which, whoever marries shall, it is said, be "declared infamous, and subjected to corporal punishment and fine." We cannot afford room for this extended canon, but we will insert the note with which Dr. L. concludes this part of his dissertation.

"The writer of this dissertation recollects, that while in Europe, he received information by letters, of a member of the church having married the sister of his deceased wife; a case which was the first that was recollected to have happened in America, and which excited great

uneasiness. The informed communicated this to an eminent minister, (Professor H.) and asked him, how the Church of Holland would proceed in such a case? To which he replied: "It is a case which cannot happen in Holland. It is forbid. den by the canons of the church, and by the civil laws of the state. Any minister who knowingly solemnised such a marriage would be instantly deposed; the incestuous connexion would be declared null and void; and the parties severely punished."

We have now seen that from the very origin of the Christian church to the present hour, European Christendom, Protestant as well as Popish, has, with entire unanimity, condemned all marriages within the fourth degree either of affinity or consanguinity; and also that the penalties inflicted for incestuous marriages, both by church and state, remain in full force. We have likewise incidentally seen that the laws or usages

of the more refined heathen na

tions, have commonly been in conformity with the same rule. It should likewise be particularly noted, that in regard to the interpretation of Lev. xviii. 18, there appear to have been, in almost every age of the church, a few individuals, who have questioned, whether there is not here an intimation that after the decease of a wife, a man might lawfully marry her sister. But we are not aware of more than one in stance of a man, of any note in the European church, who has expressed

Dr. Adam Clark: See his Commentary on Lev. xviii. 18. But he gives a mere dictum, without any argument.

a clear opinion that this verse contains an allowance of such a marriage; and nothing is more evident than that all leaning of individuals towards such an interpretation, has been withstood by an overwhelming majority of the most learned and pious commentators, as well as by all the publick formularies and canons of the different churches-It may be added, that the Jewish commentators have agreed with the Christian in this interpretation. Dr. Livingston (p. 119) says-"The sister of a deceased wife is, without any possible exemption, absolutely and forever prohibited-In this sense the ancient Jews understood the law. They knew they were unconditionally forbidden to marry the sister of a deceased wife. The law is unequivocal, and as it regards the Jews, its meaning cannot be controverted. whether this law is ceremonial and The only question to be decided is, peculiar to Israel; or whether it is moral and of universal obligation? That it cannot be ceremonial is evithe properties of a ceremonial law. dent, from its possessing none of That it is a moral law is certainfrom its essential connexion, in its object and scope, with the seventh precept of the Decalogue-from its express reference to the law of nature, and coincidence with that very law which the wicked inhabitants of Canaan had trangressed; and from its being the only written law in the whole Bible, upon the subject of incest; the only standard by which

the Christian church can ascertain the crime, and agreeably to which, by proper discipline, she can preserve her purity by excommunicating

such criminals."

thus far taken, it appears that if the From the historical review then, Presbyterian Church shall remove from her Confession of Faith the section which has been referred to the she of course will, the doctrine that presbyteries, and thereby sanction, as "a man may marry some of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, and a woman some of

her husband's kindred nearer in blood than her own," she will set her opinion in direct opposition to the opinion of all Christian churches in Europe from the time of the Apostles; and to all the most approved commentators of scripture, to all Jewish usage, and to all the best heathen moralists and jurists. We do not say that this is absolutely decisive of the question in controversy. But we do say, that the Presbyterian church ought to be well aware of the ground on which she treads in this business. We do say that the presbyteries of this denomination ought, from a regard both to conscience and character, to be entirely satisfied that the word of God will clearly bear them out in repealing, if they do repeal, that part of their constitution, which is submitted to them for consideration.

Let us now trace the history of this business in our own country, and particularly in the church which at present is most immediately concerned. The eighty-six presbyteries, now under the care of the General Assembly, sprang from a single one, consisting of five or six ministers, which was formed in Philadelphia, A. D. 1706. In ten years, the number of members had so much increased, and the places of their residence were so widely distant from each other, that it became expedient to form four Presbyteries out of one. This was accordingly done, and the first Synod of this church met in Philadelphia in the autumn of 1717. At this very first Synod a record was made in relation to the subject before us, of which the following is an exact copy-"The affair of Andrew Van Dyke, that was referred from the Presbytery of New Castle

An Arabian writer, cited by Pocock, says-"Turpissimum corum quæ faciebant, (Arabes tempore ignorantiæ) erat hoc, quod vir duas sorores et patris sui uxorem, valut successor, assumeret." See Poole's Synopsis, on Lev. xviii. 16, where several other quotations, of similar import, from heathen writers, Greck and Latin, are given.

