Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

ing the other full in the face, say, with a contemptuous sneer, your Scripture arguments are all chaff! We are the judges ourselves of what is lawful and unlawful. Circumstances alter cases; the circumstances of a people change, and the law of marriage must be altered and adapted to the existing circumstances. Nay, I will go a little further. If the civil law does not regulate the matter, as the habits and feelings of one family, or of one individual, differ from those of another, what might be proper in one case would be exceedingly improper in another. Or, to be plain, consanguinity has nothing more to do with incest in itself than having the same length of nose, or wearing the same coloured stockings. It is not the consanguinity, but its effects-the opportunities and temptations which flow from it, that the legislator has exclusively in his eye.

And I now venture to observe, that a perfectly satisfactory rule is furnished us, by which, in the honest exercise of our understandings, and untrammelled by a vitical law, we may determine how far the Code of Incest is to be extended in the time and circumstances in which we live. The rule is this: The law being intended to guard against the dangers threatening domestick purity from constant, unrestricted intercourse; wherever such intercourse may, in consequence of the habits and manners of a people, be presumed to exist,-THERE, no matter what be, or be not, the degrees of consanguinity and affinity, the law should take effect;-marriage be prohibited.' Page 20. We pay quite an undue degree of honour to the circumstance of actual relationship and its grades, when we judge the law of Incest by it exclusively, in the esteem of enlightened legislators, the INTERCOURSE, which from the custom and manners of a country may be presumed to exist, is a consideration vastly more important, and the only question to be asked on the subject more immediately before us, is the very plain and intelligible one: Whether the probabilities of close and intimate familiarity between brother-in-law and sister-in-law be such as to demand the inter position of this great moral preservative ?' -In certain circumstances, that is, if the fact of constant intercourse exists, it would be unlawful for you to marry your sewing girl, or indeed any female friend, however distantly related, whether by the ties of nature or friendship. On the other hand, if my employment and lot in providence be such, that I scarcely see my sister-in-law till after my wife's death, I may lawfully marry her. In the one case, it would not be suitable to circumstances, but in the other, it would be perfectly so.

slavish attachment to the letter of the Le

EXPEDIENCY, therefore, must decide the question with individuals, families, and nations. Now, Sir, all this is plausible: it is very good. Expediency is a pliable argument;-like a nose of wax, it may be made short or long, sharp or blunt, crooked or straight, just as you please."

We have given this long extract, because it exhibits at once the leading opinions and arguments both of Domesticus and Clericus. We shall now offer a few short remarks of our

own.

Much is said in this controversy against inferential reasoning. But this is a kind of reasoning, distinctly recognised as legitimate, in the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church (chap. 1. sect. vi.); and it is in fact on this reasoning alone that we must rest, and may safely rest, some of the most important institutions of our holy religion, particularly infant baptism and the Christian Šabbath. It is, also, only by this kind of reasoning that we are authorized to charge guilt upon the female sex-inmore than one instance of all the incestuous marriages prohibited in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. The prohibitions are immediately addressed to the male sex, and if direct prohibition is necessary to constitute guilt, women may be guiltless when the grossest incest is committed. We are confident that the more this subject is examined, the more clearly it will appear, that what "may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from scripture," is as valid as that which is expressly set down in the sacred volume. All must have recourse to this kind of arguing, who deny that polygamy is the object of prohibition in Lev. xviii. 18, or else concede that it is not forbidden in the whole Bible. It is by inference only, that they can find polygamy prohibited by our Saviour and the Apostle Paul. Within our memory, a work of far more learning and plausibility than Domesticus has yet given us, was published by a clergyman in England, the Rev. Mr. Madan, to show that polygamy is no where condemn

