- ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS, i 7 ila Be bal AD ei ae F i dt ie ate Cy m), Pe PHE CASE OF ced ee Mr. DONALD McCRIMMON. A RULING ELDER OF nae Peper Enian, CHURCH, Wa WAS SUsPBADED, - From sealing ordinances, and ‘fom ihe exercise Of his of Pree, « BY. THE SESSION OF OTTERY’S CHURE H, FOR MARRYING THE SISTER OF HIS DECEASED WIDE; INCLUDING His trial before the Session, his aonee) from the decision of the Session td the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and the Assemb!y’s proceedings in relation to this case, TO WHICH IS ADDED A‘SPEECH, DELIVERED IN THE GENERAT, ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCII, . ON THE ist.OF JUNE. 1324, IN OPPOSITION TO MR. McCRIMMON’S APPEAL, AND IN DEFENCE OF THE DECISION OF THE SESSION; WiTH A brief concluding Address to the several Presbyterics. ~. PPL ALLL LLL LLL LD LPL LLLP PLD By COLIN McIVER, V. D. Mf. yeaa FAVETTEVIELE: PRINTED FOR TAB AUTHOR AND rupnisMFn. 1627. nts e wt Rid “seh The Ministers, Ruling-Elders me ae ; or THE ss PRESBYTERIAN CHURC aes . + _) IN tHE) _ UNITED STATES OF AM " APFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED, _ BY “eae | THEIR FELLOW-LABOURER SERVANT IN THE GOSPEL, ‘a : ; ALgestvd Colle By Pamphlet Collection — Duke Divinity School PREFACE. a2 QI # ‘THE following shéets are submitted to the serious con- gideration of the Ministers, Ruling-Elders, and Members of the Presbyterian Church, with my sincere desire and ardent prayer to the Father of all mercies, that, under his blessing, they may be made subservient to the promo- tion of his glory, and the advancement of the Redeemer’s, kingdom. They comprise the minutes of the Session of Ottery’s Church, in the case of Mr. Donald McCrmmon, including their decision, by which they suspended him from the sealing ordinances of God’s house, and from the exer- -cise of his office, as a Ruling-Elder, in consequence of his having taken to himself the sister of his deceased wife ;— extracts from the minutes of the Presbytery of Fayette- ville, and of the Synod of North-Carolina, containing the opinion of these judicatories, in relation to alliances which they consider as Divinely prohibited; Mr. McCrimmon’s appeal from the decision of Ottery’s church, to the Gen- eral Assembly of the Presbyterian. church ;—extracts from the Assembly’s minutes, in relation to this case; with a few remarks on one of these minutes; the rejected re- port of a Committee of the Assembly, on this subject ;— the Speech I delivered in the Assembly, on the Ist of June 1824, in opposition to the appeal here referred to, and in defence of the decision of the Session; -and a brief concluding address to the several Presbyteries. ‘The re- cent procedure of the General Assembly of our church, in reference to this case, has induced me to think, that the present publication cannot be unseasonable ; and what- ever may be thought of the sentiment herein advocated, T cannot but indulge the hope, that the publication itself will, under the blessing of God, subserve the cause of truth, either by establishing and confirming the minds of those who may seriously peruse it, in the belief of the sen- timent here attempted to be supported, if found to be ‘agreeable to the Oracles of God; or, if the sentiment, on full, fair, and patient investigation, be found to be erro- : neous and unseriptural, by eliciting, from the pen of some ig NR Et iy Aree A ie LD ot y Powe © we & Be RO SE hb ar" ny : -" Beg cl iis ied : ee ' wa ~S y Vv PREFACE. ; . _ abler and more accurately discerning writer, such argu- ments and: scriptural evidence, as may clearly point out the error; and shew all concerned, on which side of. thi “interesting question, the truth really lies. The object of the Speech herewith presented, when originally deli- vered. was, that it might have its due influence on ‘the - minds of those who composed the Assembly to whom it was addressed; and, all things duly considered, 1 cannot » think any apology now necessary for adding, that the ob- ject of publishing it, at this time, is. that, ifit contam any arguments In support of Divine trath, these arguments may exert all the influence to which they are entitled, on the minds of those who compose the several Presbyteries, connected with the General Assembly, in deliberating .on the important question, on which they have been required to send up their respective decisions to the next General Assembly. Were the judicial process relatmg to this case, which originated in the Session of Ottery’s church, in December 1823, and which terminated, (however strangely it may appear). without decision, in the General Assembly. in June, 1924, still pending, I should not feel myself at liberty to publish