to the Synod, came under consideration; and a considerable time being spent in discoursing upon it, it was determined, nemine contradicente, that his marriage with his brother's wife or widow, was incestuous or unlawful; and their living together as the consequence of that marriage is incestuous and unlawful, and that so long as they live together, they be debarred from all sealing ordinances; and that Mr. Wotherspoon make intimation hereof to his congregation, in what time and manner he shall think convenient." As nothing afterwards appears on the synodical records in reference to this case, there is reason to believe that Van Dyke and his wife lived and died in a state of exclusion "from all sealing ordinances." We remark, in passing, that the above record shows that one statement made by Dr. Ely, in the little pamphlet under review, is not exactly correct. He says, (page 11)-"Some would erase from the Confession the words in question, because they have been the constant occasion of controversy in the church; and the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian church in the United States has never been able to satisfy itself, that the marriage of a deceased wife's sister is positively forbidden in the Bible." It was not indeed in regard to a wife's sister, but to a brother's wife, that the above decision was made; yet we have no reason to believe that the Synod that made the decision, and which was then "the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian church in the United States," did not regard these cases as perfectly parallel. So they unquestionably did regard them, and without a single dissenting voice, they pronounced the case before them one of such gross incest, as to preclude the parties from all sealing ordinances, while the unlawful connexion should continue. We ought however in candour to mention, that contains the minute we have exhiwe suspect the book of records which bited, has never been in possession of Dr. Ely, and that he did not know

of the existence of this minute-The decision specified appears to have had a very salutary effect. It prevented, for a considerable number of years, a "constant controversy in the church," which Dr. Ely justly states as having existed since that time. The book from which we have taken the foregoing extract, contains the records of the Synod to the end of the year 1726-and there is not during this time (the space of nine years) a single indication that any other case of the kind had ever disturbed the peace of the church. The book of synodical records from 1727 to 1757, both years inclusive, is most unhappily lost, we fear beyond the hope of recovery. It was during this period, in the year 1741, that a wide and lamentable rent took place in the Synod of Philadelphia. Two rival and hostile synods were formed, one retaining the name of the Synod of Philadelphia, and the other assuming that of the Synod of New York. They united again in the year 1758, under the title, or appellation, of The Synod of New York and Philadelphia; and so remained till the formation of the General Assembly, which met for the first time in 1789. The book which contained the proceedings of the Synod of Philadelphia before the separation (from 1726 to 1741) and during the separation (from 1741 to 1758) is that which is lost.-The Synod book of the Synod of New York, during the separation, is preserved. But although from the loss of records we cannot state with certainty how much, or how little, the Synod had to do with questions relative to unlawful marriages for the space of more than thirty years, it seems probable, from what we afterwards meet with, that the decision in the case of Van Dyke governed the churches through the whole of that period. Two years after the union of the synods, that is in the year 1760, we find the subsequent minutes in regard to this subject. They are in the following words "The case of conscience concerning a man's having

married his half-brother's widow, was brought under consideration, and several members offered their thoughts on it. But the further consideration was deferred till the afternoon.The case of the marriage resumed. After some farther conversation on this point, agreed that Messrs. Samuel Finley, James Finley, Blair, Miller, Kittletas, and Gilbert Tennant, be a committee to bring in a sum of what they can find in scripture and the English law on that point, against Monday's afternoon; and also on a second case from Donnegal Presbytery, where a brother's and sister's relicts married together; and on a third case, of a man's marrying two sisters, one after the other's death. The case of conscience resumed, and the committee appointed to examine what the English and Levitical laws have determined in this affair, brought in their report. Voted that the consideration of the above affair be deferred until next Synod, and that it be recommended to the several members to examine the affair more thoroughly before that time, and give their sentiments on it." In the following year, 1761, we have this minute in relation to the preceding cases-"The cases of conscience respecting marriage were resumed, and after the most mature deliberation, the Synod judge as follows;-That as the Levitical law, enforced also by the civil laws of the land, is the only rule by which we are to judge of marriages, whoever marry within the degrees of prohibited consanguinity or affinity forbidden therein, act unlawfully, and have no right to the distinguishing privileges of the churches; and as the marriages in question appear to be within the prohibited degrees, they are to be accounted unlawful, and the persons suspended from special communion, while they continue in this relation." Here let it be carefully noted, that the marriage of a deceased wife's sister, as well as that of a man with his deceased brother's widow, had been submitted to the consideration of the Synod; and that after

gard ject of w of the yet we are 16th verse a man is forsister of his deather to consider intimating that he have already seen, ere have been in evethe Christian church a iduals, some of them, we icarned and pious, who ather leaned to this intertion of the 16th and 18th ses of the xviii. chapter of Leiticus than decisively adopted it, still the collected and overwhelming weight of piety and learning have always been decisively in favour of the other interpretation; and nearly the whole, even of those who lean to VOL. V. Ch. Adv.

es of its members from e and suspicions. Nay, selves disclaim exion of pleading 15 generally being adey only h to be present, may be ina of existing icus says, ex"In a few years probably subside: may change; and expedient to dispense his slight discipline." writers are to show that onsistent with themselves, ifferent parts of their pamwe are glad to think is not Ask which we are called to unertake.

But let us see what reasons they assign for the interpretation they would give to the 16th and 18th

verses of Lev. xviii. And here we wish it may be well noted that they do not even pretend to allege any new argument, from the meaning of the texts in the original, or from the context of the verses-they do not even recite much that has heretofore been said by others, in favour of their opinion. What they do say, in the way of argument, has been said and answered a hundred times, before they were born. Their whole plea, so far as it is properly their own, rests on the increased light of the present age, on classing the opinions of their opponents with those in favour of religious persecution and witchcraft, and on the fact that persons of great piety and worth have actually contracted such marriages as we judge to be unlawful. Now we really think that we might fairly urge that much of all this is gratis dictum, and that

Z