ed or forbidden in scripture; but that it is the great preservative from impurity, like D.'s law of incest; and ought therefore to be encouraged in all communities. From the circumstance that the apostle forbids it to clergymen, it was urged that it was doubtless lawful to all other men; exactly as it is now reasoned, that as Moses forbids a man to take a wife to her sister to vex her in her life time, it necessarily follows that he may take the second after the death of the first. No small portion of the talent of Britain was employed to confute this work of the Rev. Mr. Madan. See the 63d vol. of the Monthly Review. We have personally known a Presbyterian elder, and a shrewd one too, who earnestly maintained that polygamy was perfectly agreeable to the law of God, and forbidden only by the laws of the state. It is a little remarkable that our opponents apply inferential reasoning, not only to the words of Christ and the apostle, but to Lev. xviii. 18, and yet deny its applicability to the rest of that chapter. While Moses moreover gives it as a reason why a man should not marry two sisters at once, that the second would vex the first, our modern logicians contend that it will comfort a woman exceedingly, to know that her sister is to take her place after her death; and that this second wife will be the kindest mother in the world to the children of the first. We maintain that all experience, as well as the word of God, is against this theory.

We scarcely know of a commentator on the law of incest, as contained in the chapter so frequently referred to, who does not remark, that one of the salutary effects of prohibiting marriages among those who are nearly related by consanguinity and affinity, is, that the temptation to uncleanness is thereby prevented, among those of the opposite sexes who usually have the most frequent intercourse with each other. The remark is unquestionably just; but when Domesticus seizes on this circumstance, and endeavours to de

rive from it the very principle and whole sanction of the law, it leads him to the most extravagant and shocking absurdities-to deny that there is any natural abhorrence of incest-that but for the consideration which he states, the nearest of all relatives, even by consanguinity, might intermarry:-And on the contrary, to maintain that the law of incest extends, or ought to extend, to all possible cases, in which frequent intercourse between the sexes takes place. On this last principle he is obliged to admit, that it would scarcely be possible to specify all the cases to which the law ought to extend. A wide door, it is clear, would be open, for dispute whether, in many a particular case, the law had been violated or not; whether the parties had been previously so much in each other's company, as to render it lawful, or unlawful, to marry. We lately read of a man who courted a woman assiduously for more than thirty years, and afterwards married her. Now, by the rule of Domesticus, he ought never to have married her; and surely it is but reasonable that Domesticus should tell us how long, upon his principle, a man may court a woman, before it becomes unlawful for him to marry her. Domesticus also extends the influence of the principle he adopts, beyond all the bounds of truth and experience; and even to the superseding, as his answerers have remarked, of the necessity of the seventh commandment-so far as it relates to those of the different sexes who have habitual intercourse with each other.

According to Domesticus, the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church, in the article submitted to the presbyteries, is right entirely by accident. It so happens, that those who are nearly related to each other by consanguinity or affinity have, in our country, and in many other countries, familiar intercourse with each other, and therefore they ought not to intermarry; but if it had happened otherwise-if it had happened that

17.

daughters, as soon as born, were separated from their fathers, and sisters from their brothers, these relatives might intermarry without fault. Let no reader start at this consequence; for Domesticus himself looks it right in the face, without blushing. He is even content that the whole doctrine of his essay should stand or fall with it. On this point Veritas justly remarks as follows"I fear that Domesticus, notwithstanding the very vivid picture he gives of domestick purity, has unwittingly given countenance to a most dangerous licentiousness, by declaring his belief, 'that there is no natural impropriety in the nearest relations having sexual communion. And by saying again, not that consanguinity has any thing more to do with incest, in itself, than having the same length of nose, or wearing the same coloured stockings.' It is seriously to be regretted that he did not comply with the judicious advice of his friends in suppressing these sentiments. In doing so, he would have found an appropriate place for his principle of expediency. Their publication may do more injury to the cause of morality, than his mysterious guardian may be able to counteract. Such opinions, emanating from such a source, may not only obtain access to the minds of the vulgar, many of whom may be able, from natural good sense, or experimental piety, to resist their deleterious influence, but become incorporated into the practical morality of many of our educated youth, who will naturally slide into the system of infidelity, with which these opinions have heretofore been associated. It is a pity they had not been left there. They sound too much like the licentious philosophy of the Voltairean school, to be ingrafted into the system of Christian morals."

