RELIGIOUS AND MORAL DISCUSSIONS.

THE QUESTION, WHETHER A MAN MAY LAWFULLY MARRY HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, OR WIFE'S SISTER.

[Continued from page 320.]

We now proceed to take notice of some objections which have been made to our view of the subject.

I. It is said, that the injunction, Deut. xxv. that a man should marry the widow of his brother, who had died without issue, implies that the law, v. 16, is not of moral obligation.

In answer to this, it may be observed,

1. That a particular exception, made by the same authority, that made the law, and for special reasons, expressly mentioned, should be no objection to, but rather a confirmation of the obligation of the law in all other cases. Such cases may appear to the imperfect views of men, as objections to the perfection of the laws of God; but they are not so in the great plan of providence. The wisdom of God could easily foresee what effect any law should have upon the order of things established by himself, and what variations it might admit of, and require, in particular cases, without any imputation of inconsistency. Infidels have made an objection like this against the evidence of miracles, as being transgressions of the law of nature.

2. The reason and obligation of divine laws depend upon the will of the supreme Lawgiver; and as dictated by infinite wisdom, must have a respect to the nature and powers of the creatures to whom they are given, and to the condition and relations, in which his sovereign will has placed them, or may, at any time, place them. Hence it is, that the laws of one order of beings may not be suitable for another; and in the same order, obligation and duty may vary, according to the different conditions in which they may be placed by the sovereign will of God. Thus the human race was made at first in one pair; and designed to grow and extend, by natural generation, in new and distinct kins. This rendered it necessary, in the first instance, for brother and sister to marry; which was the law in that singular case; but when that necessity was removed, God appears to have ordered it otherwise, and revealed here the general law of kin, which could not in that case be admitted. And when God, for special reasons was pleased to place the family of the Jews, in their peculiar condition, it might be expected, that his laws should bear a corresponding aspect to that condition. This appears to have been the

Case, as to some other parts of the moral law, and so it may be with respect to the law of kin; especially, in the particular instance in question, where the kin was, in a measure, extinct, through defect of issue.

Other variations may be observed in their constitution, the reasons of which must be referred to the wisdom of God, who does nothing in vain. Particularly, the Jews were prohibited from marrying with other nations. They were allowed to keep slaves, and even to abuse them, and beat them to death without punishment, as in other cases, Exod. xxi. 21. Lev. xix. 20. Our Lord also said to the Jews, that "Moses, on account of their untractable temper, permitted them to put away their wives, but that from the beginning the law was not so." And he calls the practice adultery, which is certainly a breach of the moral law. Matt. xix. 8.

II. It is said, that as the marriage bond constitutes the kin, so, when this is dissolved by death, the relation ceases, and its influence is no more.

1. This would set aside the law in question, which, after what has been said, is not to be conceded. 2. It limits the effect of marriage and kin, to what the judgment or fancy of men may think fit, and not to what the wisdom of God appears to have done, which is certainly most fit to establish general and useful regulations. Human reason never establishes any. 3. It is not fact, that the kin is extinguished by death. Where there are children, they are evidence of its continuance; in whom it would be unlawful to intermarry with their uncles or aunts, though the father or mother was dead. 4. It is contrary to scripture. The apostle Paul reprobates a man's having his father's wife, as a nameless fornication and excommunicates the person guilty of it. 1 Cor. 5. whereas if the kin was extinct, he would not have been on that account so " wicked a person." From the conformity of the expression, his father's wife, to the terms of this law, Lev. xviii. which is the only law about kin, it may be justly presumed, that the father was dead.

III. It has been thought, that the 18th verse, which forbids "the taking a wife to her sister, to vex her, in her lifetime," permits a man to marry his wife's sister, after her death.

This, however has no reference to the case of marrying two sisters. It is a prohibition of polygamy. The words rendered " a wife to her sister," is an idiomatic form of speech to signify one to another. The same words are used, Exod. xxvi. 3. to signify the coupling of the curtains of the tabernacle, one to another. Its meaning here is, one wife to another,

IV. The objection, that it is inconsistent with liberty, scarcely deserves a serious consideration; as every one knows, that liberty without law is licentiousness; and that obedience to the laws of God is always a reasonable service. In this case, the restraint is so light and partial, that it can have no weight with men who are governed by reason. As to those who are inclined to follow their passions without control, we ought not to be so much concerned for their satisfaction.

V. The 19th verse has been thought by some to be of a ceremonial cast, and an evidence that the law was designed only for the Jews. But however peculiarly that precept might be enjoined upon them, every one must know, that it forbids an indecency which ought to be avoided by all. God governs the brutes by instinct, which, in this respect is very remarkable. The female orgasm affects them only at particular seasons, and the males pay no attention to them at other times; which may be an intimation, that man, who, in all his conduct, is to be governed by reason, and not by appetite, should be so regulated in this. Moreover, it is a common observation, that nature vindicates itself; and especially in such cases, where offences are not capable of other punishment; and if the opinion of some physicians is well founded, which is not improbable, viz. that some particular disorders may affect the bodies of men from such original impurities, it would be an addtional argument for the obligation of the law.

