Carolina watchman. [volume] (Salisbury, N.C.) 1871-1937, 1907-10-09

nearneSS OF kin. First the rule OF converse. When a mar
is forbidden to marry a woman, conversely a woman is
under such circumstances forbidden to marry a man.
The Bible does say a man shall not marry his mother, il
does not say a mother shall not marry her son, but by
the rule of converse i: implies it, and if such a so.cal1ed
marriage we're to take place the woman would be equally
guilty with the man. Then in every case where it
is said that a man may not marry such a wo-
man conversely it may be said that in such cases a
woman may not marry a man.
The law of analogy. When a marriage is prohibit
ed between persons of any degree of kindred it is prohib-
tied among all of the same degree of kindred. Thus
when a man is prohibited from marrying his aunt be-
cause she is too near kin-a woman is equally pro-
hibited from marrying her uncle, because her kindred to
the uncle is the same as that of the nephew to the aunt.
When a a table is worked out by these two rules it re-
suits in the table appended to this discourse, which is
part of that which has prevailed in the Church of Eng
land prior to the Reformation and exactly that which
has prevailed in it since the Reformation. SAY it is a
part of that which has prevailed prior to the Reforna-
ton, because the Church. then by it's own authority pro-
hibited more degrees which the Bible does not prohibit,
and also it prohibited marriages between sponsors and
their god-chi1dren and some other degrees where the
relation was only spiritual. But while these prohibi-
lions enacted only by Church authority prevailed they
used to give dispensations and permit marriages contrary
to the prohibition in cases of urgency. In the Church
of England these ecclesiastical prohibitions were repeal
ed at the Reformation, and the table appended represents
only those degrees within which marriages are prohib-
tied by the word of God. For fourteen centuries no
one ever attempted to dispense with these prohibitions.
The first dispensation ever granted for a marriage for
hidden in this table was whenPope Martin V Q417-1431)
granted a dispensation to settle the succession in Navarro
permitting a man to marry his deceased wifes sister.
The next was when Alexander VI (Borgia 1%492-15O3)
granted a dispensation to King Emmanuel of Portugal
to marry his deceased wife's sister, and afterward to
II .1 11.---c - r. "
The next Pope Julius Second (15O3-1513) issued a dis
pensation to Henry Eighth to marry his deceased
brothers wife. Every one will remember how in the
Prophet Amos the fourth transgression (the middle one
of seven) seems to be the crownlng one which pulls
down the thunderbolts of heaven. ''Thus saith Jeho-
yah. For three transgressions of Damascus, yea for
four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof: be-
cause they have threshed Gi1ead with threshing instru-
ments of iron, but I will send a fire into the house of
Hazel and it shall devour the palaces of Benhadad."
So it was with Rome and the dispensations she issued
for marriages contrary to the law Of God, on the fourth
God did not turn away the punishment thereof but
wrenched from her the Anglo-Saxon people forever.
The instances in which we hear of this law being
transgressed in North Carolina are where a man marries
his aunt or oftener where a man marries his neice, still
oftener where a man marries his deceased brothers wife,
and oftener where a man marries two sisters in success
sion. For the first and third no defence can be made
DuI tlS PlOlCHoS liz liz SAplCooCu WOiu u liz
do not bind us. For the second that though a man may
not marry his aunt, yet a neice may marry her uncle
which is the very same degree of kinship. But for the
last which is the same degree of kinship of the prohibi-
ted marriage of a woman to two brothers successfully, it
is alleged that verse IS of this same chapter allows it
when it says "Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister
to be a rival to her-besides the other in her life time
Now if a "wife to her sister, means Zone blood sister to
another blood sister, then such a marriage is prohib-
tied in the life time of the first that was taken to
wife. It is remarkable that the phrases which would be
literally rendered "a woman to her sister, and "a man
to his brother,.' occurs more than thirty times in the
Hebrew Bible and never designate the blood relation
ship of two sisters or two brothers but simply the adj
dition of one person or thing to another of the same
kind, So here what is forbidden is the adding of one
wife to another, or ~polygamy. Then what is here fer.
hidden is elsewhere in the law of Moses, permitted eff a
man have two wives, etc. Deut 21-15? Yes Is there an
inconsistency in the laws of Moses even in moral things?
Yes He, ''if a man have two wives" is not more in
consistent with this prohibition of polygamy than it is
to land they shall be one flesh. But the Bible tells us
expressly that on the coming of the people out of Egypt
God first ''gave them my statutes and showed them
mine ordinances which if a man do he shall live in them,"
Ezekiel 20-11, but after they offended in the Wilderness,
II gave them statutes that were not good and ordinan-
ecs wherein they should not live Ez. 2O-25. Divorce
and %polygamy and other things are examples of the
statutes that were not good. How do you know then
whether this 18th chapter of Leviticus consists of such
statutes in which a man might live or statutes that
were not good? 1t is the only place IN the books of Noses
eehich contains the phrase "ohdch If a man do he shall lye
IN Mem."
Next it is urged that in another place it is expressly
ordered that if a man marry and die and leave no son
cher husbands brother" shall take the widow to wife
and raise up seed to his brother" Deut. rs, $40. tits ar