Page:Unlawfulmarriage00jane.djvu/153

Rh Is it reasonable to deny any part of this law to be founded in nature, when every part so manifestly rests upon the same basis, relationship by consanguinity and affinity? Why assert a part, and not the whole, to be binding on us? Why denominate it a revelation to the Hebrew commonwealth, and not to the Church? Why call it a municipal, and not an ecclesiastical law?

The Puritan has assailed particularly that part of this law which prohibits the marrying of a brother's widow. This he will have to belong to the Jewish civil law, and to have been repealed. He however has offered no arguments in favor of his position. It is merely assumption.

We have proved, we believe, this whole Levitical law to be an ecclesiastical, moral, and natural law, unrepealed, and binding on all Christians.

One objection remains to be noticed. On p. 9, 2d par., the Puritan says, "Since ever after the race was fully constituted for multiplication, it was against the law of nature for brothers and sisters to marry, and God himself could not either allow or command it."