# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1878_S14
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 14 —

learned pronouncements, which agree with these laws. . . . Our opinion is this: that what the true light of reason and law of nature, implanted in the hearts of all wise Gentiles, dictates is to be counted among the moral laws." . . .

This proof too is of great importance. All the Mosaic laws we find, apart perhaps from cases such as the prohibition concerning the cousin (female), also in heathen law codes; they have them from natural feeling. And even if it is not meant that all heathen peoples have these laws, still the very fact that some peoples, while they knew nothing of Moses, made these laws is a telling proof that these laws cannot be ceremonial laws but must be moral laws.

It is remarkable that our two greatest theologians, Luther and Brenz, at first took the erroneous position opposed to our thesis, but then came to a different conviction, and Luther so suddenly and so decidedly that, while in the year 1530 he still would not reckon by the degrees, in that same year he wrote the following:

"I think, my dear Spalatin, you will surely still remember that I have already communicated my opinion to you in the matter where a man had married his cousin's wife, namely that I cannot with a good conscience approve such a marriage as right, because it is expressly contrary not only to the law of Moses (which is regarded not so much as Moses' as a truly natural law [non tam Mosis, quam naturae]), but also to the written imperial laws and ordinances. You know, moreover, that ignorance and deceit do not excuse; likewise that they have been together a long time and have lived at home. It is not enough that I should burden my conscience with such an undertaking and deed; let him do what he intends, but not ask me about it, nor take me into counsel. I am moved by the saying of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 5:1 ff., who on account of one who had married his stepmother is so enraged and angry (sic aestuat) that he will not have it called marriage among Christians, which was not held to be so even among the heathen, and calls it and treats it as more than heathen fornication. The same he would also have done in this case and would have called it more than heathen fornication, because in the custom and laws of our peoples there is also no such example, and it seems a sheer abuse of evangelical freedom. I for my part would gladly and willingly serve this good man and oblige him, so as to follow this common rule: Much is not fitting nor right which yet, once it has happened, is kept and tolerated; but conscience and the new deed leave me uncertain. So you have my opinion and final view of it. Fare you well in the Lord and pray for us. The 3rd of March 1530." (XXII, 1757 f. Compare the Latin original in de Wette, III, 554.)