# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1878_S6
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 6 —

"The dispute between us and the Papists is whether the prohibitions set out in the third book of Moses, chapter 18, are merely Levitical or judicial, that is, ceremonial laws which belong only to the civil administration of the Jews, or whether they are to be counted with the law of nature and the moral law, which has been established for us according to the eternal and unchangeable will of God. The Papists, in order to give a little color to the conduct of the Roman Pope, when out of love of money he presumptuously grants dispensation in these prohibitions, put those same prohibitions among the ceremonial or Levitical laws (on this see Bellarmine, J. Lorinus, Gregorius de Valentia, Covarruvius, Sanchez, and the Council of Trent, Sess. 24, can. 3). But we hold with the orthodox that these prohibitions belong to the moral law, which is framed solely and entirely according to the eternal will of God. This we will set out both in general and in particular. In general: 1. On account of the general obligation of the Mosaic laws, by which not only the Jews but also the Gentiles, though entirely excluded from the Jewish courts and customs, were bound. For thus says the highest Lawgiver in Leviticus 18:2: 'I am the LORD your God'; v. 3: 'You shall not do after the works of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt'; v. 24: 'Defile not yourselves in any of these things, for in all these the Gentiles have defiled themselves, whom I will cast out before you'; v. 25: 'And the land is thereby defiled, and I will visit their iniquity upon them, so that the land vomits out its inhabitants.' Verses 27 and 28 also belong here. Whatever, then, binds the nations that were not subject to the Mosaic ceremonial law, this has in view the law of nature and the moral law of God; but the laws concerning the forbidden degrees in Leviticus 18 are precisely such. Therefore, etc. . . ." (Consilia und Bedenken [Counsels and Opinions]. Nuremberg 1689. pp. 141–159.) Compare Chemnitz' Examen [Examination of the Council of Trent], Sess. 8, can. 3.

Dieterich does not thereby assert that all these prohibitions of marriage which the Gentiles transgressed made the Gentiles equally culpable; but he does assert that they defiled themselves by transgressing any one prohibition. The recognition, however, that we sin terribly by transgressing these prohibitions, and that here we are not dealing with Jewish ceremonial laws, in the transgression of which God never speaks as He does in the chapter cited, should surely drive us to free ourselves from the frivolous notions which now prevail also on this point among the Christian people, among whom not only the Gospel but also the Law is obscured. We must act as our dear Savior did, who began His work by punishing the perversions of the Law and restoring the purity of the Law. For we can never preach the Gospel with profit unless we have first sharpened the consciences with the divine Law in the knowledge of that which