solemn deliberation, and the report of the ablest committee that could be selected, and the private inquiries and researches of the members for a whole year, and "the most mature deliberation" of a second sy nod, both these kinds of marriages are declared "to be unlawful, and that the persons contracting them are to be suspended from special communion, while they continue in this relation." Surely it ought not to be asserted that the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian church, has never been able to satisfy itself that the marriage of a deceased wife's sister is positively forbidden in the Bible. The highest judicature of this church was perfectly satisfied on this subject, for more than half a century. But here again we ought to acquit Dr. Ely of known misrepresentation-We are persuaded he was not acquainted with this decision. His quotations are all made from acts of the General Assembly, which certainly are of a different complexion from those of the old synod-the synod which formed and sanctioned the present constitution of the Presbyterian church. Yet in no instance, let it be remembered, has the General Assembly failed to frown, and sometimes very severely, on these marriages. We did intend to trace this subject through all the records of the General Synod, and General Assembly. But we find that the execution of that purpose would extend our review beyond all reasonable bounds. The truth is, that in the Presbyterian church, discipline in regard to unlawful marriages has gradually been relaxed, and that this relaxation has been, in a great measure, owing to the manner in which the General Assembly has treated the subject-till in some parts of the church no discipline at all is exercised, and the General Assembly itself, has at last submitted it to the Presbyteries to decide whether the constitutional article shall not be repealed,

To what is this to be attributed? To the gradual increase of light, and the removal of superstitionsay the advocates for curtailing the Confession of Faith. To a growing deterioration of morals, and a criminal relaxation of church discipline, and the repeal or non execution of the laws against incest-answer those who would preserve the constitution in its integrity. We profess to belong to the latter class; and thus we come into collision with the authors of the two pamphlets, to which are attached the signatures of Clericus and Veritas. These pamphlets, in reply to Domesticus, are written in a neat style, and with good temper.

We have said that our opinions are in collision with those of these writers; but this is true only to a certain extent. They wish the canons of the church, which relate to unlawful marriages to be repealed or altered; we wish that they should remain exactly as they are. But we entirely agree with them in thinking that the ground is utterly untenable, on which Domesticus contends against an alteration in the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church. We think that he has deeply injured the cause which he professes to defend; and we propose to quote from Clericus and Veritas in proof of this fact. So far then as these writers state considerations to show that we must take our authority for the prohibition of incestuous marriages from the Levitical code, and not, as Domesticus would have it, from "general expediency"-so far as they expose the weakness and futility of all his reasoning in support of his strange hypothesis-so far as they condemn his extravagance of assertion and expression-so far their

These writers, it appears, both be long to the communion of the Dutch church, before the General Synod of pending, as before the General Assembly which the very same question is now of the Presbyterian Church.

sentiments and ours are in perfect accordance; and we only regret that Domesticus has put it in their power to urge against what we esteem a good cause, the indiscreet admissions of one of its advocates. All that we have to say, therefore, in opposition to Clericus and Veritas, may be brought within a narrow compass; for by far the larger part of their pamphlets is employed in exposing what is inconclusive and objectionable in the publication to which they reply. If we rightly apprehend these writers, they wish the canons of the Dutch church and the Confession of the Presbyterian church to be altered, in regard to unlawful marriages--simply and solely because they think that these canons and this Confession, as they now stand, cannot be supported by the Levitical code, nor by any other scriptural authority. We have honestly and carefully endeavoured to understand them, and if we do, the whole of what they say on the merits of the question in controversy comes in the result to thisWe are by no means to reject the xviii. chapter of Leviticus as containing merely a temporary enactment for the Jews, but to regard it as furnishing, on the subject of unlawful marriages, the law of the Christian church: and yet we are not to infer from the 16th verse of that chapter, that a man is forbidden to marry the sister of his deceased wife, but rather to consider the 18th verse as intimating that he may. Now we have already seen, that while there have been in every age of the Christian church a few individuals, some of them, we admit, learned and pious, who have rather leaned to this interpretation of the 16th and 18th verses of the xviii. chapter of Leviticus than decisively adopted it, still the collected and overwhelming weight of piety and learning have always been decisively in favour of the other interpretation; and nearly the whole, even of those who lean to VOL. V.-Ch. Adv.

