mere forbearance of non-objectors, or which either of the two parties may dissolve at their own bare will! At the utmost the law simply connives at such unions, and it may be too surely conjectured that that connivance will be largely abused.
These several points being taken into account, we have abundant cause for, (perhaps not alarm, but certainly for), being on our guard; for furbishing our weapons; for awakening Clergy and Laity to the importance of the crisis, and seeing that all are alike furnished with the knowledge of those grounds on which we must defend one of the most important citadels of Christian morality.
The divine authority of the One Law-giver is that to which Christians must mainly defer; while we thankfully feel that there are many subsidiary considerations of the very greatest weight, and which might well suffice to restrain us from the exercise of liberty in the present case, even supposing such liberty were distinctly not against the Divine Law. All these pointy, doubtless, will in due course receive ample recognition, as the subject is more and more discussed; but the Divine Law, as ever understood in the Church, must always hold the principal place, and be the sheet anchor of all our arguments. I think, therefore, that it is but logical and reverent to address myself to this part of the subject first, endeavouring, as shall be my aim, to present the Bible argument fairly and without disguise; and more particularly as some very important illustrations lately fell in my way, which I am quite sure are unknown to the bulk of Bible-readers.
It is only too possible that those to whom the subject is unfamiliar may find some little difficulty in following the argument, in spite of my efforts to be plain; but the very fact of wide discussion shows that there must be some difficulty to afford to scope for it. Readers must not be disconcerted at this: the rule stands for soul as well as body "in the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread."
I. First, then, I shall clear away an objection which is made the the most of at the very threshold. It is generally assumed that Levit. XVIII. 18 specially refers to the marriages in question: "Neither shall thou take a wife to her sister, (margin one wife to another), to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime." (I add a literal rendering of the Hebrew, as it will be useful for reference: "And a woman to her sister thou shall not take, to rival, to uncover her nakedness besides her, in her life")
1. It is argued that as the marriage is forbidden with a special restriction, "in her life," therefore it is lawful when that restriction is removed, nay, that it is almost suggested.
To this it may well be replied (1) that such a mode of reasoning is in general highly dangerous and uncertain—to conclude that things are sanctioned or approved by law, if they are only not expressly forbidden! For example, O say to a servant whom I have detected in a theft, "As
