The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1889-11-14
CoNsANGUINIrY IN MARRIAGE.

Consanguinecus marriages are con-
trary to wisdom, At least this is the
preponderating verdict of medical and
popular opinion in the nineteenth CEN
fury. Such marriages are Objectionable,
revolving and more or less incestuous,
and therefore deserved decided disap-
probation. At the Episcopal general
convention the subject was preached,
but finally its consideration was deferred
until the next meeting three years
hence, Meanwhile clergymen Of that
denomination will undoubtedly give the
topic a thorough investigation, in order
that they may treat it intelligently
Popular sentiment, however, will be
more prohibitory in its influence than
the mandate of denomination.
The bibliolatrist of the Rochester
Union has been investigating the matter
from a scriptual standpoint, and this is
what he finds
An examination of the records of the
Old Testament leaves no doubt that mar
riages in the Patriarchal day between
next of kin were encouraged and ALI
ances with aliens were denounced. Ne
hemiah cursed the Jews who married
strange wives (Neh. XIII, 25); Solomon
was censured for having taken wives
from among foreign nations (Neh. XIII,
26); the tribes of judah and Benjamin
were told that they had transgressed
and increased the trespass of Israel IL
taking strange wives unto themselves
Ezra X, 10Y. And not only were con
sanguineous marriages recognized and
encouraged by the patriarchs, but polyg'
amous alliances were also freely entered
into. Abraham married Sarah. his own
sister; Major, his niece, Micah; Jacot
his two cousins, Judah his daughter-in
law, and Amram welded his aunt and
became the father of three of the moot
illustrious characters in Hebrew history
Moses, Aaron and Miriam. The more
advanced law Of Moses afterwards pro
hibited these marriages between neal
relatives (Lev. XVIII, 81, but neither the
Old Testament nor the New contains any
positive injunction against polygamy.
These illustrations of the practices in
Biblical times afford no justification
whatever for consanguineal unions sew
eral thousand years later. The race il
older and wiser than it was then, when
these examples occurred.
In regard to polygamy, which is Incl
| uculdlly HlcnJlOucuy VIC SQuhi ulNiolOh
of the sexes is powerful and unanswer'
able argument in behalf of monogamy
Where polygamy is practlced civilization
is retarded This Is the universal expert
ence. 1t is purely the outgrowth of Ii
centiousness, and at war with all the
sacred principles of love, duty, justice
and progress.
The effect of intermar iages on royalty
is pertinently quoted, Royal blood Is
VIGOROUSLY polluted. The Hohenzol
Terms have been afflicted with scrofulou'
maladies for generations which were
transmitted from the Gar Paul of Rus
sia. DIR. Seeger of New York says: "A'
the present moment there is scarcely 6
single royal family in Europe which il
not afflicted with some hereditary
disease, produced, as rule, by too fire.
quent intermarriages between near rela-
tions," and that both from norma
and physical point of view the blood Of
the peasant classes is of far more gener
GUS and healthy quality than that Of
the aristocracy of royalty"
Enough has been said, it would seem
to deter young people stocked with com
mon sense from falling in love with
their relatives Troy Press.