the opposite side, have admitted that our's is the safest construction for practice; the best calculated to preserve the purity of the church from contamination, and the consciences of its members from uneasy doubts and suspicions. Nay, C. and V. themselves disclaim expressly the imputation of pleading for these marriages, as generally expedient; or indeed of being advocates for them at all-They only wish the rules of the church to be so modified that, for the present, some slight punishment may be inflicted for the violation of existing prejudices; and Clericus says, expressly, (page 17), "In a few years the prejudice will probably subside: publick opinion may change; and it may appear expedient to dispense even with this slight discipline." How these writers are to show that they are consistent with themselves, in the different parts of their pamphlets, we are glad to think is not a task which we are called to undertake.

But let us see what reasons they assign for the interpretation they would give to the 16th and 18th verses of Lev. xviii. And here we wish it may be well noted that they do not even pretend to allege any new argument, from the meaning of the texts in the original, or from the context of the verses-they do not even recite much that has heretofore been said by others, in favour of their opinion. What they do say, in the way of argument, has been said and answered a hundred times, before they were born. Their whole plea, so far as it is properly their own, rests on the increased light of the present age, on classing the opinions of their opponents with those in favour of religious persecution and witchcraft, and on the fact that persons of great piety and worth have actually contracted such marriages as we judge to be unlawful. Now we really think that we might fairly urge that much of all this is gratis dictum, and that the

Z

rest is set aside by a fundamental principle of dialectick, which says, a particulari ad generale non valet consequentia-You shall not draw a general conclusion from particular cases. What has the increased light of the present age to do with the subject, if the present age has not thrown a single ray of new light on the texts of scripture in controversy? Such we affirm to be the fact; and Clericus and Veritas themselves do not profess to show the contrary. And what have religious persecution and witchcraft to do with the question, if there is no similarity between them and the case in hand. Clericus has only intimated, he has not even attempted to prove, that there is a similarity. We affirm that there is none whatever. No Protestant, no Romanist, so far as we know, pretends to allege that there is any passage of scripture that lays down a law, showing in what cases religious persecution is lawful, and in what cases unlawful. But these gentlemen themselves admit that there is a passage of scripture which lays down the law in regard to unlawful marriages-The only question is about the true interpretation of this law, and C. and V. take it for granted, that the light of this age is in favour of their construction. Even in this, facts are all against them, unless they will maintain that the light of the age has begun to dawn very recently perhaps since they and Domesticus have appeared as authors. We are not aware that any late European publications have shed light on this subject and as to our own country, what writers, we ask, of the present age, have ranked higher in point of learning, piety and logical acumen, among the Congregational churches of New England, than Dr. Trumbull and the younger President Edwards? And who, in the Dutch and Presbyterian churches, have been more distinguished by the union of the same talents than

Doctors Livingston and Mason? Yet all these men have most deci. sively opposed the interpretation for which C. and V. are advocates, and have put forth all their strength in favour of our opinion, and in opposition to theirs. We know not why C. and V. have not condescended so much as to mention the work of Dr. Livingston-especially as they belong to the church of which, for half a century, he was the brightest ornament. Whatever may have been the cause of their silence, as well as that of Domesticus, we shall take this opportunity to say explicitly, that we think he had, by a very great disparity, more learning, more theological knowledge, more logick, and a better acquaintance with biblical criticism, than all of them put together, with the present reviewer added to the number. But perhaps he was so indurated by years, that the light of the present age could not penetrate his mind! Seriously, for this is a very serious subject, we do not believe that it has been light, but corrupt feeling, unrestrained by church discipline and civil law, which has led to the wretched frequency of marriages between brothers and sisters-inlaw, in our country-For in other countries there has been nothing of the kind-unless we except France, in the time of the revolution. How will Veritas himself reconcile the whole scope of his pamphlet with the following paragraph found on the 11th page? He says

"I would not, however, on any consi these excellent standards of doctrine deration, be understood as undervaluing which we have received from, and for which we are indebted to, the piety and learning of our ancestors; or as casting training up their children, from their inany reflection on their pious care, in

regard for the institutions and ordinances fancy, in doctrinal knowledge, and a strict of religion. We have rather reason to mourn over the degeneracy of modern times. Would that this hallowed influence were distilling itself more extensively on our rising generation! Let the young be taught to venerate our confes