Unlawful Marriage/Chapter 3
CHAPTER III.
Consequences of the Puritan's principles.—Church destitute of a law of Incest.—Improbable.
The design of the Puritan is to establish, and he thinks he has established, two points:—
I. That the law of Levit. xviii. is repealed, and not binding on the Christian Church.
II. That it has no reference to marriage.
To the establishment of the first point, the author's first chapter is devoted. Towards the close of the fifth page is this paragraph: "Besides, should we admit that there is, in the law of nature, a prohibition of the marriage of a wife's sister, that prohibition is, as we have shown, not in these texts themselves, but in them as authenticated by the law of nature. The prohibition comes in this form: 'Thus saith the Lord, speaking through the voice of nature,' and not, 'Thus saith the Lord, speaking through a repealed code.' So that our opponents are, in truth, as much without scriptural prohibitions as we are."
The following quotation from the close of his first chapter (p. 6) is ample proof of the second point: "It will be shown in the sequel, that these statutes in Levit. xviii. do not prohibit marriage at all. And of course they do not prohibit marriage between brother and sister. So that, at any rate, the dreaded alternative must take its course. And these statutes, repealed or unrepealed, cannot help them to find an inspired and written prohibition against the marriage of a sister. The argument of our opponents is,—That if the marriage of a wife's sister is not prohibited to us, in this chapter, then the marriage of our sisters is nowhere prohibited in the Bible. And we answer,—If the marriage of our sisters is prohibited nowhere else, it is prohibited nowhere in the Bible. For it surely is not prohibited here, as we shall show. And we totally deny, that it is self-evident that such an express prohibition is, and must be, found in the Bible."
This is not the place to examine the soundness of the author's arguments. Our object is, at present, to let the reader see distinctly what the Puritan aims at establishing. Hereafter we hope to show the entire fallacy of the arguments on which he rests his cause. Yet the last sentence in the above quotation calls for a passing remark. Did the Puritan ever read, in any respectable writers, what he, by his strong denial, seems to impute to his opponents—that they assert it to be "self-evident, that an express prohibition is, and must be, found in the Bible?" We never heard such an assertion from any man. Why, then, has he so misrepresented the position we take? When we make such an assertion, and not before, will it be fair for him to come out with such an emphatic denial.
Now, let the reader search through the Puritan's pamphlet to find, if he can, where he shows, in God's inspired word, is contained a prohibition against the marriage of brother and sister. We cannot find it. He makes no attempt to discover such a prohibition. He only shows we are not destitute of scriptural intimation in regard to marriage: "We are not wholly without scripture intimations of duty on this subject. Against the marriage of parents and children God's will is intimated, in that a man shall leave his father and mother when he cleaves to his wife." (P. 5.) Now, if the Puritan had informed his readers that this intimation is recorded by Moses in Gen. 2:24; that our Redeemer quoted it, in a conversation with the Pharisees; and that it is recorded in the New Testament by Matthew, chap. 19:5, he would have furnished them with a proof from Turrettin's third test, (p. 4,) that this Levitical law is binding on Christians. But more of this hereafter.
It appears, then, that the Puritan thinks he has proved,
First, that the law in Levit. xviii. is repealed, and is not binding on the Christian Church;
Secondly, that it has no reference to marriage at all, and does not prohibit the marriage of brothers and sisters. Nor does he produce any scriptural prohibition against such marriages in the Old Testament.
What follows from these positions?
1. If they be true it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the Church of God under the Old Testament dispensation had no written law, except the intimation in Gen. 2:24, on the subject of incestuous marriages; but was left entirely to the light of nature on this most important part of moral duty, so intimately connected with domestic purity and sound morals in the community.
2. A second indubitable consequence is, that the Christian Church, at its first establishment, was destitute of any inspired written rule on this interesting subject; and that it now is, and ever has been, in this (as we feel disposed to term it) sad destitution.
