Augustine's Theory.
Augustine advanced a theory on this subject, which still has its earnest advocates. He held that the design of all these prohibi- tory laws was to widen the circle of the social affections. Brothers and sisters are bound together by mutual love. Should they inter- marry the circle is not extended. If they choose husbands and wives from among strangers, a larger number of persons are in- cluded in the bonds of mutual love. " Habita est ratio rectissima charitatis, ut homines quibus esset utilis atque honesta concordia, diversarum necessitudinum vinculis necterentur ; nee unus in uno multas haberet, sed singulae spargerentur in singulos ; ac sic ad socialem vitam diligentius colligandam plurimae plurimos obti- nerent." Thus it would come to pass, " Ut unus homo haberet alteram sororem, alteram uxorem, alteram consobrinam, alteram patrem, alteram avunculum, alteram socerum, alteram matrem, alteram amitam, alteram socrum : atque ita se non in paucitate coarctatum, sed latius atque numerosius propinquitatibus crebris vinculum sociale diffunderet.', 1
A writer in Hengstenberg's " Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung," adopts and elaborately vindicates this theory. He endeavours to show that it answers all the criteria by which any theory on the subject should be tested. These marriages are called "abom- inations ; " and he asks, Is it not shameful that the benevolent ordinance of God for extending the circle of the social affections bhould be counteracted ? They are called " confusion," because they unite those whom God commands to remain separate. It also accounts for the propriety of the intermarriage of brothers and sisters in the family of Adam ; for in the beginning the circle of affection did not admit of being enlarged. It even meets the case of the Levirate law which bound a man to marry the child- less widow of his brother. The law which forbids the marriage of relations, holds only where the relationship is close. There must, therefore, be cases just on the line beyond which relation- ship is no bar to marriage. And with regard to those just within the line, there must be considerations which sometimes outweigh the objections to a given marriage. That God dispensed with the law forbidding the marriage of' a man with his brother's widow, when the brother died without children, this German writer regards as impossible. " Evil," he says, " may be tolerated,
1 Dt Civitate Dei, xv. xvi. 1; Works, edit Benedictines, Paris, 1838, vol. vil pp. 638, 634.
410 PART HI. Ch. XIX. — THE LAW.
but not commanded." He adds that it provokes a smile (man muss es naiv nennen) that Gerhard finds an analogy between the case in question and the permission given to the Israelites to de- spoil the Egyptians.1 It is probable that the venerable Gerhard would smile at the writer's criticisms. In the first place, God can no more allow evil than He can command it. An act other- wise evil, ceases to be so when He either allows (i. e., sanctions) it, or commands it. If He commands a man to be put to death, it ceases to be murder to put him to death. There are two prin- ciples of morality generally accepted and clearly Scriptural ; one of which is, that any of those moral laws which are founded, not on the immutable nature of God, but upon the relations of men in the present state of existence, may be set aside by the divine law-giver whenever it seems good in his sight ; just as God under the old dispensation set aside the original monogamic law of marriage. Polygamy was not sinful as long as God permitted it. The same principle is involved in the words of Christ, God loves mercy and not sacrifice. When two laws conflict, the weaker yields to the stronger. It is wrong to labour on the Sab- bath, but any amount of labour on that day becomes a duty, if necessary to save life. In the case of the Levirate law, the pro- hibition to marry a brother's widow, yielded to what under the Mosaic economy was regarded as a higher obligation, that is, to perpetuate the family. To die childless was considered one of the greatest calamities.
The question, however, concerning the rationale of these laws is one of minor importance. We may not be able to see exactly in all cases why certain things are forbidden. The fact that they are forbidden should satisfy the reason and the conscience. The two important questions in connection with this subject, to be considered, are, first, is the Levitical law respecting prohibited marriages still in force ? and, second, how is that law to be inter- preted, and what marriages does it forbid ?
Is the Levitical Law of Marriage still in force ?
1. It is a strong d priori argument in favour of an affirmative answer to that question, that it always has been regarded as ob- ligatory by the whole Christian Church.
2. The reason assigned for the prohibition contained in that law, has no special reference to the Jews. It is not found in their peculiar circumstances, nor in the design of God in select-
1 Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung, June 1840, pp. 369-416 ; see p. 378.