# Unlawful Marriage/Chapter 5

CHAPTER V.
The same subject continued—First criterion—Third criterion—Second criterion.
5. The first criterion, reasoning on the Puritan's own principles, does not fail. It stands firm. Indeed he virtually yields the point in debate, where he says, (p. 6,) "The voice of nature teaches that such marriages are now to be reprobated—that there are reasons why they should be forbidden by the laws of the land, on grounds of high expediency." Again, on the same page, he says, "We, having the light of inspiration to read the book of nature with, find no difficulty in reading out of the book of nature a law against such marriages."
When, we ask, was this law enacted? when inscribed in the book of nature? The light of inspiration was imparted as soon as Moses began to write the Levitical law, and before his ​time. But the Puritan perhaps will say, he means the light which the Scriptures of the New Testament have shed upon the book of nature. Well, they were bestowed on the Church at the beginning of the Christian era; and could not primitive Christians use their light in reading the book of nature, and read out of it the law against these marriages? But popery was then developing itself, and darkening the pages of inspiration and of nature. If so, we ask again, when was this law enacted and written in the book of nature? Was it since the Protestant Church arose? But why these questions? If this law exists now, it existed ever since men had multiplied on the earth, and part of it from the beginning of the world. If men had not eyes to read it in the book of nature, still it was written there; and if they were ignorant of the law of nature, still that law of nature had existence. It was enacted by the God of nature for the government of his rational creatures. Were all men blind, that calamity would not extinguish the sun's rays of light. He would go forth still, like a bridegroom from his chamber, and shine in all his brightness in the heavens.
​6. This law, then, which the Puritan reads out of the book of nature, must, on his own admission, be a natural law, obligatory on all mankind, whether they know it or not. "The voice of nature," he says, "teaches that such marriages are now to be reprobated." Yes, and we have seen that the voice of nature was heard in ancient times, and that they were reprobated not only by the writings of their philosophers, but by the laws of nations.
But the Puritan will perhaps say, I was speaking of "the marriage of one's own sister." Be it so; and does not "the voice of nature teach" that the marriage of a man with his mother, or with his aunt, or with his son's daughter, or with his daughter's daughter, is now to be reprobated; and that there are reasons why such marriages should be forbidden by the laws of the land, "on grounds of high expediency?" Assisted by "the light of inspiration," can you find any difficulty in reading out of the book of nature a law against such marriages? Are not these marriages part of one law, recorded in Leviticus 18: vs. 6–17? and ​if part of this law is natural, is not the whole law, on the same subject, natural?
7. "The third criterion, to wit, the repetition and renewal of the law," says our brother, (p. 4, at the beginning of the last paragraph,) "in the New Testament, equally fails. It is not pretended that the New Testament is any thing more than silent on the subject." Indeed! The New Testament silent on such breaches of the law of nature designed to protect domestic purity and public morals! What indignant language does Paul use, in 1 Cor. 5:1–5, in relation to the abominable fornication of the Corinthian, who had taken his father's wife to live with her in incestuous intercourse! What was the decree of the Assembly at Jerusalem for the direction of Gentile churches in regard to fornication? See Acts 15:28, 29. What says Paul, in 1 Cor. 6:9, 10? what denunciation does he utter against fornicators and adulterers?
But it may be objected, these texts do not treat of marriage. Admitted; but they condemn the very sins prohibited by the Levitical code; they condemn all acts of uncleanness, the very ​sins that violate that natural law, which the Puritan reads out of the book of nature, and which no ceremony of marriage can cleanse from guilt or render lawful.
8. If we reason on the ground, subsequently assumed, in chap. iii., that these Levitical statutes do not relate to marriage, but only forbid "single acts of an incestuous character," (p. 11, fourth paragraph,) we must come to the same result. "Having the light of inspiration to read the book of nature with," can we find any "difficulty in reading out of the book of nature a law against" the lewd, incestuous sin of defiling a father's bed, or having criminal intercourse with a sister, or an aunt, or a son's daughter, or a daughter's daughter, or a brother's wife? Does not the voice of nature reprobate such acts of uncleanness? And is not the law which nature has enacted against such abominable crimes, a natural law?
9. Nor does the second criterion fail. "Those laws which are seen to conform to the precepts of the Decalogue, and serve to explain and confirm it."
