The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1877-06-09

He could not make exceptions to Hh
rules. Again, II He does make such ex-
ceptions, He does not thereby revoke the
law.
Now make the application: God lays
down a law In Leyiticus Is, 0. Where
He says: "None Of you shall approach
TO any that is near Of kin to him. That
the expression "near Of kin" includes rel.
atives by marriage is evident from the
fact that God himself mentions four such
cases directly under the rule. Whether
physically there is world Of difference
between relative by blood and rela.
tive BY marriage, or not, does not In the
least change the matter inasmuch a.
Gods law iorbids the marriage Of those
near Of kin, whether by blood or by mar
riage.
Mark IL, 10 refers to one OF Gods ex-
ceptions TO His own law. This exception
does not and cannot revoke the law. God
made exceptions at certain times and un'
der certain circumstances, at any other
time, and outside Of those circumstances
they say nothing.
Ruth |, 1913 is simply a statement Of
facts, without one word OF sanction on
the part Of God. 1t can therefore not
possibly be an argument against God's
plain declaration in Lev. lS, Q. Abraham's
marriage to his half sister was an excep.
tion, and the same can be said OF the
marriage Of Isaac and Jacob with their
cousins.
The example Of Tamar is also cited, Of
whom it is stated that she waited long
time for chance to marry her brother.
in.law. Isl sitBtAted in connection with the
account Of this marriage that God sane.
toned it? II not, 1t would not even come
under God'sexceptionS, and how could it
be established that the affair was really
right, inasmuCh as even the noblest men
Of God were not without sin.
There is in reality nothing in the word
Of God from reason and nature we ac.
Ccpt no proof in this case) which would
make the general law OF God nul and
void. Gods law, Lev. IS, Q, stands there.
fore, and We dare not marry any near Of
kin, whether by blood or marriage, ex.
cept when God himself allows it, and then
only in the particular case in which He
allows it. Men have no right to make
exceptions to Gods laws.
A MEMBER OF SYNOD.
With all respect to the writer Of the
above we are really surprised to find him
SO weak on the side he assumes to cham
pion. lie puts aside all the instances we
cited yesterday as exceptions to "Gods
laws" and in so doing begs the question
as to what Gods laws on this subject
really are. lie places the Almighty be-
fore US in questionable light in this
matter-R allowing his servants, Abra-
ham, Isaac and jacob, TO marry, not their
sister-in.laws, but their half sister and
cousins, and as not disallowing their de.
scendants, as in the days Of Tamar and
Ruth, to marry their near kin by mar.
riage, and yet as being the author Of a
law torbidding marriage with deceased
wiie's sister.
The writer Of the communication ig.
nores the fact tina! the Sadducees called
the attention Of the Saviour to the fact
that Moses "wrote" land OF course by in.
spiration), "lhat il mans brother die
and leave his wife behind him, and have
no children, that his brother should take
his WIFE," Now Moses either did or did
not write in this way for the observance
ofthe ISraelites. II he did not, why did
not the Saviour say so in answer to the
SadduceeS. So far from saying 30, he
leaves that part Of their address uncon-
tradicted, and'goCs on to answer them on
another point.
And just here, We may call our clerical
friends attention 10 the fact that the
Savior himself was descended through
the line Of Ruth and Boaz, and we read
in verse 0 OF chapter Sd Of the book Of
Ruth, that Boaz was her "near kinsmau."
Near as he was, there was a nearer kins.
man still, and before Boaz could in honor
marry Ruth he waited to let that nearer
kinsman "do the kinsmans part" This
sounds little queer il our friend is cor
rect in his idea OF the law, for this occur
renee took place long time after the
giving Of the law, and 1t seems that the
nearer the relative the moro incumbent
it was on him to marry his kinsman's
widow.