Is this, we ask, probable? Is it probable the Church on which God has shed such light, by his written word, on every other point of doctrine and duty, has received none on this deeply interesting subject? Is she, in this particular, left in the same condition as the heathen, without any inspired written rule to mark the degrees in which marriage is not allowed? Can brothers and sisters now marry without violating any written law against such connexions? Now we do not say, what our brother imputes to us, "that it is self-evident that such an express prohibition is, and must be, found in the Bible," (p. 6;) nor would we "say, à priori, that it conflicts with the wisdom of God to leave this circumstance of the divine ordinance of marriage to human legislation, just as he has left the regulation of most circumstances respecting the divine ordinance of government." (P. 5.)
But we may remark, the ordinance of marriage lies at the foundation of the ordinance of government; and laws enacted to guard the former against abuse and to protect from pollution this original fountain of morals, will most effectually secure good morals in the civil community. It is of the first importance to lay the foundation of a building well; and on this account every builder will pay to the foundation special attention, and guard it against every defect. Besides, when we recollect what particular instructions are given in the sacred Scriptures, in regard to the duties of kings, and rulers, and judges; in regard to the duties of subjects or citizens, not to resist government, but submit to authority and to pay taxes, and to pray "for kings and all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in godliness and honesty;" and in regard to the duties of slaves and masters; it may be asked, what circumstances respecting the divine ordinance of government are left unnoticed, except the form of government, and the manner in which power is to be distributed; how the laws are to be framed, and what penalties are to be annexed to them? Has the supreme Lawgiver given such particular instruction in regard to his ordinance of government, and said no more, in his written word, on the subject of incest than may be gathered from his intimation in Gen. 2:24? Has He left the rest, so intimately connected with moral purity and human happiness, to the legislation of men apt to err under the influence of strong passions pleading for indulgence, and guided by reason, where it is so incompetent to lead? The exact boundaries in this matter human reason cannot determine. He who formed man, instituted marriage for the propagation of our race, and constituted the nature of things; He alone has knowledge and wisdom sufficient to determine the limits of marriage.
It is not for us to determine à priori what Infinite Wisdom ought to do; but when we know what God has taught on one important subject, we may humbly and reverently infer He has not left us without instruction, on a kindred subject of similar importance to our purity and happiness. Look at the moral law. Mankind were not wholly ignorant of their duty. The inspired writer says, (Rom. 2:14, 15,) "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing, or else excusing one another." It appears, then, from the testimony of Paul, that the Gentile nations, while destitute of divine revelation, were acquainted with the great principles of the moral law; their moral sense and reason taught them, in some measure, the duties it required. But God did not leave his people to those imperfect sources of instruction. They needed greater light and more perfect instruction; and, in infinite mercy, He was pleased to impart what they needed. From the summit of Mount Sinai, the glorious Lawgiver proclaimed, in circumstances of awful grandeur, the ten commandments, and afterwards engraved them on two tables of stone; and thus furnished them with a complete written summary of moral duties, in all their branches. Nor did his kindness here cease. Many inspired teachers were, in successive ages, raised up to explain and unfold the duties so comprehensively set forth in the ten commandments; till his own Son came, and his inspired apostles, who threw additional light on the moral law, and explained it in all its spiritual and extensive meaning.
Now, when all this is duly considered, does it appear probable that God has left the subject of incest, a branch of moral duty so important, in that imperfect state of instruction in which the Puritan has placed it? There is no presumption in this question. We only infer, from what God has done for his Church in one particular, what He has probably done for her in another. From the light which He has shed upon the moral law, we are led to believe He has not withheld proportional light on the law of Incest. By this we do not determine what Infinite Wisdom ought to communicate to his Church.
Can the Puritan, then, be right in the conclusions to which he has come? Is it credible, that the instructions given in the Bible on the subject of incest are so imperfect? Has God imparted to His Church scarce a single additional ray to the light of nature, and left it to human legislation to determine the limits within which it is unlawful to contract marriage? Is (we repeat the question) this credible?
In the sequel we hope to be able to show the reasoning of this writer to be entirely fallacious, on the leading points which he has established.
We believe that God has given to his Church a law of incest and marriage, and that this law is found recorded in Levit. 18:6–18. It can, we think, be proved that this law is a permanent ecclesiastical law, neither civil or judicial, nor repealed;—that it refers to marriage and prescribes its limits;—and that it is one law, and a natural law. If we shall succeed in establishing all these points, the way will be prepared for proving the particular marriage under discussion to be unlawful.