Unlawful Marriage/Chapter 1
CHAPTER I.
Remarks on the Puritan's historical facts.—His inaccuracies.—Selden.—Philo Judæus.—Misrepresentations of Jeremy Taylor.—Taylor's error.—Burnet.—Universities of Europe.—The Protestant Churches.—The national Synod of France.
The heading of the Puritan's sixth chapter is thus expressed: "Historical view of the subject."
What was his subject? He aimed at proving two points:—I. That the Levitical law is not binding on us Christians, (chap. i.) II. That it did not relate to marriage at all, but only to "single acts of an incestuous character," (chap, iii.)
1. We protest against his assertion in the second paragraph of this sixth chapter: "He (Christ) even allows that for the most part their expositions of the law were true and to be observed;" which he attempts to sustain by quoting this passage: "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." (Matt. 23:2, 3.)
Before the Saviour had uttered this, He had upbraided these Jewish teachers with making "the commandment of God of none effect by their tradition;" and with "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men;" and He had stigmatized them as "blind leaders of the blind." (Matt. 15: 3, 6, 9, 14.) At another time (Matt. 16: 6, 12) He had given his disciples this general caution: "Take heed and beware of the leaven (doctrine) of the Pharisees;" and, in the very chapter quoted from by the Puritan, our blessed Lord thunders out against these false teachers the most terrible denunciations; denominating them "fools and blind guides," and closing the whole in this awful language: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (v. 33.) Was it correct in the Puritan to assert of teachers thus characterized by Christ, and in regard to whom He cautioned his disciples, that He "allowed their expositions of the law" to be, for the most part, "true, and to be observed." Surely not; He only meant, his disciples were to receive as true, and observe what they taught according to the law of Moses. They were to act as the noble Bereans did, when Paul preached to them; they "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17: 11.) No intelligent commentator, such as Doddridge, Scott, or Clarke, will sustain the Puritan's interpretation.
2. We think he has failed to derive support from these blind leaders; for the Talmudists, whom he calls "the successors of the Pharisees," (p. 21,) certainly did regard the Levitical statutes as referring to marriage, and prescribing its limits. The Karaites too and the Hebrews put on the law the same construction.[1]
3. Nor has the Puritan proved what he thinks "undisputed:" "the Talmudists tell us that the ancient Jews practised the marriages in question, and did not regard them as forbidden by the law of Moses." (Chap. VI. 2d par.)
What is his proof of this confident assertion? A quotation from Selden, which he translates thus: "The Karaites regard the marriage of a wife's sister, both while the first is living and after her death, as forbidden. But the Talmudists teach otherwise." The original, "Quod non admittunt Talmudici," is weaker than the above translation. But let it pass.
On this quotation we remark: 1. Selden does not speak of any testimony borne to a fact or ancient custom of the Jews, either by the Talmudists or by the Karaites; but only tells us how each sect interpreted the law. 2. Selden does not say, the Talmudists have informed us how the Pharisees interpreted the law; nor has he marked the period when the Talmudists began to teach this doctrine. He only informs us they taught it, when the Karaites taught the opposite. Now, let it be remembered, the Karaites were not formed into a regular sect till the year 759.[2] Yet this single quotation from Selden, the Puritan magnifies in his next paragraph (p. 22) into "the united testimony of a nation embodied in the Talmuds."
The Puritan claims to be a descendant and successor of the Puritans who settled in Massachusetts a little more than 200 years ago. Suppose his pamphlet should hereafter fall into the hands of an individual yet to be born, and he, from the Puritan's name, should infer that he had justly represented their faith and practice; would the inference be true in point of fact? To use the writer's own words, "We trow not." The Westminster Confession of Faith was, in 1648, with the exception of what relates to Church government and discipline, adopted by those Puritans, with the highest commendation. No alteration was then made in the section relating to Incest.[3]
Had our brother extended his acquaintance with Selden, he might have found a passage more suited to his purpose. Speaking of the six blood relations of the wife, whom, in the opinion of the Hebrews, it was unlawful for her husband to marry, whether legitimate or illegitimate, Selden goes on to add the seventh: "Nec demum septimam, uxoris nempe sororem sive uterinam sive germanam, dum illa superstes; tam etsi fuerit repudiata. Nam de uxoris sorore jam demortuæ nunquam dubitarunt; cum verba legis de uxore sint, dum ipsa adhuc vivit."[4] But even this, on examination, will be found to be insufficient to support the Puritan's confident assertion noticed above.
