VIII., who had got a dispensation from the Pope to marry his brother's widow, and then, professing himself grieved in heart and conscience at his iniquity, applied for a separation, we have the testimony of Hume the historian as to the customs and usages of the Christendom of that time. Hume, in his customary sneering infidelity, declares his belief that, had the question of Henry's marriage with Catherine been examined by "the principles of sound philosophy, exempt from superstition," it would not have been liable to much difficulty. He goes on, however, after giving certain reasons in accordance with what he calls "sound philosophy," to say:

"In opposition to these reasons, and many more which might be collected, Henry had custom and precedent on his side; the principles by which men are almost wholly governed in their actions and opinions. The marrying of a brother's widow was so unusual, that no other instance of it could be found in any history or record of any Christian nation; and, though the Popes were accustomed to dispense with more essential precepts of morality, and even permitted marriages within other prohibited degrees, such as those of uncle and niece, the imaginations of men were not yet reconciled to this particular exercise of his authority. Several universities of Europe, therefore, without hesitation, as well as without interest or reward, gave verdict in the King's favour; not only those of France-Paris, Orleans, Bourges, Toulouse, Angiers-which may be supposed to lie under the influence of their prince, ally to Henry, but also those of Italy-Venice, Ferrara, Padua, even Bologna itself, though under the immediate jurisdiction of Clement. Oxford alone, and Cambridge, made some difficulty; because these universities, alarmed at the progress of Lutheranism, and dreading a defection from the Holy See, scrupled to give their sanction to measures whose consequences, they feared, would prove fatal to the ancient religion. Their opinion, however, comformable to that of the other universities of Europe, was at last obtained."

The nearer we approach our own age the testimony is

all the clearer and all the more emphatic. Thus, the Church of England gives no uncertain sound on the subject, as its 99th Canon, passed in 1603, abundantly testifies:"No person shall marry within the degrees prohibited by the laws of God, and expressed in a table set forth by authority, in the years of our Lord God, 1563. And all marriages so made and contracted shall be judged incestuous and unlawful, and consequently shall be dissolved as void from the beginning; the parties so married shall, by course of time, be separated, and the aforesaid table shall be in every church publicly set up and fixed at the charge of the parish." The table referred to is that known as Parker's Table, which contains these "Wife's Sister, Husband's Brother; BROTHER'S Wife, Sister's Husband."

The table within the degrees of which no person is allowed to marry, I have already given in an earlier page.

The Scottish Church also, in all its various branches, is not less explicit. The Confession of Faith, which is its recognised standard, and which was drawn up and ratified by Act of Parliament in 1645, is very explicit. It says in its 24th chapter, sections I. and IV. :—

66

"I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman; neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time."

"IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own."

This I have said is very clear and very explicit: nothing can be more so. "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of

her own." The proof of this given is the whole of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, and the 19th to the 21st verses of the 20th chapter of Leviticus.

The American churches, whose constitutions are generally based on the constitutions of the parent churches in Europe, have held similar views and given similar decisions; and we have the undoubted testimony of the whole Christian Church, of every shade and degree, whether of purity or of corruption, for 1500 years, holding the marriage of a man with the sister of a deceased wife to be unlawful and incestuous. In regard to the first 300 years of the Christian Church, if there be not positive testimony that it held the same thing-as there is strong and almost unquestionable presumption that it did there is assuredly not a vestige of evidence that it held the contrary.

4

CHAPTER V.

CIVIL LAW AS RESPECTS THE MOSAIC CODE.

IN accordance with the opinions and decisions of the Councils and Churches, have been the opinions and decisions of nearly all Civil Governments from the earliest records of history. I shall now give, in the most summary form, the chief laws and usages bearing on the subject. In reference to human legislation in the matter of incest, in the time. of the Roman Emperors, Professor Gibson says:

"It is remarkable that almost as soon as it was possible to have human legislation in harmony with that of the Christian Church you have such marriages forbidden. This is pretty clear proof of what was the prevailing opinion of Christians at that time. You have these prohibitive laws in the Codex Theodosianus. It may be useful, for the sake of the unlearned reader, to say that this was a collection by the Emperor Theodosius of all the laws of the Christian Emperors. The edition before us is that of Lyons, 1665, in four folio volumes, with the commentaries of James Godfrey, whom the title calls a man of senatorian rank, and an illustrious jurist of this age.' In III. Cod. Tit. xii., there is first a law forbidding marriage with a niece, the daughter either of a brother or sister, as an abomination, and making its violation a capital crime. It is addressed to the governors of Phoenicia and the adjacent countries. It bears date 339. The law on this point among the Romans varied. Godfrey tells us that by very ancient law (antiquissimo jure), the marriage of the daughter both of a brother and sister was forbidden; but that afterwards a distinction was made between the brother's and the sister's daughter-that it was allowed to the former to marry her uncle by the father's side, but not her uncle by the mother's

--that Claudius, desirous of marrying Aggripina, his niece, procured an alteration of the law in his favour. In this he had great difficulty, and it required much management, and the aid of some subservient statesmen and imperial gold, to bring it about. The narrative is given by Tacitus (See ‘Annal.,' lib. xii.). Godfrey refers also to Suetonius, in his 'Life of Claudius,' chap. 26; Seneca, in his Octavia,' act i.; and the old scholiast, Juvenal. The words of Tacitus are remarkable—that even after all had been prepared, and the marriage agreed on, they dared not to celebrate the rites of marriage, there being no example of the daughter of a brother led to the house of her uncle. And, moreover, if the incest were despised, they were afraid it might turn out to the public damage. The sequel proved that their fears were well founded. The whole scene, as narrated by Tacitus, is a curious display of the time-serving profligacy of the senatorial agents, and the base subserviency of an immoral rabble. There was a Vitellius to talk over the one and to corrupt the other. Parallels are not wanting in the present day.

6

"Those who desire to see more on the Roman law may consult the Institutes of Justinian, De Nuptiis. x. Titulus, Qui possunt nuptias Contrahere,' in which they will find the doctrine of affinity maintained among heathen Romans, as it has been among the Jews and Christians, Roman Catholics and Protestants. The example of Claudius was followed by Domitian. In a short time after, the ancient law was restored. Various changes occurred, as might be supposed, when the law stood in the way of the lusts of the Roman Emperors. There is no law extant by Constantine the Great. The ancient law was restored by his son, who attached capital punishment to its incestuous violation. The law of heathen Rome, then, was certainly more stringent than that of some modern legislators, who seem, in this respect, to have outstripped in license not only the law of Moses, but even of heathen Rome.

"There is next 'the law of Constantius concerning the unlawful marriage with the wife of a brother and the sister