. 18, is not to be +confused with its _interpretation_. 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, {40} 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. + + + + +Footnotes. + + +{5} Speech of Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood. p. 5. + +{7} Against profane dealing with Holy Matrimony, by the Rev. John Keble, +pp. 12, 13. J. H. Parker. 1849. + +{8} Ibid. pp. 13, 14. + +{9} Letter to Rev. W. H. Lyall, by Rev. A. M’Caul, D.D., pp. 1–4. +Wertheim, Mackintosh, and Hunt. 1859. + +{10} Speech of Sir W. P. Wood, pp. 5, 6. + +{11} Dr. M’Caul’s Letter to Sir W. P. Wood, 1860, p. 55. + +{12} See Note at the end of Appendix. + +{13a} Appendix A. + +{13b} Canon 99.—“None to marry within the degrees prohibited.” “And all +such marriages so made shall be judged incestuous and unlawful.” + +A Table of kindred and affinity, wherein whosoever are related are +forbidden in Scripture and our laws to marry together.—_Book of Common +Prayer_. + +{14} Letter, p. 55. + +{15} St. Matt. xxii. 24. + +{16} 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. + +{18} Letter to Rev. W. H. Lyall, p. 14. + +{20} Letter to Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood, p. 29–31. + +{21} Appendix B. + +{23} Lev. xviii., 20–30. + +{24} See Dr. Pusey’s Evidence before the Royal Commission, First Report, +p. 37, questions 431–3. + +{30} 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. + +{32} St. Luke xxiv. 27. + +{36} Appendix C. + +{40} Second Letter of Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood, pp. 47–63. + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S +SISTER*** + + +******* This file should be named 48892-0.txt or 48892-0.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. + |