# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1878_S10
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 10 —

is not the same. For the law of nature is considered in two ways, as Hemming teaches in 'On Marriage,' p. 101: at times it means the law of nature absolutely and in every respect, such as: God is to be worshiped, etc.; this law of nature is entirely unchangeable; at times it means the law of nature in a certain respect, when nature has an end in view, which is the welfare (incolumitas) and preservation of human society. This law of nature, although it is not changeable with regard to its end, is nevertheless changeable if one considers the manner in which the end is reached. To the former belongs the prohibition of marriage between parents and children; to the latter belongs the prohibition of marriage between brothers and sisters; for this was permitted in the first beginning of the human race, but today it is not allowed; yet the end remains the same on both sides, namely the welfare and increase of the human race." (Loc. th. De conjugio, § 308.)

S. Deyling expresses himself on this as follows: "In the equal collateral line, carnal union, whether it takes place outside of marriage or under the name of marriage, is forbidden between brothers and sisters by a general divine positive law,*) not by a natural and unchangeable one. For the ground of the prohibition, which is present in the direct line, ceases here. For God willed that such marriages should be entered into between the sons and daughters of Adam. Therefore they are not shameful in themselves, nor contrary to the law of nature, from which God has not granted dispensation." (Institutt. prud. past. p. 550.)

Conrad Dieterich writes: "Our opinion is also confirmed, in the second place, by the connection of these laws with the moral laws in an unbroken context, without any addition of a circumstance that might indicate a distinction. This is clearly evident from Leviticus, chapters 18 and 20. . . . What God Himself puts together, both in the prohibition and in the punishment, undivided and without any distinction, rightly belongs to one and the same law. The third ground of proof arises from the prophetic explanation of these laws. For those laws which the prophets reckon to the moral law of God or of nature, and on account of which the Gentiles were punished, are truly not judicial, ceremonial, and transitory laws (Ezekiel 22:11). . . . The fourth ground of proof is furnished us by the nature of the penalty that is appointed for the transgressors of these laws. For those transgressions of law for which a penalty of life is appointed are not to be counted among the ceremonial or Levitical laws, but among the moral laws, unless a contrary pronouncement which text and circumstances themselves set forth

*) It should say: moral law, since in the New Testament there can be no positive law in the strict sense of the word. Compare Romans 13:8.