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

through the chairman, Rev. w. G.. White,
reported that they had examined MIR. Hope
and Mr.. DeGraffenreid, candidates for the
ministry that the examinations were satis-
factory, and recommending that their ex-
aminations be sustained. Adopted.
Eleven o'clock A. NJ, tomorrow, was ap-
pointed for Licentiate McAlpine to preach
his trial sermon before Presbytery.
Blackstocks was selected as the next place
of meeting of Presbytery, at 7.3O P. M, on
Friday before the third Sabbath in Septem-
ber, 1888.
Rev. w. w. Mills, on behalf Of the COM
mittee appointed at the last regular meet.
ing of Presbytery, to consider the proposed
change of Section /, Chapter a of the Con-
fession of Faith, which is to take steps to
have stricken from it the prohibition against
| the marriage of a deceased Wfe's sister and
other degrees Of affinity contained in the
last sentence ofsaid chapter, offered report,
prefcing it with the remark, that OF the
other members of that committee, Rev. G.
A. Trenholm, the chairman, for good and
satisfactory reasons, had declined to act !;
and that the other member, Elder Isaac N.
Withers, while he did not coincide with
the views expressed in the report, yet as it
brought the question squarely before Pres
bytery, he agreed that it should be present
ed as the report Of the committee. Under
these circumstances, the speaker felt as if he
was submitting "one-man" report, which,
though prepared by him, he did not claim
for it entire originality, having drawn upon
ADLER minds than his own for many of the
arguments presented. Mr.. Mills then pro-
ceeded as follows:
Your committee, appointed at the last regular
meeting to consider and report at the spring
meeting, respecting the eXpunging of the last
clause of section I, Chapter "a, Confession OF
| oft hv (OnpOr1 PreSbVfary
the last General Assembly, would respectfully
| report
i. That in our Judgment not one nor all of the
| eight reasons combined, as assigned by Concord
Presbytery, are of sufficient weight Justify the
change proposed. The facts, stated in said
reasons, may all be true; but they must all go
for nought until it can be shown that the Confess
sion of Faith, on the point in question, is mis-
Interpretation of the word of God. Evidently,
as the question now stands, the burden of proof
lies with those who desire the change.
q We think that the Confession of Faith is
correct in interpreting portions of Leviticus,
| chapters Is and 20, as intended by God to pro-
hibit marriage within certain specified limits.
This it does, if not directly, as some affirm yet
by good and necessary consequence. There is a
strong p1i0ri argument in favor of this asser-
ton in the fact that it has been generally re-
garded as the marriage law by the whole Chris
tan church. And again: If we find not here a
law regulating marriage, then we have no law
Of God to govern us in the forming Of such a
|
rents and grand grandchildren, brothers and sis
ters, may intermarry, and no man will be able to
say unto them, at is a sim ''Sin is any want
| of conformity unto, or transgression OF the law
of God" But, if there be no law Of God, where
is the sin? If men will hold that such mar
rages sinful, although not forbidden in
the word Of God, then they "give up the funda-
mental principles of Professionalism, that the
and practice" Then there are other portions of
the Confession Of Faith that need a serious re-
modelling; and both the Larger and Shorter Cate
chisms will need to be very materially altered.
| g. But if it be conceded that here (Lev., chap
ters Is and 20) we do find the marriage law, and
the said law is still in force then we see not how
the proposed change in the Confession of Faith
can be made without doing violence to the law.
Clearly, it is written: "Thou shalt not uncover
the nakedness of thy brothers wife; it is thy
brothers nakedness." And again: "lf man
shall take his brothers wife, it is an unclean
thing; he hath uncovered his brothers naked
ness they shall be childess. Lev. Is: 1G; 20 {:
21.) Will it be affirmed that this only means /:
Thou shalt not uncover thy brothers wife during
thy brothers lifetime, and that nothing is said
about what may be done after the brothers
death? Well be it so. But we would reply:
| !. That there is a strong u Prio11 argument
against the correctness of such an affirmation in
the fact that the whole Church has generally re-
garded it as prohibiting marriage with broth
er's wife, as well after as before the brother s
DEATH This is the view always held by our
church; it is the view Incorporated in the Confes-
sion Of Faith; and it remains for those who
affirm the contrary to prove that 1T is wrong.
| . We would call attention to the analogy ex-
| listing between this prohibition and the one for
| bidding marriage with Step-mother. In the
one case, it is wrtten 1.-The nakedness Of thy
fathers wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy
fathers nakedness. In the other case it is writ
ten 'Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness OF
thy brother wife it is thy brother's nakedness.
| Now, if q man may marry his brothers widow,
why may not the son marry his stepmother after
| his fathers death? Both are about equal degree
| Of affinity Does the brothers wife cease to be
near kin to her brother-n-law because her hus-
band is dead? SO, for the same reason, the step
mother may cease to be near kin to the stepson.
| Will it be contended that the brothers widow is
| no longer bound by the law to her husband, and
may marry another man? So it may be con-
| tended that the stepmother is no longer bound
by the law to her husband after he is dead, and
she is free to marry another man, even her step
son. If 4 brothers nakedness cannot be uncov-
| cred bv marrying his widow, so a fathers naked
ness cannot be uncovered when the son marres
his widowed stepmother. The law, as recorded
| in Lev, Goth chapter, does make a difference in
the two cases, but only as to the penalties attach
ed. In the case of the stepmother, it is death to
| both parties In the other case, they shall die
childless. This does not prove that in either case
the marriage is lawful, but only that there are
recognized degrees Of criminalty.
8. Doubtless, it will be argued that it is not
wrong, per Sc, for man to marry his brothers
widow, because at one time it was expressly en-
| Joined See Deut., 25 $40. We answer, so it
was; but under peculiar circumstances and for a
specific purpose. Under peculiar circumstances
| itwould be right for man to work and to work
hard, on the Sabbath day; under peculiar cir
cumstances it is right for one man to kill anoth-
err under peculiar circumstances ii was not only
right but absolutely necessary in the family Of
our first parents that brothers and sisters should
marry. We would, therefore, respectfully sub
nit, Quoting from the Southern Presbyterian Re
u.eau, vol 3d. p. 662 that that particular Levirate
| law concerning the marriage OF brother and
brothers widow by all the terms of the enact
ment, separates the case from all other cases
where such relationship subsists, and by the very
| force of the enactment confirms and endorses
and emphasizes the universal law forbidding
such marriage. It's the solitary exception PROV
ing the universally of the rule And the reason
for this solitary exception is explicitly given in
| The text of the law itself No man in this day
has ever sought to marry his wife sister because
| his deceased wife left no issue. And no man in
this dav has ever sought to marry his brothers
widow for the sake of progeny that might bear
his deceased brothers name and inherit his de-
ceased brothers property. 1t would be an abb
surdity in law as well as disgrace in morals"
The per Sc argument, therefore, from that $50
lated case proves nothing, because it proves
too much. Until it be proved that Lev. IS: l6
does not prohibit marriage with 4 brothers
widow we submit that nothing can be logically
deducted from that particular enactment as found
in Deuteronomy, except that under certain cir
cumstances and for specified purpose, it was
made not simply lawful, but the bounden duty
of brother to marry his brothers widow.
Just here we would call attention to the fact
that the proof texts cited by the Confession of
Faith on the particular point now before us, are
not taken from the 18th chapter OF Leviticus,
but from chapter 20-l9th, 10th and list verses;
(which passage not only repeats the prohibition
of Lev IS: 49, but makes the prohibition more
emphatic. In the last Scripture LEV. 20: 2D
there are two expressions: Thou shalt not take
thy brothers wife, employing the original word