continued obligation of the law forbidding marriage between near relations, whether the relationship was by consanguinity or affinity.
6. The Bible everywhere enforces those laws which have their foundation in the natural constitution of men. That this Levit- ical law is a divine authentication of a law of nature, may be in- ferred from the fact that with rare exceptions the intermarriage of near relations is forbidden among all nations. Paul says that the marriage of a man with his step-mother was unheard of among the heathen ; i. e., it was forbidden and abhorred. Cicero
exclaims, u Nubit genero socrus O mulieris incredibile et
praeter hanc unam in omni vita inauditum ! " 1 Beza says, It must not be overlooked that the civil laws of the Romans agree completely in reference to this subject with the divine law. They seemed to have copied from it.2
No Christian Church doubts the continued obligation of any of the laws of the Pentateuch, of which it can be said that the rea- son assigned for their enactment is the permanent relations of men ; that the heathen are condemned for their violation ; and that the New Testament refers to them as still in force: and which heathen nations under the guidance of natural conscience have enacted.
How is the Levitical Law to be interpreted ?
Admitting the Levitical law of marriage to be still in force, the next question is, How is it to be interpreted ? Is it to be under- stood as specifying the degrees of relation, whether of consan- guinity or of affinity, within which intermarriage is forbidden ? or, is it to be viewed as an enumeration of particular cases, so that no case not specifically mentioned is to be included in the pro- hibition ?
The former of these rules of interpretation is the one generally adopted ; for the following reasons : —
1. The language of the law itself. It begins with a general prohibition of marriage between those who are near of kin. Nearness of kindred is made the ground of the prohibition. The specifications which follow are intended to show what degree of nearness of kindred works a prohibition. This reason applies to many cases not particularly mentioned in Leviticus xviii. or else-
1 Pro A. Cluentio, v. vi. (14, 15); Works edit. Leipzig, 1850, p. 374, b.
2 Beza, De Repudiis et Divortiis, Tractationes Theologian, edit. Eustathius Vignon, 1582. vol. ii. p. 52.
414 PART m. Ch. XIX. — THE LAW.
where. The law would seem to be applicable to all cases in which the divinely assigned reason for its enactment is found to exist.
2. The design of the law, as we have seen, is twofold : first, to keep sacred those relationships which naturally give rise to feelings and affections which are inconsistent with the marriage relation ; and secondly, the preservation of domestic purity. As the natural affections are due partly to the very constitution of our nature, and partly to the familiarity and constancy of inter- course, and the interchange of kindly offices, it is natural that in the enumeration of the prohibited cases regard should be had, in the selection, to those in which this familiarity of intercourse, at the time the law was enacted, actually prevailed. In the East the family is organized on different principles from those on which it is organized in the West. Among the early Oriental nations especially, the males of a family with their wives re- mained together ; while the daughters, being given in marriage, went away and were amalgamated with the families of their hus- bands. Hence it would happen that relatives by the father's side would be intimate associates, while those of the same degree on the mother's side might be perfect strangers. A law, therefore, constructed on the principle of prohibiting marriage between parties so related as to be already in the bonds of natural affection and who were domesticated in the same family circle, would deal principally in specifications of relationships on the father's side. It would not follow, however, from this fact, that relations of the same grade of kindred might freely intermarry, simply because they were not specified in the enumeration. The law in its prin- ciple applies to all cases, whether enumerated or not, in which the nearness ,of kin is the source of natural affection, and in which it leads to and justifies intimate association.
3. Another consideration in favour of the principle of interpre- tation usually adopted, is, that the opposite rule would introduce the greatest inconsistencies into the law. The law forbids mar- riage between those near of kin ; and, according to this rule, it goes on alternately permitting and forbidding marriages where the relationship is precisely the same. Thus, a man cannot marry the daughter of his son ; but a woman may marry the son of her daughter ; a man cannot marry the widow of his father's brother, but he may marry the widow- of his mother's brother ; a woman cannot marry two brothers, but a man may marry two sisters. These inconsistencies might be intelligible if the law were a temporary and local enactment, designed for a transient