Here we are constrained to notice another ​instance in which the Puritan does not follow his chosen guide; for he has left out an important part of Turrettin's criterion; which shows his meaning in the text. Immediately after the above translation must be added these words: "Which is easily discovered, if either the object, or the matter of the laws, or the causes of enacting them, be regarded." This seems to us like the offering of a lamp to throw light upon our path; and not to attend to this part of the criterion, looks like refusing the proffered aid of our guide.
But to apply the test to the case before us. Call the Levitical statutes what you please, natural, moral, or civil, we ask, What is their object? Domestic purity and sound morals in the community. And is not this the object of the seventh commandment in the Decalogue? What is the matter of these statutes? They prohibit all uncleanness, all incestuous acts, all illicit intercourse between near relations; and does not the seventh commandment prohibit the same? What were the causes or reason of the enactment of these statutes? To furnish the Israelites with a clear knowledge of the Divine will, ​and to guard them against the temptations to which they were exposed, not only "during their sojourn in the desert," but when they were settled in the promised land. And was not the seventh commandment published for the same reason?
It appears then to us, that these statutes, this law of Leviticus, is implied in the Decalogue; and that it confirms the same prohibitions which the seventh commandment, when rightly understood, contains. How comprehensive it is, was taught by our great and supreme Lawgiver, when he uttered these words: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery already with her in his heart." Matt. 5:27, 28.
But, says the Puritan, "There is not there" (in the Decalogue) "the least intimation of any defined boundaries to the liberty of marriage." (Page 5, first line.) We reply: If God has, in these Levitical statutes, defined these boundaries, as we hope hereafter to prove, then it will follow, that to contract such prohibited ​marriages, is to be guilty of uncleanness, of incestuous intercourse, which can never be changed in their character by any ceremony of marriage. Marriage, in whatever way contracted, cannot hide their vileness, nor render such illicit commerce between the sexes as comes within the limits set to our liberty, honorable. It is vile, odious in the sight of God, though covered by the mantle of marriage. It is like whited sepulchres, "beautiful outward, but within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Such lewd acts, such vile, illicit intercourse, is certainly prohibited by the Decalogue.
We close this chapter by adverting again to a passage before quoted. If we understand his meaning, he deems it necessary, to sustain the perpetuity of the prohibition against the marriage of a deceased wife's sister, that we should find a similar law among heathen nations.
Was this a correct way of treating this important subject? When we have an inspired law, consisting of sundry statutes of the same nature, are we to try each particular part of this Divine law, by the laws of heathen nations; and, if we are unable to find a particular part ​sustained by a similar statute in their codes on the general subject, are we to expunge it from the inspired code? Shall we say, This statute, enacted by infinite wisdom, which perfectly knows the nature of man, and all his relations, and how to promote the purity of domestic life, as well as good morals in the community, cannot bind us, because it has not received the sanction of heathen legislators, who had no better guide than natural reason, unaided by divine revelation, and darkened and misled by corrupt and sensual passions? Are the laws of men to sit in judgment on the laws of God? Were all the precepts in the Decalogue to be tried in this way, how many would be expunged? Would not the Puritan "look in vain through the Gentile world," for a law to sanction the fourth commandment, a law requiring the sanctification of the Sabbath? Would he not look in vain for a law to sustain the second commandment, which prohibits the worship of God by images? Would he not look in vain through the whole heathen world for a law asserting the Unity of God, and forbidding men to worship more gods than the one only living and true God? In the absence ​of such laws, have we not sufficient evidence to convince us, that the substance of the Decalogue was written on the hearts of Pagan nations, and that their wise men knew God, but not wishing "to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient?"
And in the absence of a law prohibiting a man marrying a deceased wife's sister, is not the existence of laws and the prevalence of customs, which have the force of laws, restraining the liberty of marriage within particular degrees, and going beyond the Divine law, sufficient to convince us, that the light of nature did teach heathen nations to impose such restrictions on marriage, for the preservation of purity in domestic, and of good morals in civil, life? Now, if our brother had treated the subject in this reasonable way, and extended his search, he would have found, as we have already shown, (pp. 72–79,) what were the laws and sentiments of the wise among heathen nations of antiquity, and would have come to a very different conclusion. In ascertaining the limits of duty on any particular subject of moral or natural obligation, ​we are not to be guided by the imperfect light of unassisted reason, but by the light of reason, aided by the light of Divine inspiration. Our brother, the Puritan, has reversed the rule.