Domesticus supposes that his favourite principle will always, and safely, lead to the conclusion which he adopts. But we could not help remarking, that the infidel Hume, taking reason and philosophy for his guide, arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion, in the case of Henry the Eighth of England. Yes-and set aside the scriptural rule, and subject the whole law to the supposed dictates of reason and expediency, and every man who wishes to marry his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, will arrive at the same conclusion

We do not say fairly, but yet really, plausibly, and to himself satisfactorily. The plain truth is, that Domesticus, in this whole argument, is on infidel ground. He deserts the word of God, and goes to reason and expediency for his law; and here, such men as Hume will stand a good chance to beat him at his own weapons.

Clericus justly remarks, on the argument of Domesticus, as founded on expediency, that "notwithstanding all his zeal for this great but very flexible principle, he seems afterwards conscience struck that it will not bear him out, in defending the usual practice of the church." After reading in his pamphlet, the reasoning and ridicule which he employs to show that the Levitical law of incest has, and can have, no binding force on Christian people, because it stands in a cluster of ceremonial enactments, and is itself such an enactment, obligatory only on ancient Israel-what was our surprise to find in a note, in the last page but one of his pamphlet, the following statement

"The reader will please to accept my whole doctrine in four propositions. 1st. The Levitical law of incest, the whole law, is binding on Christian societies. It carries on its front, the stamp of permanent obligation,-being adapted to guard against a danger common to us with the ancient Hebrews, and which can be guarded against only by respecting its provisions.

"2dly. The same reason demands that something more than the letter of that law be regarded, that whatever is dedumechanical balancing, to which I have recible from it, by construction (not the peatedly alluded, but fair interpretation in conformity with the general principle of incest) is as really part of the Divine will, as if an angel pronounced it to us by an audible voice.

"3dly. It is the duty of the civil magistrate, carefully and with a deep feeling of responsibility, to make these deductions, to give them all the authority of law and support them by the most weighty sanctions.

"4thly. If the civil magistrate neglects his duty, the church of Jesus Christ must rebuke his unfaithfulness and take care not to become partaker in his sin. Wo

be to her, if she allows vice and misery to prevail in any of their forms, without using her influence and authority against

them. A double wo,-if she takes the

lead in surrendering to the enemy. In regard to the particular subject under discussion, the magistrate has performed his duty nobly. It is not a little singular

that the church should have exhibited the first symptoms of degeneracy.”

Only strike out the parenthesis from the second proposition in this quotation, or consider it as it seems to be intended-as a saving clause, to preserve some show of consistency in the author-and we have not one word to object against this statement of "the whole doctrine" of Domesticus. We can subscribe it cheerfully and cordially. It stands on the very ground for which we contend, and goes to the utmost extent of our wishes; and we could freely forgive the writer for all the extravagance and flippancy which precedes it in his pamphlet, if we could only be sure that all his readers would con

sider him as here unsaying the most of what he has said before. With this remark we leave him.

We have already expressed our opinion of the work of Dr. Living ston-have given some extracts from it, and sincerely regret that we have not room for more. It is in our judge ment, instar omnium, in relation to this subject. In a few unessential particulars we must differ from him; but we differ with all the diffidence of an affectionate scholar, who cannot fully agree with an able master. Although it is not usual to review a work which has been ten years published, we determined to bring this distinctly before our readers; not solely because we intended to quote it, but for the purpose of recommending it, as we now earnestly do, to the careful perusal of all who can obtain a copy.

The pamphlet of Mr. M'Iver contains a historical statement of the case of M'Crimmon-the case which has occasioned a reference to the Presbyteries, and given rise to this whole controversy. The narrative part of the pamphlet is per

spicuous, full and satisfactory; and the speech which he delivered before the Assembly does him credit in every view of it-It appears that M'Crimmon has entirely forsaken the Presbyterian church, and gone to the Baptists. We hope that our Baptist brethren, for whom we cherish a sincere affection, will not, for their own sakes, receive such men to their fellowship and communion-We say for their own sakes, because we certainly esteem it no loss to the Presbyterian church when any man of this description leaves it, and no gain to any church that receives him.

