ing this, would not suppose that Reformed Presbyterians in Scot land, were exposed to greater hardships than other dissenters in the same country? Who would not suppose but there must have been greater danger in condemning some of the principles of the civil constitution, than in disowning the authority of the church? Who would not suppose but that there must have existed at some time at least some foundation for such a declaration? But the truth is, there never has existed the shadow of a reason for such a statement; and it is not easy to account for its ever having appeared in the Testimony of the Reformed Church, unless it be intended for effect. I believe it is generally known that in most countries where there is an established church, that establishment makes part of the law of the country where it exists. At all events, this was the case in Scotland, in the days of Mr. McMillan and the Erskines, and this is sufficient for our present purpose. From this fact it will be seen, that there was precisely the same danger in disowning the authority of the church, as in disowning the civil authority: at least in so far as Mr. McMillan ever did. In the reigns of Charles II. and his brother James, we are furnished with an apt illustration of this statement. In their time Episcopacy was established by law in Scotland; and because the Presbyterians would not attend the ministry of the episcopal clergy, they were just as much exposed to persecution as if they had disowned the king's authority. It was this persecution for their religion that made most of the Presbyterians look upon these kings as incorrigible tyrants, perverting all the ends of government; and therefore they disowned their authority, and heartily concurred in bringing about the Revolution. After this, persecution for religion ceased in Scotland, by the provisions of the toleration act. From this period there was no more danger from the civil authority in joining one body of Dissenters, than another.

Let us now suppose that in these circumstances, one miuister of the Established Church had joined Mr. McMillan, and another the Associate Presbytery, what danger would there have been in the one case more than in the other? None whatever. The truth is there would have been no danger in either case, but of their being deposed from their office, of being loosed from their congregations and deprived of their stipends by the church; and in case of disregarding the authority of the church, they would have been expelled by the civil authorities. But we need not suppose a case, for this is what actually happened, both in the case of Mr.McMillan, and in the case of the Erskines, Moncrieff,. and Fisher. It seems that Mr. McMillan wished to live in the

manse, and preach in the kirk of Balmaghie, after he was depos ed; and the consequence was, that the General Assembly directed their Commission to apply to the civil power to effect his removal.* In like manner the General Assembly passed an act in 1740 for deposing the several members of the Associate Presbytery, and gave immediate notice to those invested with civil authority, in the different places of their residence, "that they might be removed from their several churches. So that the danger was precisely the same in both cases; and this was neither more nor less than just the loss of the manse, the kirk, and the stipend. So that there must have been some other reason for the Erskines, &c. not attaching themselves to Mr. McMillan, than danger to their "ease and comfort;" for after the kirk, and the manse, and the stipend, were gone, there was no other danger to be apprehended from joining Mr. McMillan. And as they are generally allowed to have been men of great integrity and honour, they are surely entitled to our credit; and they have affirmed that their principal reason for not joining Mr. McMillan and the Society people, was the "strange fancies" of that people "about the nature and ends of civil government." Another reason for believing this to have been the case, is the well-known fact, that Mr. Thomas Nairn, one of the Seceding ministers, took up the same fancies, and actually joined Mr. McMillan, by whose assistance the first Reformed Presbytery was constituted.

It is further stated in the Evangelical Witness, that the Seceding ministers were at first, in principle, Covenanters perhaps in all points." This is precisely what the Secession Church has always professed to be; and she has moreover given better evidence of her sincerity than any other church with which the writer of this article professes to be acquainted. He does not by any means wish to call in question the sincerity of Reformed Presbyterians in professing their attachment to the Covenanted Reformation. But there is no evidence of their sincerity, further than their profession; for so far as he can learn, the practice of Covenanting has been laid aside by Reformed Presbyterians for more than seventy years. On the contrary, the Associate Church has not only stedfastly professed her adherence to the whole of the Covenanted Reformation, but has frequently given evidence of her sincerity by solemn Covenanting. This has

*See Recommendations to the Commission for applying to the civil magistrate for removing the deposed Mr. John McMillan from the kirk and manse of Balmaghie, in the acts of the General Assembly, dated April, 1705.

+ See A Discourse on the sin and danger of opposition to public Religious. Covenanting, by the Rev. Mr.. (now Dr.) W. C. Brownlee. page 50.

been the case both in Scotland and in the United States. So that it will be obvious that Reformed Presbyterians may be, and I believe are, Covenanters in principle, because they so profess themselves to be; and that Associate Presbyterians are Covenanters both in principle and practice, because they profess their adherence to a Covenanted Reformation, and practice the duty of solemn Cevenanting.

For the Religious Monitor.

ON THE QUESTION, WHETHER A MAN MAY MARRY HIS DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER?

1. A brief enquiry into the lawfulness of marrying a deceased wife's sister. Christian's Magazine, vol. iv. p. 80 and 130. 2. A dissertation on the marriage of a man with his sister-in-law. By John H. Livingston. pp. 179. 1816.

3. The doctrine of incest stated, and the question considered, whether a man may marry a deceased wife's sister? By Domesticus. pp. 47. 1826.