any thing on the subject. But as. from the moment the Assembly of 1824 referred the question tavolved in this case to a committee, with instruc- tioas to report thereon to the Assembly of 1825, the busi- ness ceased to partake of a judicial character, I humbly. conceive, that, fron that momeat, every restraint which + duty. and propriety had previously imposed, has been ef- fectually removed. I think it proper to make these re- marks, because the language inadvertently employed in the minute of the last General Assembly, on this subject, would, to those who are ignorant of the circumstances of this case, seem to convey the impression, that the case. still retains its judicial character; that the appeal to the Assembly was trom a decision of the Presbytery of Fay- etteville ;—and that the appellant. even while the last As- seinbly was sitting, was still waiting for relief. Now, all this is contrary to fact. The truth is, that the General Assembly of 1824, so far tried the appeal, as to hear the documents in the case rend,—to hear the arguments of the _ parties,—and to spend some time in deliberating there-. en;—but they ieit the matter undecided; and referred the» St eche PREFACE. | : Vv qiiestion involved in the case, to aselect committee, with directions to make report on the subject, to the Assem- bly of 1825. . From the date of this procedure, it is ob- vious to my mind, that the business no longer retained a judicial character; for, even if this committee had report- ed to the Assembly of 1825, that they considered the de- cision of the Session, as contrary to the Standards of our church, and to the word of God; and if that Assembly had adopted such an opinion, as their own deliberate judg- ment in the case, such an act, on the part of that Assem- bly, could not, in the least degree, have affected the deci- sion of the Session; because that Assembly, not being the one before whom the parties, in this case, had appeared, and pleaded their causes, could have no authority, to pass any judicial decision, in the case. Neither was this, as ' stated in the minutes of the last Assembly, an appeal from a decision’ of the Presbytery of Fayetteville; for that Presbytery never had the appellant before them: he ap- pealed directly from the decision of the Session, to the General Assembly of 1824: nor yet did the appeliant ap- ply to any subsequent Assembly for relief; for the fact is, that, even without waiting to be informed of the result of his appeal, he withdrew (with what regard to order, regu- larity, and propriety, let others judge) from the govern- ment of the Presbytertan, and became a member of the Bapust church. These errors, in the minute of the last Assembly on this subject, | thought it necessary here to correct; because, although they evidently arose from an » oversight of the person who drew up the minute, I con- sidered them calculated to mislead. With Mr. MeCrim- mon, then, the Presbyterian church has no: further con- cern. The question, however, which has grown out of iis appeal, and which the Presbyteries are now called to de- cide, is certainly a question of deep interest; and one which, all men of reflection will allow. ought to be mature- ly weighed, in all its bearings, before it is decided. But for the act of the last General Assembly, which directed _ the Presbyteries to decide this question, the present pub- lication had not appeared. In deliberating on this ques- tion, the Presbyteries, in my humble opinion, would do well, previous to any decision thereon, to consider ‘the - force of the following very striking remarks, submitted by vi PREFACE. a committee of the General Assembly of 1803, to the As: sembly of 1864, on the subject of proposing alterations in the Confession of Faith, and Catechisms of our church. « The creed of every church,” said this judicious commit- tee, “as it ought to be derived immediately and who «from the word of God, must be considered as standit “on ground, considerably different, from that which sup- * ports the system of forms and regulations, by whieh wor- «ship shall be conducted, and government administered. « And, if it-be once rightly settled, can never be altered “with propriety, by any change of time or external cir- “ cumstances of the church. We cannot wish to see any “retrenchment made. It would give alarm to many of «our people, who might suspect that this was but the in- “ troduction to innovations of more importance. © And it is “ by no means to be considered as a vulgar or unfounded “prejudice, when alarm is excited, by alterations and in- “novations in the creed of achurch. There are many “reasons of the most weighty kind, that will dispose eve- “ry man of sound judgment and accurate observation, to «“pegard a spirit of change, in this particular, as an‘evil, “ pregnant with an host of mischiefs. It leads the Infidel “to say, and with apparent plausibility, that there can be “no truth clearly revealed in scripture ; because not only «its friends, of various sects, but of the same sect, pre- “tend to see truths in it at one time, which, at another, “they discover and declare to be falsehood. It-hurts the “minds of weak believers, by suggesting to them the “same thought. It destroys the confidence of the peop “ generally, in those who maintain a system which is lia «ble to constant fluctuations. It violates settled and use- « ful habits. It encourages those who are influenced by the “vanity of attempting to improve what wise men have ex- “ ecuted. or by the mere love of novelty, to give constant “disturbance to the church by their crude proposals of “amendment: and itis actually found to open the door “io lasting uneasiness, constant altercation, and finally to “the adoption of errors, a thousand-fold more dangerous + aud hurtiul, than any that shall have been’corrected. In “a word, what was true when our Confession and Cate- “ chisms were formed, is true now. — We believe that this *iruia has been most admirably and accurately drawn PREPACE. “ Vil *into view, in these excellent performances. They have « become venerable for their age. Our church has flour- tished under their influence; and we can see no reason *to alter them. If there are a few things (and few they *must be, and of less importance, if they exist at all) « which, it might be shewn, could be expressed more cor- rectly, and in a manner less hable to objection, it is not «proper, with a view to obtain this, to expose ourselves “to the great inconveniencies and injuries that have been “specified.” That I may not, however. even by implica- tion, do injustice to the last General Assembly, I must here observe, that their act. or resolution, above referred to, and which calls forth this publication, does not actually recommend to the Presbyteries to rescind, or alter the sec- tion of our Confession of faith to which that resolution refers; nor does it even furnish evidence that a majority of those who composed that Assembly were in favour of such alteration. The resolution only, as if for the pur- = of setting all disputes on this subject for ever at rest, irects the Presbyteries “ to take this matter into serious * consideration, and send up, in writing, to the next General « Assembly, an answer to the question, whether the above-quo- «ted clause of our Confession shall be erased ?” With the Speech herewith presented, 1 thought it best, to give also, the minutes of the Session, and of the Gene- ral Assembly, and Mr. McCrimmon’s appeal; as they all appear to be necessarily connected ; as, indeed, I consid- ered the whole essential toa correct view of the subject; and as | thought the reader might find it convenient, oc- easionally to refer irom one of those papers to another — As, in the original preparation of the Speech here reier- red to, when designed only for the hearing of the Assem- bly to whom it was addressed, my object was, to preseut truth, in.as obvious and striking a light as was practica- ble, | freely availed myself of every thing which i found suited to my purpose, in the writings of authors of repu- tation; and, although it would not have been a very diili- cult task to have clothed their thoughts in different lan- guage; yet, wherever i found the ianguage of those au- thors more forcible than any I could myself empioy, I have not hesitated to give their sentiments, in their own words. The reader wiil perceive irom the reierences in st Vill PREPACE. the margin, that | am largely indebted to the ate able ‘Dre Livingston of New-Brunswiek, for seve al ble thoughts incorporated into my * Speech.’ e it now for the press, as it is designed Srenaaly fo perusal of the members of the several’ ie ethno have somewhat enlarged it, by incorporating into it's ral quotations from other authors, not contained in Ps” delivered. These, as well asa few additional remarks of my own, which occurred in transcribing, will be “found, in the present publication, enclosed within crotehets, ~ Should my worthy brother, Dr. Ely, who appeared be- fore the Assembly of 1824, as’ Mr. MeCrimmon’s advo- cate, or others who entertain’ his sentiments: on this sub- ject, be of the opinion that this publication is calculated. to mislead the Presbyteries, by giving a partial, or one- sided view of the great question presented for Presbyte- rial decision, | have only to observe that | am not con- scious of keeping back, or leaving unanswered, any arg ment of importance, on their side of the question, ‘lie has fallen under my