marriage. Hence, while a woman may marry her sister's husband, a man may not marry his brother's wife. While a man may marry two sisters in succession, a woman cannot marry two brothers in succession. I think a mere statement of this style of reasoning is a sufficient refutation of it.[1] Few, I suppose, will place much stress upon the physiological considerations which may seem to countenance it, in the face of the Bible declarations respecting the husband and wife, that "they twain shall be one flesh" and the language in Lev. xviii. 12 and 13, which represents a man's sister to be his near kinswoman (his flesh) and at the same time a woman's sister to be her near kinswoman (her flesh). These and similar statements entirely discountenance the idea, that, so far as marriage is concerned, a man is less nearly related to his wife and her relatives than she is to him and his relatives; or that a brother and sister are more nearly related than two sisters; and thus leave us at liberty to extend the prohibitions to a wife's aunt, niece and sister, as well as to a husband's uncle, nephew, and brother. Having examined the Divine Law, as contained in Lev. xviii., 6-17, and seen that, by good and necessary inference, it forbids marriage with a deceased wife's sister; let us now attend to the 18th verse, which, according to the translation in the English text, may seem to imply that such a marriage is permitted—but which
- ↑ The following extracts from Mr. Laing's pamphlet, with reference to his distinctions, will, I doubt not, be read with surprise:—
"What we call in question is the sameness of the compound relation—whether, according to the law of Moses, a relationship formed by blood and marriage is the same as a relationship formed by marriage and blood: or, to use the terms already employed, we ask whether, according to the law of Moses, simple affinity in the collateral line is the same in effect as consanguineous affinity in the collateral line?" (p. 23.) Who does not regard as revolting, as subversive of all morality, and of the family institution, to speak of polygamy among women? Who would plead for that? Men may have more wives than one, but there is no confusion or mingling of blood so long as wives are chaste." With reference to what he calls "simple affinity," and "consanguineous affinity," he says: "Now let us remember that we have two distinct and perfectly different relations under the name of affinity, and let us not deceive ourselves by the ambiguous term. The first results from the marriage of a woman with the man's blood relatives; the other is the relation in which a man stands to his wife's blood relatives." "To establish the argument under notice we would require a statement to the effect, that being the sister of a man's wife is a bar to marriage, on the principle that two sisters are one flesh. Now this is nowhere said, but the contrary is implied." "But it is said, impatiently, 'What nonsense! Are not a sister and sister as much one flesh as a brother and sister?' We answer no—not in the only sense affecting the argument. A man is forbidden to marry his sister. By doing this there would take place confusion of blood. The thing is not possible in the case of sisters, therefore it needs no prohibition. Just so, a man might marry his brother's wife, which would produce confusion of blood, therefore it is forbidden; but though it man should marry his wife's sister there is no confusion of blood, therefore it is not prohibited, for that reason, but for the special one 'to vex her.' Strange as it may seem, in the two cases the man and woman are not brother-in-law and sister-in-law in the same sense. This will appear from the simple statement that the children of the one sister-in-law are heirs at law of the man; the children of the other are not in the line of succession at all." If there be any force in the last illustration, a sister is nearer to the eldest brother, who is the heir, than to the younger brothers, who are not heirs of the entailed inheritance!