In drawing our review to a close, we wish our readers to know, that we are fully aware it may be tisfaction by our opponents, that remarked, perhaps with some sain the interpretation we have given to the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, our appeal has been to the opinion of commentators, controvertists, and councils, and not to any new and convincing arguments of our own. But we have done this under a deliberate conviction, that in no other way could any thing be said that ought to have, and that would have, nearly as much weight, with the whole discerning and considerate part of the community. We do not believe that the study of a month, or a twelvemonth, would enable any man in the United States, to offer a new thought or argument, of any worth, on the one side or the other of this controversywe mean as it arises out of the interpretation of the chapter referred to-Nay, we do not believe that a new thought has been offered on it, for nearly two hundred years past. All that can be said has been said, and repeated a hundred times, for centuries that have gone by.* Now,

• Whoever is able and willing to read, on this subject, nearly two folio volumes quotations of Hebrew (both biblical and in Latin, plentifully interspersed with rabbinical), Greek, Syriac, Arabic and Persic, ought carefully to consult the fol

in such a case, the best appeal that can be made, is to the deliberate opinion of the Christian publick, in regard to arguments and considerations that have been so long in view. The general and practical conviction of enlightened individuals and communities, affords, in every such case, the best evidence, to show on which side of a controverted point the truth lies-They are the jury, who decide the cause after the pleadings are finished. We have therefore shown that all Christendom, from the earliest periods of the Christian church to the present hour, after the most learned and thorough investigation of this subject, has steadfastly abided in practice, by that construction of the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus for which we are advocates-The only appearance of an exception is in our own country; and this we solemnly believe is not owing to new light, and an impartial view of the subject, but to the relaxation of church discipline; and to the repeal in one or two instances, and the non-execution generally, of the civil enactments which prohibit and punish incest.

And we now most seriously entreat those of our readers who, as ministers and elders of the Presbyterian church, will shortly be call

lowing works of the immortal SELDEN; De Jure Naturali et Gentuim, juxta disciplinam Ebræorum-Uxor Ebraica-De Synedriis Veterum Ebræorum. We certainly make no pretence to much acquaintance with these works; but since we began to write this review, we have looked into them till we were heartily tired; and believe that whoever should go through, and comprehend them, would have little more to learn on this subject.

ed to vote on the retention or rejection of that part of the article in our Confession of Faith which relates to this subject, to consider. well what they do. What, we ask, will they gain by a rejection or repeal of the article? Will they produce uniformity of practice, and thus prevent controversy and appeals, which seems to be the principal object in view-No such thing. There will be as much controversy and as many appeals afterwards, as in times past. Nay, there are portions of the Presbyterian church that cannot, and will not, yield to any human authority, which sanctions the marriages in question. They dare not do it-They would sooner suffer the severest censures of the church, leave it, or be expelled from it, than submit, even silently, to what they consider as an abomination in the sight of God, and forbidden by his holy law. And for the sake of relieving a few individuals, who, it is agreed on all hands, have acted indiscreetly, and violated the law of Christian charity, shall the inoffensive and conscientious be grieved? Shall they be driven from our communion? Shall the Presbyterian church be the first on earth, formally to open a door, as many other churches will account it, for the most detestable licentiousness and impurity? Is this church willing to present herself to the world, as leading the way, to what the most of Christendom will consider, and we think justly consider, as land defiling, and heaven provoking iniquity? Forbid it reputation, justice, decency, humanity, conscience and piety-Great Head of the church, forbid it!

Literary and Philosophical Intelligence, etc.

Auriscope.-The difficulty of inspecting the Meatus Auditorius, or Passage of the Ear, from its peculiar winding structure, is well known; hence the uncertainty that often arises in ascertaining the cause of diseases in this organ. In consequence VOL. V.Ch. Ådv.

of a greater attention being paid to diseases of the ear than formerly, an ingenious French Aurist has lately invented a novel instrument, termed an Auriscope, which allows a complete inspection of the parts. It consists of a circular brass plate 2 A

« AnteriorContinuar »