We have placed the titles of these essays at the head of this article, not because we intend to give what may properly be called a review of any or all of them, but because we propose to extract from their pages a brief statement of the argument from scripture and from reason against a man's marrying the sister of his deceased wife. This is a question, especially in the present agitated state of some parts of the American Church respecting it, unquestionably of great importance. The law on this subject is so clear, that it does indeed seem strange how it ever should become a question with those who profess to take the scriptures for their guide. We believe it has been reserved for the Churches in America to present such a spectacle to the world. The conclusion from the scriptures against the practice which it is proposed to legalize, lies so near the premises, and the reasoning from the one to the other is so short and obvious that we should think it impossible to hesitate or to err. And this is doubtless the reason why, with a unanimity impossible on a subject of doubtful disputation, it has been condemned by the whole of Christendom, down to this very day. In a body of evidence collected by Dr. Livingston, in the 10th section of his dissertation, he has shown that in the early part of the Christian dispensation, marriage with a deceased wife's sister was, by several Ecclesiastical Councils, included within the prohibited degrees. And that therefore such marriages were considered incestuous, and those contracting them liable to the penalties provided for such offences. The fa

thers of the Greek and Latin Churches expressed decidedly the same opinion. The Church of Rome, "corrupt as she is in doctrine and worship, acknowledged the universal obligation and extent of the Levitical law respecting incest.” Among all the Reformers there was not a dissenting voice. They were explicit and unanimous upon the subject." "And all the Protestant Churches have uniformly and unequivocally maintained the same doctrine," and continue to maintain it both in Europe and America. Now whence this decisive, this uniform, this universal and unanimous judgment? Can it be accounted for upon any principle or any supposition, but the clearness of the law contained in the scriptures, and the indubitable evidence of its binding obligation upon us? Of this however we must judge for ourselves, that our faith may not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the word of God.

The law concerning incest, by which the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the marriage in question must be tried, is contained in Leviticus xviii. 6—17, and xx. 19-21. Before examining this law, the following remarks are offered concerning the Levitical law in general. In the first place, this law is given as to men of honest and upright minds, whose duty it is earnestly to seek after and obey the truth, and not to evade or oppose it. It is an easy thing by quibbling and disputing, to perplex and obscure the plainest matters. The law of God is not given to be so treated, but like other parts of divine truth, to be received in the love of it, and therefore is given in brief but plain declarations. There are no needless repetitions: yet all is so clear, that he who honestly seeks for direction cannot fail to obtain it. Another observation is, that all the laws laid down in the Levitical code are referable to three distinct heads, or are suited to Israel, to whom they were immediately given, considered in three different aspects. These are so different from each other, that there is no danger of confounding them, nor any difficulty in ascertaining what laws relate to one, or what to another; and probably for this reason no particular order is observed in the delivering of them. 1st. Israel is viewed in the Levitical law as a society of rational beings, of moral agents accountable to God and under his moral government. In this point of view they are on a level with the rest of mankind, and owe to God certain duties, as their creator, lawgiver and judge. These God lays down in different parts of the Levitical code; and it is evident that these are binding not on Israel only, but on all who stand in the same relation to God, that is, on the whole human race. These are denominated moral duties, and are partly natural, necessarily

arising out of the relation between God and his rational creatures and cannot be dispensed with, and partly positive, depending for their binding obligation on the sovereign will of God revealed to us. Of the former kind, is the command, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." of the latter, the clause in the fourth commandment, which enjoins, "Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." &c.—of this kind also, is the law respecting incest, as shall be afterwards shewn. All these laws, whether natnral or positive, are universally and constantly binding wherever they have been revealed. Respecting them, Christ says, “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.-One jot cannot pass from this law, and whosoever shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of God." "Faith" or the gospel, "then, does not make void the law. yea it establishes it." Another branch of the Levitical code is that which respects Israel as a church, under a particular dispensation, and gives directions concerning the modes and ceremonies of her worship. This was purposely designed by God to be a yoke of bondage, all leading the worshipper forward to Christ as to come in the flesh. All this was ceremonial-was binding on the church of Israel only-and was to be abolished when the end for which it was instituted was gained. And this was done in the coming of Christ, and the establishment of a new dispensation. The priesthood being now changed, there must of necessity be a change of the law. Every thing, therefore, in the Levitical code, which refers to this head or is necessarily connected with it, is abrogated by God himself, and is no longer of binding obligation on any. A third class of laws included in the Levitical code, embraces those which relate to Israel as a nation separated from other nations for a special purpose, and having God himself for their king. Some of these, requiring truth and justice between man and man, were founded in the moral law, and are still universally binding. Others were peculiar to Israel under a Theocracy, for a special purpose, and partly of a typical character. Such are the laws respecting the division and preservation and redemption of their inheritances, the Sabbatical year and the year of jubilee, and the like; all of which, are necessarily ended with the coming of the Shiloh, to which event they had a special reference.

A third and the last observation we shall make respecting. the Levitical law is, that it is uniformly addressed to the male sex, but yet the female in like circumstances is included. This is a principle important in the present question, but greatly overlook