VI. It has been said, that marriage is a civil relation, and that the law of the land is the sole guide, in all things relating to it.

This is a short and easy way of getting rid of the question, and of solving cases of conscience about it. But although marriage is, in some respects, a civil relation, attended with many civil effects of great importance to the community; and it is the right of the civil government to direct in all such matters; yet it is not only of a civil, but also of a moral nature; an institution of God, which is the source of many of those relations and duties upon which the virtue and happiness of man greatly depends, and the observation or neglect of which very much affects the christian character. In all its aspects, therefore, upon the moral characters of men, it ought to be considered, as under the cognizance of the church of Christ. The kingdom of Christ does not rest on the foundation of civil government, but upon the laws of God. The laws of the land cannot be admitted as regulating the terms of church-membership, but the laws of Christ. The frequent instructions which are given in the word of God, about this relation; its nature and moral effects; its strong obligation and duties; the

causes that may dissolve it; and the heinous crime of unfaithfulness in it; besides, a plain example of an actual and solemn excommunication for irregularity in contracting it; all show the concern, which the church of Christ has in this matter. This the judicatories thereof ought to feel, and to exercise an authority corresponding thereto, and which they may and ought to do, without any interference with the rights of the civil magistrate, or taking him for their rule in such cases.

If the foregoing observations may be considered, as it is thought they are, of weight, in support of the binding obligation of the law Lev. xviii. and of the unlawfulness of the connexion mentioned; it may be sufficient, merely to mention, that even if it was a doubtful case, yet as that law has been so long and so generally considered in this light, by the christian church, and consequently has begotten a general abhorrence of such connexions in the minds of christian professors, so that they give great offence; it ought to be avoided by all on this ground agreeably to the advice of St. Paul, Rom. xiv. 1 Cor. viii. and x. chapters.

CHRISTIAN CONFIDENCE, OR TRUST IN GOD.

To say that, in respect to this or the other interest or event, we trust in God, in his providence or grace, has become a very common, even a hackneyed phrase; a phrase, almost as often repeated by the unprincipled and thoughtless, as by those whose minds and hearts have been better informed. Happy it would be, if, on every occasion, it were used in a sense more congruous with piety and truth, and accompanied with a corresponding sentiment of the heart. But, how often is it uttered as an expletive merely? or as meaning no more than a blind and wanton expeсtation, that the course of things will be so ordered and adjusted, as shall accord with our favourite schemes and wishes? The phrase, thus only intended, merits no other consideration, than as a trifling modish reference to the powers of the Almighty; or as a thoughtless and presumptuous hope, that his provident wisdom and goodness, in the given case, will be exerted in our favour.

Such trust or confidence in God, if so we may call it, is always, and at the best, but weak, undetermined, unsteady, and unfounded, as it is presumptuous. It is not accompanied with any proper sense of piety in the heart. It is not productive of any characteristical expressions of goodness in the life. In the Holy

Scriptures, wherever it is mentioned, or referred to, in its proper import, and by whatever terms it is there denoted, it always intends a well-founded, stable, determinate, unfluctuating, and decisively efficacious principle of religion, or spring of moral and spiritual action. To such kind they refer, when they direct us to be " steadfast and immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord; knowing," or in the confidential persuasion, "that our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord." But it is to the contrary; to that which is false they refer, when they speak of "the double-minded man, who is unstable in all his ways."

It is not my design, Mr. Editor, to enter on a discussion at large of the grounds and reasons, of the nature and several properties of this christian principle. I mean to consider it chiefly in reference, or in opposition to the false appearance or affectation of it, above suggested.

In this principle, where it is genuine, there is always a certain requisite correspondence with the declared will of God. It is his gracious and express will, that we " put our trust in him;" our entire trust in him; our entire trust in him alone; and that forever; that is, at all times, in every circumstance, under every apprehension or prospect, and in every event. Now, if we affect a compliance with this will of our heavenly Sovereign, and our compliance, such as it is, be temporary only, or partial, or wavering, or in any respect, as to its determination or force, discordant with the will, we do not in truth and fact trust in God; nor, of course, will our confidence be at all effectual to the purposes by that will graciously intended. He who really trusts in God, does so trust in him, as in the instance, to do the will of God. And it is he only who thus does his will, that " abideth forever," as it is expressed, or, that " shall not be confounded;" that is, shall not fail in that, in reference to which he puts his trust in him.

There is also a certain requisite correspondence with the attributes of his nature. His wisdom, his power, his omnipresence and omniscience, his veracity, his justice, his faithfulness, his various goodness and grace, do not only fully justify, but, from their nature demand, an entire, firm, constant, and absolutely unreserved, as well as most cheerful, and affectionate reliance upon him. In him, these attributes are, strictly speaking, perfections; and perfections, absolute and infinite. As such, they admit of no limitation on our part, or compromise in our confidence. And on the ground of our Saviour's meritorious and ef