while it was a thing detestable among the Jews to marry the brother's wife," [Alexander was dead, see Jewish War, B. ii. ch. vii, where the story is told at greater length]. These two cases are so much the stronger because Philip and Herod Antipas were not sons of the same mother; and Alexander and Archelaus were not sons of the same father.
Thus, that very supposed exception, which was relied on to bar the intrinsic immorality of such unions, now when properly understood,—in the light of the negative testimony of Scripture and the positive testimony of the Jewish interpretation and practice, as witnessed by the Mishna, Josephus, and Philo,—is the most decided proof of the essential unlawfulness of the mixtures justified en masse by Mr. Punshon's principle, (vid. Ante, p. 10). even in those cases which must be preeminently regarded as "socially expedient."
In conclusion I would add a few words as to the judgment of the Church on this matter. The general sentiment of antiquity may be seen in Bingham's Antiquities, Bk. xxii. c. ii. sec. 3, where various councils expressly forbid this union with a deceased wife's sister. The sixth of the Apostolical Canons, allowed by all to be ante-Nicene, says "He who hath married two sisters, or his brother's or his sister's daughter, cannot be a clergyman." St. Basil, in the 4th century, as noted in Bishop Wordsworth's Commentary, says: "Our custom in this matter has the force of law, because the statutes we observe have been handed down to us by holy men; and our judgment is this, that if a man has fallen into the sin of marrying two sisters, we do not regard such an union as marriage, nor do we receive the parties to communion with the Church until they are separated." Bishop Wordsworth also observes that the Vatican Manuscript of the Septuagiant (lately published by Cardinal Mai,) contains in the text a curse against those who lie with their wife's sister, in Deut. xxvii 23,—an important witness of the opinion of the early age in which that MS. was written.
Luther, who was certainly no "ascetic High Churchman," with all his most renowned colleagues, the Westminster Divines, and their English, Scottish, and Canadian followers to this day,—who are not thought to be either "ascetic" or "High-Church,"—have all steadfastly adhered to the Church's sense of the Bible, and in this point are at one with antiquity.
I must leave for other hands among us the discussion which the great principle involved in "they twain shall be one flesh" so amply deserves I have the satisfaction of having done something towards clearing away the cobwebs of misconception which so conceal and befoul this question. Others still will take up the matter in its social aspects; and I have every assurance that the cause of the Bible and the Church and of the morality they espouse will come out of the conflict with added clearness and lustre; and that the good sense and the enlightened conscience of the various Christian communities of this Province, and their tender regard for the high interests of Christian morality amongst us, will disdain the petty arguments and withstand the example of such as would break down the ancient barriers of domestic purity, of whatever eloquence they may boast, or on whatever position they may rely.