The authority for the statement made in the quotation adduced by our brother, is the passage we have just cited. Now, if Selden had referred to Philo Judæus, or to the Mishna or Gemarra, as his authority for saying the Hebrews did not doubt the lawfulness of marrying a deceased wife's sister, it would have been better supported. His authority is either Salomon Jarchi ad Levit. 18: 18, and Maimonides, celebrated Jewish writers who lived in the twelfth century, many ages after the time of the Pharisees; or no particular authority.[5]
Philo Judæus, who was born about the commencement of the Christian era, does not assert the lawfulness of the marriage in question, which he would have done, if that had been his opinion; or he would have stated the marriage to be customary among the Hebrews, if that had been the fact. He does neither. We have before us a transcript of his original Greek, with the accompanying Latin translation, and an English version, all kindly furnished by a learned friend who had access to Philo's works. As our friend favors the marriage under debate, his English translation will be received as correct by our opponents. We give his words: "Again (Moses) does not permit a man to marry two sisters, either at the same time or at different times, even though he may have put away the one whom he took first in marriage. For, during the lifetime of her that remains with her husband, or of her that has been sent away, whether she remain a widow, or be married to another man, (Moses) accounted it unholy for the sister to take the place of her that has been unfortunate; teaching them not to violate the right of consanguinity, nor to rise by the fall of one so united by descent, nor to delight and exult in being served by her sister's enemies, and in serving them in turn. For from these things arise violent jealousies and fierce contentions, producing an unspeakable multitude of evils."[6]
Philo, in this passage, certainly does not assert it to be lawful for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. He asserts it to be a violation of the divine law, for a man to marry two sisters, either at one time, or at different times, while the first wife lives; and to be unlawful for her sister to form a connexion with her husband. He is silent in regard to what might be lawful after the death of the first wife. Now, if the Jews had never entertained a doubt, as Selden says, of the lawfulness of such a marriage on the death of the first wife, is it not highly probable that Philo would have stated the fact?
This appears the more probable, when we compare Philo's statement with the comment on Levit. 18: 18, by that famous Jewish Rabbi, Jonathan the son of Uzziel, who was contemporary with Philo. It is in these words: "Mulierem etiam vivente sorore non accipies, ad affligendum eam, ad revelandum turpitudinem ejus super ipsam, omnibus diebus ejus."
Both writers agree in teaching, that the divine law prohibited a man to marry his wife's sister while she was living; and both are silent in regard to what might be done after her decease. The comment of Jonathan differs, in the words he uses, but little from the text itself.
Now, if the Jews had never doubted that it was lawful for a man to marry his sister-in-law after the death of his wife, is it not highly probable the fact would have been stated by one or both of these writers, when giving the meaning of the prohibition in Levit. 18: 18? Is not their silence proof to the contrary?
But if we were to admit it could be proved, that such an interpretation was put on the Levitical law by the Scribes and Pharisees, in our Saviour's time, what will the Puritan gain? Are we to bow to their judgment? Christians are as competent to interpret a written law as they were; for, although they were nearer to the time of the giving of the law than Christians of the present day, yet they were not nearer than Primitive Christians. Besides, let it be remembered that, between the time of these Jewish expounders of the law and its first publication, there had intervened fifteen hundred years; ample time for great changes in opinion and mournful departures from the spirit and true meaning of the law.
Great corruption in faith and practice had, in fact, taken place among the Jews, when our blessed Lord, the great Teacher, came into the world. They were ignorant of the true meaning of their prophetic writings, and earthly in their expectations of the benefits to be derived from the coming of the long promised Messiah, or they would not have rejected and crucified Him, when He came to bless them with His salvation. They were, as our Saviour says, a "wicked generation." (Matt. 12:45.) The Scribes and Pharisees too had, we have seen, corrupted the law by their traditions, and were denounced by the Redeemer as "blind guides," and as a "generation of vipers." And are we to defer to the judgment of such expositors of the law; we who live under the Christian dispensation, and enjoy all its increased light and privileges? The Jewish teachers had, by their tradition, made of none effect that commandment of God which requires us to honor our parents; and would it be safe to rely on their interpretation of a law that laid a restraint on their animal passions?
4. Here it may be proper to correct a quotation of the Puritan, on page 10, from Jeremy Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium. There he has fallen into a strange mistake. He cites indeed the words of Taylor; but, by an unfortunate application of them to a wrong period of time, he represents him as testifying in opposition to his own written testimony. Jeremy Taylor does not say, that, in the reign of Henry VIII. "there was almost a general consent upon this proposition, that the Levitical degrees do not, by any law of God, bind Christians to their observance." He says the contrary, as will appear from his own words. On page 222 he thus speaks: "For all those degrees in which Moses's law hath forbidden marriages, are supposed, by very many now-a-days, that they are still to be observed with the same distance and sacredness; affirming, because it was a law of God, with the appendage of severe penalties to transgressors, it does still oblige us Christians." Subsequently he adds: "For though Christendom was then" (Henry's time) "much divided, yet before then there was almost a general consent upon this proposition, that the Levitical degrees do not, by any law of God, bind Christians to their observance." Thus it appears the Puritan has fallen into an unfortunate anachronism. We are inclined to believe he quoted Taylor at second-hand, without examining his work for himself.
