Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1883-04-19


with the more equal and elevated spirit of the
gospel. It could hardly be maintained that
marriage law was right in our day which profess
ed to be grounded upon disregard OF female
feeling But this theory does not even meet the
eXigencies of the case as it is exhibited in the
code of the Jewish legislator. Will any man
maintain that while a son was forbidden by Mo-
ses to marry his mother daughter was left at
liberty. on account Of the difference of sex, to be
married to her father? But unless it was so, the
theory not worth straw. III was SO, then
certainly the theory is sound one; but let those
who employ it in defence OF marriage with
wife's sister, have the candor to acknowledge
that it equally sanctions marriage between ia
ther and his own daughter On the other hand
if father and daughter were not allowed, any
more than mother and son to be united in mar
riage, then ii is undeniable that there were
omitted from the Mosaic code, which were as
really contemplated by the law as others that are
expressly described and of course the proposed
explanation Of omission falls to the ground.
But there is another consideration equally fatal
to the theory under review The omitted cases,
| supposed to be left out on the ground Of disre-
gard of female feeling, are not always similarly
related to the different sexes, and this single cir
cumstance overturns the whole hypothesis.
Marriage between mother and son is express
ly forbidden ; but nothing is said about father
and daughter. With regard, however, to the
grandparents and grandchildren, whilst there
is also one Of the two possible combinations left
out, it is not the corresponding one, but the re-
verse. The grandfather and the granddaughter
| are expressly forbidden to intermarry, but not a
| word is uttered against the union Of the grand
mother and the grandson. Now, why should
mother and son in the one case, and grandfather
and granddaughter in the other, be the parties
that specified whilst it is fathers and daughter
| that omitted in the former case, and grand
| mother and grandson that are omitted in the lat
| ter? If any greater consideration be shown for
either sex in the one section of the law the very
same preference is manifested for the other sex
| in the other. The only escape out of this laby-
rinth of perplexity and confusion, is the adop- ,
| ton Of the principle that prohibition with re-
gard to one relationship must be held as apply
| ing to another when it is exactly the same in
! point of nearness. Admit this principle, and it
is at once perceived to be matter of indifference
| which Oftwo similar cases be expressly specified,
for the settlement of either determines the other.
| But deny this principle and then il is impossi-
| BILE to explain why, in the case of parents and
| children, mother and son should be mentioned
and father and daughter omitted whilst in the
| case of grandparents and grandchildren, the po-
sition Of the cases is just reversed, grandfather
| and granddaughter being laid under restriction
| but grandmother and grandson being left to do
\ as they please.
"In addition to these consideration, it is no
| small argument in favor ofthe idea that the anal
ogous cases must be considered as included
| under those actually specified, that this view
| recommends itself to the common sense Of man
| kind law contracted on the principle OF for
| bidding marriage between certain relatives and
| tolerating it between others, where the propin-
quity was quite the same, would not command
| respect, nor carry along with it the moral con-
| victions of society. This is apparent from the
| unhestatirg manner in which all persons, when
their attention is first turned to this subject,
reason from the case Of wifes sister to that OF
brothers wife, and Uice ve,'sa, also from the
| case of aunt and nephew to that of uncle and
| niece. What surprise and bewilderment
exhibited when the idea is first suggested, that
| in one of each Of these pairs Of cases marriage
| may be right, whilst in the other it is wrong
Every person who has cOnversed with others to
any extent upon the present aspect Of the mar
| riage law controversy, must have observed that
| the feeling instantly springs up in every mind
| that wifes sister and brothers wife must Of
course be placed upon the same footing; and
| that whatever it be, right or wrong for aunt and
| nephew to do, the same must also be right or
wrong in the case OF uncle and niece The
| moral sense of mankind nstinctively hurries on
| to the conclusion that perfectly analogous re-
| lationships should have the same place assigned
to them in a marriage law and by deviating
| from this principle in any civil code you might
enact, you would do violence to the moral per-
ceptions Of society and weaken the sense Of obli-
CATION with regard to those connexions which
you did prohibit. Legalize marriage with
wife's sister, and you will not be able to secure
| respect for the enactment which forbds it with
a brothers wife. Legalze marriage between
an uncle and a niece, and you will not be able to
avoid abrogating the law which interdicts the
union Of aunt and nephew. IS. p Review, vol.
| 3l-pp. $50, 66l.
Fifth and lastly: But some seeing the force Of
! the argument Just recited, whose logical conclu
sions it is impossible to escape, quickly leap
| from verse l6, which prohi bits marriage with
| brothers wife, and by parity OF reasoning with
wifes sister, to verse 49, which reads as fol-
lows: "Neither shalt thou take wife to her sis
| ter, to veX her, to uncover her nakedness beside
the other in her life time. Here they take their
| stand and would assert or affirm that the
Scriptures not only do not forbid marriage with
| a deceased wifes sister, but actually sanctions
and authorizes it. Now it is submitted that such
| an assertion looks very much like begging the
question: and which remains yet to be proven.
And we do most emphatically protest agaist any
| such inference, especially if it comes from any
one who would contend for a literal interpreta-
| ton of Scripture All that can possibly be con-
cluded with certainty from said passage is that
it is forbidden to ''take wife to her sister
| to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the
other in her life time He is forbidden to have
| two sisters wives at the same time. Supposing
| it were allowed that he should be polygamist,
still he must not have two sisters his wives
while they are both living. That is all that there
| is in the passage. 1t does not say that man
may marry his sster-in-law after his wifes death.
| 1t says not word about whom he may marry
| after his wfes death. 1t simply tells him what
he must not do during his wifes lifetime, and
gives the reason for it. TO construe this 18th
verse as implying the lawfulness Of marrynga
second sister after the death Of the first, is to
construe it as regulating, and thus, by implica-
ton, legalizing pOtygdnny. Its scope would be:
"The man who wishes plurality of wives may
take them, provided only he does not take two
blood sisters simultaneously" as Jacob did Ra-
chel and Leah. We would protest against any
such construction
The conclusion, then, of the whole matter is
simply this: that we are Of opinion that Lev.
Is: Is does prohibit marriage with brothers
widow, and that by parity of reasoning, it like
wise forbids marriage with deceased wife's sis
ter. Your committee would, therefore, recon-
mend the following for your adoption:
Resolved, That Bethel Presbytery does not
concur with Concord Presbytery in asking that
steps be taken to have stricken from the Confess
sion of Faith the last clause of Sec A. chapter "a
Resolved, That the stated clerk be and he is
hereby instructed to forward such action to the
General Assembly at Lexington, Ky.
The consideration of the report was defer
red until the afternoon session.
Rev. r. A. Webb, from the Committee
on Minutes of Synod, submitted the follow
ing report:
Your committee would respectfully report as
follows:
l. We call attention to the fact that this Pres
bytery sent no statistical report to the Synod.
.. As regards the resolutions of the Synod on
the Diaconate, to be found on page II Of the
minutes, we recommend the following: l. That
this Presbytery affirm the doctrine as set forth
in the Synod's paper as true and scrlptural. 2.
That Presbytery proceed as speedily as possible
to conform its practice to these views: BY en-
Joining upon all the churches under our care who
have no deacons to take the proper steps to pro-
commit to their care all the poor Of the congre-
CATION, the collection and distribution of the Of
ferings of the people (under the direction Of the
Session } the management OF all the temporal
affairs ofthe church and when it can be done,
make them the trustees of church property; 3.
By taking the proper steps to call deaconto the
office of treasurer of Presbytery Respectfully
submitted. X. A. WEBB,
j. J. MOORE.
A flor the readinp of the repOrt Mr. Pratt