Unlawful Marriage/Introduction
INTRODUCTION.
The design of the Puritan's pamphlet is to vindicate the lawfulness of a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister. It was prepared and published in opposition to an Act of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, by which, in accordance with their Confession of Faith, and, as they believed, in accordance with the sacred Scriptures, they affirmed the decision of one of their Presbyteries, who had deposed a member for the sin of contracting such a marriage.
It was distributed widely among the members of the Presbyterian Church: and, as the question of the lawfulness of such a marriage had, by appeal, come up before the General Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church, and had, by that Synod, been sent down to all their Classes, to report their judgment on the question to the next Synod, the pamphlet was widely and gratuitously distributed among the members of the Classes, with a view to influence their decision, and to effect a change in the action of that Christian Church in regard to such marriages.
It had doubtless very considerable influence on the members of that Church, and particularly on her younger ministers. The General Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church, at their last session, having received the reports of their Classes, departed from what had heretofore been the uniform practice of their Church, and the Church of Holland, from which they were descended, by resolving, "that all resolutions which may have been passed by the General Synod, forbidding a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, be and hereby are rescinded."[1]
In the year 1816, the venerable Dr. John H. Livingston, Professor of Theology in the Seminary of that Church, prepared and published a dissertation on this question, at the request of the General Synod. It is able and learned.
As early as 1580, Holland, the Doctor shows, declared in an ordinance, "that no persons related in blood, or by affinity, within the forbidden degrees, shall be permitted to cohabit or be married, under penalty of being declared infamous, and subjected to corporeal punishment and heavy fines, and if they persisted in their crime, to banishment." In another ordinance, the forbidden degrees are enumerated; and it is declared, "that no man may marry the widow of his deceased brother, nor may any woman marry the husband of her deceased sister." Pp. 49, 50.
And to prove what construction is put on Levit. 18: 16, by the Reformed Dutch Church, the Doctor quotes from the marginal notes of the translators, appointed by the National Synod of Dortrecht, held in 1618 and 1619, the following words: "From this law it necessarily follows, that a woman who has been married with one brother, may not, after his death, marry with another brother; and, upon the same principle, a man who has been married to one sister, may not, after her death, marry the other sister." He quotes also their note on verse 18, which is as follows: "It consequently can by no means from this be concluded, that the husband, after the death of his wife, may marry her sister." Pp. 162, 163. The following pages, from p. 168 to 172, contain strong additional confirmation, which are commended to the reader's notice.
In the conclusion of his dissertation, this venerable and profoundly learned Professor, long the brightest ornament of his Church, says: "The Reformed Church in Holland has established by her canons, 'that no man may marry his sister-in-law, and no woman may marry her brother-in-law,' and has never deviated from that rule. The Reformed Dutch Church in America, which is the same with the Church in Holland, has adopted the same canons, corresponds with that Church, and is esteemed and beloved by it, as a valuable portion of the same Church, and is bound by the most sacred obligations to transmit unimpaired to posterity the precious treasure with which she is intrusted. There can therefore be no cause for suspense, no motive for hesitation: but, on the contrary, every consideration suggested by faithfulness to God and attachment to His Church, renders it an imperious duty to avoid even the appearance of schism, and strictly to abide by the established canons."
"It has pleased the Lord to preserve this Church during two centuries in America, and render her conspicuous and respectable for her faithful adherence to the doctrines of the gospel and the purity of her morals. It is, therefore, fervently hoped, that this distinguished Church will never relax in her holy discipline, nor tarnish her high and worthy character by abandoning her standards, or rescinding her own canons;—above all, that she will not be the first, the only one in this country, or even in the world, who shall dare to contravene the law of God, and dispense with a crime which he forbids." Pp. 176–178.
In the year 1788, the Particular Synod of that Church resolved, "that as all such marriages are contrary to the word of God, and that purity of life so becoming the Christian character, the persons contracting such marriages cannot be admitted to the table of the Lord until the offence be removed." In 1797, the question "was brought up from the Particular Synod, "Is it lawful for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister?" to the General Synod, who answered the question in the negative, and determined at the same time, that the censure proper to be inflicted on persons contracting such unlawful marriage, had been justly decided on by the Particular Synod of 1788, whose resolution has just been recited.[2]
In 1815, nineteen years afterwards, the question came before the General Synod again for adjudication, when they postponed the decision till the next year. At this session the venerable Professor was requested to write on the subject. See preface to his dissertation.
The next year the vote was taken on this resolution: "Resolved, That so much of the acts of the General Synod, passed in the years 1797 and 1815, recorded on page 264, in the appendix to our constitution, as directs the churches to exclude from sealing ordinances the persons contemplated by those acts, be, and the same is hereby repealed." The vote stood thus: yeas fifteen, nays forty-one; nearly three to one. The names are recorded. "Whereupon it was Resolved, nemine contradicente, That it is inexpedient to make any alteration or modification of the decisions of the Church on the subject of a man's marrying his deceased wife's sister."
Fifteen years after this, in 1842, this vexed question came up again, by appeal from a Classes which had subjected an offender to merited discipline. The Synod sent it down to the Classes to be considered and reported on. The result is before the public. By a vote of forty-eight to twenty-two the resolution already recited (p. 10) was adopted.
The sad event, deprecated by the venerable man who contended for the purity of that Church which he so much loved, and whose interests he had so greatly promoted, has arrived. Were he now living, he would pour out his devout soul in deep humiliation before God, and exclaim, Ichabod!
The feelings of the New England Puritan are doubtless of an opposite nature. The pamphlet bearing this name, to which we now return, is, as a whole, a singular production. It is composed of two distinct essays, written by different persons, and an extract from an essay by a third individual. The Puritan regards the law in Levit. viii. as a Jewish law, having no reference to marriage, and imposing no obligation on other nations. Omicron admits the law to be a law relating to marriage, and prescribing the degrees within which marriage is not to be contracted; but he endeavors to prove the particular marriage in question not prohibited by this law. Dr. Benedict takes the same ground, but boldly affirms this marriage to be lawful, because it is not specified among the prohibitions. In the same way he might prove the lawfulness of marriage between own brothers and sisters; for they are not found among the specifications.
The Puritan willingly calls on writers who occupy ground so entirely different from the ground on which he stands, to assist him in opening a wide door for the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister, to pass from a state of dishonor to a state of honor. The success of this combined effort will be tested. We shall see whether those writers can wipe away the disgrace, which past ages have stamped upon such connexions.
We find too in this pamphlet, an extract from a letter of the late Judge Brockholst Livingston, dated Dec. 12, 1817. It contains not a single argument. All is naked assertion.
A man of that name once lived in New York. Destitute of moral courage sufficient to refuse a challenge to fight a duel, he accepted it, and killed his antagonist. Is this the man from whose simple assertion the Puritan is willing to call for aid? How unfortunate!