I would reply, thirdly—
That a fair and reasonable account of the statements in Leviticus xviii. not alluding directly to the law of Deut. xxv., and not in any way indicating the exception there made or to be made to the prohibition of verse 16, is to be found in this: that all the statements in that chapter of Leviticus are prohibitions, whilst the record in Deuteronomy is a permission or indeed a command; that, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable and natural that we should not find prohibitions and relaxations of the law mixed up together. Thus Leviticus keeps to its prohibitions, verse after verse, with the warnings and denunciation of penalties proper to its subject; and Deuteronomy deals with its exceptional relaxation, and the duties and consequences therewith connected. And it may be just worth while to add that although the 18th verse of Leviticus xviii. is an exception, it is still in the sense and application which I have been enforcing, a prohibitory not a permissive exception; a consideration which not only shows it is in its due place among the other prohibitions, but also strengthens the view taken in this letter of its being no more than a prohibition. It prohibits the taking two sisters simultaneously, even under circumstances which, but for its existence, would have required such union, and it does not permit anything as against the laws of the 6th and 16th verses. Were Dr. M’Caul’s view, and the view of the promoters of the alteration of our law of marriage correct, we should at least have the anomaly of a permissive precept foisted in, if I may so say, among the prohibitory sentences of this chapter, dealing in all else with prohibitions only. For, it is plain, to read the verse as meaning a man may marry two sisters, if it be not simultaneously, is a permission upon the previous restriction; whilst to say a man may not marry two sisters simultaneously, even when the law of the Levirate would seem to demand it, is a prohibition. The law of Deuteronomy, therefore, (the law of the Levirate,) being a permission or command, not a prohibition, makes it no marvel that that injunction is not found among the prohibitions, whilst that the prohibitional exceptional decree of the 18th verse of Lev. xviii., should be found where it is, among the prohibitions, is no marvel either.
I would reply, fourthly—
That to find the law of the Levirate in this place in the Book of Leviticus would have been to find a provision solely and simply of the Jewish economy and polity, most unnaturally intermixed with the provisions of God’s general moral law:—that is, what is applicable solely to Moses and the people under him, confused with the law intended for all nations and people, as witnessed by the denunciations of that chapter of the book of Leviticus with which we have been concerned. How is it possible to suppose the Leviratical injunction of Deuteronomy could have found a place among the things prohibited and condemned as the abominations of the Canaanites and Egyptians?
I would reply, fifthly—
That if any further answer to the above objection be needed, there is, at least, the general and most sufficient reply, that we are no judges of the right collocation of different points in God’s revelation to man. When we see the fitness of anything, even as we can judge, we may glorify Him and be thankful; when we cannot, we may and should “put our mouth in the dust” and be humble. If things are not made more plain to us than they are, or even are less plain than they might have been, let us remember our state of trial, and acknowledge that all such may be, for ought we know, exactly so revealed as they are, and so placed as they are, for our trial. There is no reason why we should not be tried just as much as to difficulties put before our intellect, as by temptations appealing to our passions; and, as Bishop Butler has remarked, there are some men who, but for the former, might be found to have hardly any trial at all. (Analogy, Part ii., chapter 6.) If the particular objection here advanced be analyzed, it will be found to be but this:—Why should there have been an omission of this law of the Levirate in Leviticus, when, in the same place, there is the record of a prohibitory exception to it? But who shall pretend to account for the omissions of Holy Scripture? Take but that one record in St. Luke’s Gospel of the two disciples who, on the morning of the Resurrection, walked to Emmaus, and were met by Jesus on the way, as they talked of those things which had come to pass, and were sad. What can be more wonderful to our conception than what we find, and what we do not find! After their converse concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a Prophet mighty in word and deed before God and all the people, we find that He himself, “beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” [32] But we do not find a single syllable of all this discourse recorded in the Gospel. If we judged by what seemed to us likely, how sure should we feel that it would have been set down! Oh! how many difficulties might have been met! how many objections have been answered! how many heresies have been avoided! how great a flood of light have been thrown upon various points of history, prophecy, and doctrine! and how great a guide have been given for all in life and conduct! had it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to let the Evangelist record that discourse. If we judged by our sense of likelihood, should we not say, “What could be so full of interest and of edification! How important! how needful for us to know what our Lord said, when beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself!” But not one word of it is set down, and, perchance, for the very cause that it would have too much abridged our trial had we possessed such an exposition, and that we may learn in all things not to judge amiss as to the hard things or the secret things in God’s Word nor to think “His ways are as our ways.” Had that discourse been placed before us, perchance there had never been an Arian or a Socinian in the world. (How good we might think it!) Had the whole marriage law of God, if we may so say, been systematically set down in His holy Word, it may be there would have been none now to tamper with it. (How happy, too, we should think it!) But we might as well say, “How happy if Adam had had no trial put upon him, and so had never fallen!”
But our duty is, as it is, and as God has thought fit to set it before us. He has revealed to us His law and will in such manner and degree as seemed to Him good. It is our’s to receive it and to seek to understand it as most humbly and reverently we may, and, asking His grace and help, to do our best to keep it: to keep it individually in our own lives, and so far as He permits us, to keep it from all defilement or breach in the laws of our country. We call ourselves, and rightly, a Christian country, for we are, as baptized into the body of Christ, His members. Let us remember, if even carelessly, much more if wilfully, we go against His commands, and set human law in its permission against the divine law in its prohibition, we are rebellious against Him who is our God and our King; we are going back from our Christian state and profession; we are placing ourselves on the level of the nations—the Egyptians and the Canaanites—who committed all those abominations, against which His curse is denounced who is “the same yesterday and today, and for ever.”
I have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship’s very faithful and humble servant,
M. W. MAYOW.
Buckingham Road, Brighton, July 14th, 1869.