Taylor's testimony, in regard to the agreement on the proposition he names, cannot be admitted; because it is merely negative, and his examination of the Schoolmen was altogether too limited. He says only one schoolman dissented from this proposition. In this he appears, from the statement of Burnet, in his History of the Reformation of the Church of England, to have been entirely mistaken. This historian has given an abstract of what was published about Henry's divorce. In that abstract, after stating the explicit testimony both of the Greek and Latin fathers in favor of the permanent obligation of the Levitical prohibitions, he says: "They observed that the same doctrine was also taught by the fathers and doctors in the latter ages;" and then particularly names seven of them. He afterwards adds: "From these doctors and fathers the inquiry descended to the Schoolmen, who had with more niceness and subtilty examined things. They do all agree in asserting the obligation of these Levitical prohibitions." After naming a number of the Schoolmen, he subjoins: "All the Canonists were of the same mind." How entirely opposite is this positive and specific testimony to the general and negative testimony of Jeremy Taylor![7]
5. The decision of this question by the different Universities of Europe our brother disposes of in a summary way, by imputing it to corrupt influence, Henry's power and gold.[8] An accusation is one thing, and proof is another thing, entirely different. What influence had Henry with the Universities of France, in opposition to that of the Pope and the King of France? But passing by this rash insinuation, to sustain which no proof is attempted, let us look at what is said by the Puritan of the Protestants of Germany: "Though all this did not avail to secure the Protestants of Germany in this error." Again, p. 10, 2d par.: "The Protestant Church of Europe, at that early day, seems to have had no idea that the law of Moses bound us in this particular." He then quotes Luther and Melancthon in support of his assertion.
If the Puritan had read Dr. Livingston's dissertation on this subject, he would have been preserved from this unfounded assertion; for that venerable man has quoted the closing part of the famous letter written "by those celebrated divines, who, in the name of their Church, replied to the inquiry made by Henry VIII. whether it was lawful for a man to marry his sister-in-law." Let it be transcribed: "It is manifest and cannot be denied, that the law of Levit. 18, prohibits a marriage with a sister-in-law. This is to be considered as a divine, a natural, and a moral law, against which no other law may be enacted or established. Agreeably to this, the whole Church has always retained this law, and judged such marriages incestuous. Agreeably to this, also, the decrees of Synods, the celebrated opinions of the most holy fathers, and even civil laws, prohibit such marriages, and pronounce them incestuous. Wherefore we also judge that this law is to be preserved in all the Churches as a divine, a natural, and a moral law; nor will we dispense with or permit in our Churches, that such marriages shall be contracted: and this doctrine we can, and, as God shall enable us, we will resolutely defend."[9] Now whatever Luther or Melancthon may have hastily written, it is not likely that they, after mature deliberation, differed from these brethren of their Church, who, having solemnly investigated the subject, wrote their noble letter.
Let the reader turn to pp. 153 and 155 of the Doctor's dissertation, and he will see that Zuinglius, Calvin, and Ecolampadius speak in strong language about the binding authority of the Levitical law of marriage.
Further, to show the views entertained by the Protestant Churches of Europe, we submit for consideration the following acts of the National Synod of France. In the second National Synod, held at Poictiers, in the year 1560, the question of the lawfulness of the marriage under discussion, was decided. The following is their record: "May a man lawfully espouse the sister of his deceased wife, who has left him children begotten on her body by him? To which was answered, That this is in no wise lawful nor expedient, and the Church must see to it, that no such marriages be solemnized in it."[10]
In the records of the transactions of the Fourth National Synod, held at Lyons in 1563, we find this minute: "It being demanded, Whether it were only a prohibition of humane laws, that the widow of a deceased brother might not be married to his surviving brother? The Council answered, That such marriages were also forbidden by the word of God; and though, under the law of Moses, it was ordained, that, when the elder brother died childless, the younger brother should raise up seed to him; yet this was only a temporary law to God's ancient Israel, and intended only for the preservation and distinction of their tribes."[11] This noble body of Protestants of Europe knew how to distinguish between what was temporary and what was permanent, in the laws of Moses: and that they knew how to distinguish between a civil and a divine ordinance, may be seen from a record, (p. 19, sect. 23,) where, in reference to the case of a man, who, having promised marriage to the cousin-german of his deceased wife, had carnally known her, and had a child by her, before marriage, it was answered: "That forasmuch as the marriage of cousin-germans is not prohibited by the word of God, although it be by our magistrates, it is advised, That they shall separate for some time, and make public confession of their fault before the Church; and then the minister, reproving it, and admonishing that none offend for the future in this manner, they shall be married."
Here is decisive proof of the views entertained by the Protestants of Europe, in regard to the binding authority of this law of Moses. No one will affirm that these Protestant French and Lutheran divines were either seduced by Henry's bribes, or subdued by the influence of his authority.
- ↑ Uxor Hebraica, chap, i—iv.
- ↑ Buck's Theol. Diet. Adam's Hist. of all Religions.
- ↑ Preface to Camb. Platform, pp. 4, 5.
- ↑ De Jure Nat. lib. v. chap. 10. p. 545.
- ↑ Selden De Jure Nat. et Gen. lib. v. chap. 10.
- ↑ De Specialibus Legibus, p. 602, printed at Geneva, 1613.
- ↑ Burnet's His. vol. i. pp. 160–162, New York edition.
- ↑ Page 22, last paragraph.
- ↑ Disser. pp. 157, 158.
- ↑ Quick's Synodicon, vol. i. p. 18, sect. 9.
- ↑ P. 40, sect. 30.