notice; and that, if have, I trust this publication will appear sufficiently early to enable him or them to counteract, what he or they may consider its unfavourable tendency, by publishing his or their views’ on this subject; and thus, giving the Presbyteries both sides of the question. I hope no one will be so ungener- ous, as to infer from this remark, that J am vainly dispo- sed to attach undue importance to my own exertions on this subject; yet, | am free to confess, that I do attach very great importance to the subject herein discussed; and that [ am very anxious, that truth, on which side or ever of this question it may be found, may ultimately pi duce conviction on the minds of Hidses to whose decision, this great question is now confided. ; iy Teonelide this Preface, by submitting to the sedis consideration of my Rey erend Fathers and Brethren, the following judicious remarks, from the pen of the late Rev. Dr. Jonathan Edwards of New-Haven. “If” said’ this eminent Divine, “after weighing the arguments in favor of “the doctrine for which I plead, together with the objec- “tions and the answers to them, any should remain doubt- a «fuland undetermined concerning the question, itis cer- “tainly advisable to be on the safe side. A man commits iy ad 7 PREFACE. ak *no crime in marrying some other person beside his wife’s _*sgister: but whether he will not commit a real crime, a “real violation of the Divine law, in marrying his wife’s “sister, is, at least, a very disputable point. Prudence, “therefore, plainly pomts out to him what part to act. _ « And, considering that we are required to abstain from «all appearance of evil, who can, with a good conscience, “willingly go as near the verge of evil as possible, and «yet not come within it? In another point of view, is it “expedient for a man to marry his wife’s sister? Bysuch “a marriage, he would deeply grieve and wound the most «of his Christian brethren. And, willingly to do this, is “to feel and to act very differently from the Apostle Paul, “who would not eat meat as long as the world should “stand, if thereby he should offend his Christian brethren. “In these times of revolution and innovation, some seem “ disposed to innovate in every thing, religious and moral, “as well as political;-to throw by old practices and old “opinions, without inquiring whether they be well or ill «founded; and to change, merely for the sake of change: “or rather, under the pretence of liberty, originality, and “jmprovement, to throw off all restraimt, in morals and “religion. ‘This, surely, cannot be reconciled with serip- “ture, or reason; with good sense, or with common pru- «dence. ‘Though some, among other changes and revo- «Jutions, are already prepared, and are endeavouring to “effect one with respect to the subject which has now «been under consideration; yet it is to be hoped, that “ our churches, and the Ministers of the Gospel, will not “proceed to any innovation in this case, without proper «deliberation; that they will carefully consult the voice « of reason, and consider how far the general practice of “marrying wives’ sisters will conduce to the preservation “of the purity of the morals of the people ;—how far it «will extend or limit those social connections between dif «ferent families which cement society, promote improve- «ment, friendship, and kind offices among the different “ constituent parts of the community; how far it will tend “to keep particular families by themselves, and uncon- “nected with their fellow-citizens; and how far this will “tend to promote narrowness, selfishness, mutual jealou- “sy, and enmity among fellow-citizens, and aristocracy x PREFACE. “and civil broils in the State. The lower classes’o: “kind are naturally jealous and envious toward #1 “and affluent. But, will not the practice of h “ wives’ Sisters naturally tend to keep the grea the “ affluent unconnected with the rest? And Thais tha at, “especially in a Republican government, dike our ows? “ean be subservient to the public good, and whet er it «will not naturally tend to aristocracy, I leave « every one “to determine. But above all, it is to be hoped, that be- « fore any innovation is made in this matter, all concern- « ed, and especially our churches and ministers, will care- “fully consult the voice of Scripture, and the revealed «will of God. ‘To the law and to the testimony: if we «speak not according to this word, it is because there is “no light in us. And if there, it shall be found, that the “marriage in question, is, by plain implication, forbidden «in the same manner as several other marriages, as the “ marriage of a grand-son, the marriage of a mother’s bro- « ther’s wife, and the marriage of a husband’s rand-son, “which we all acknowledge to be forbidden, tho conse- “ quence is plain ;—that ministers, churches, and all indi- «vidual members of our churches, are bound. to unite «their influence against a growing evil.” ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEEDINGS, Mr. DONALD McCRIMMON, EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE SESSION OF OTTERY’S CHURCH. Session met, at the call of their temporary Moderator. PRESENT, The Rev'd Colin McIver, who was appointed by the Presbytery of Fay- etteville to officiate as Moderator, (this church being, at present, without a Pastor) and Messrs: Elijah Ottery, Hezekiah Ottery, Alexander Ottery, Alexander Morison, Angus Morison, and Donald McCrimmon, Ruling- Elders. ’ Opened with prayer. A report, having prevailed in this neighbourhoed, touching the conduct of Mr. Donald McCrimmon, a member of this Session; which report, is considered and believed by many, to be deeply injurious to the interests of the Redeemer’s Kingdom, inasmuch as, in the opinion of not a few, it implicates the said Donald McCrimmon in the crime of incest; it was, therefore, Resolved, That Session institute a serious and solemn inquiry into the said report, and adopt such measures in relation thereto, as duty and dis- cipline may require. Mr. MecCrimmon, being present, and having freely consented, that Ses- sion should immediately proceed to try him, in relation to the prevailing report, and dispense with the customary formality of a citation, the fol- lowing charge, at the instance of Common Fame, was duly tabled against him; viz: bet “Common Fame roupLy procrarms. that Donald McCrimmon, a Ru- “ling-Elder of Ottery’s church, forgetful of his obligations as a Professed: “ Christian, and as an officer of the church of Christ, to maintain a life of “purity, is guilty of the crime of incest, in having, not more than five “weeks after the death of his wife, the late Hannah McCrimmon, taken to ‘himself, Mary Dunlap, the sister of his said deceased wife, Hannah ;— “the said Mary being the daughter of the same father and of the same “mother with the said deceased Hannah; and that the said Donald Mc- “ Crimmon, has continued, and does still continue, to live with the said ‘‘Mary Dunlap, in the same state of intimacy and co-habitation, as if she ‘* were his lawful wife.” 12) The above charge being read to the accused; and he, Ned on by the Moderator, to say whether he was guilty or not, made followi answer; viz: ; “The facts stated in the charge now read, viz: that, ‘tis e “ Mary Dunlap, the sister of the said Hannah, as my wedded wife and “that, ever since, I have continued, and do still continue to consider, and ; ‘‘ treat, the said Mary, as my lawful wife, I do fully .and freely admit;— “ but, that in so doing, I am guilty of tle crime of incest, I do- absolutely n deny.” Session, on hearing the above answer, reminded Mr. McCrimmon of his having, at the time of his ordination, as Ruling-Elder, “ sincerely received “and adopted the Confession of Faith of this church, as containing that “system. of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures ;’—-on whieh: he ad- mitted this fact; but yet denied, that, in the act above charged against him, he had done any thing inconsistent with such reception and adoption of the Confession of Faith. Session, then, referred him to the last clause of the 4th section of the 24th chapter of the Confession of Faith; where it is declared, that “the ‘man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he ‘may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred, nearer “in blood than of her own.” Mr. McCrimmon admitted that this clause apparently condemned the act above charged against him; but pro- fessed himself unable to percieve,.that the said clause was so supported by Scripture, as to prove him guilty of incest. Session by a reference to the several texts of scripture quoted in the Confession of Faith, in support of the above clause, laboured to convince Mr. McCrimmon that the said texts contained sufficient evidence of the incestuous nature of the connection, into which he had entered; and to impress him witha sense of the aggravated nature of his offence: and they exhorted him, to separate himself, henceforth, from the said Mary Dunlap ; assuring him, that, in their judgment, as expressed in the stand- ards of our church, his marriage with the said Mary ‘‘ can never be made “lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as they may live to- ‘gether as man and wife :” but, notwithstanding all the efforts of Session to bring the said offending brother to a true sense of what they believed to be his duty, he positively declared, that it was his deliberate intention, to continue, to consider, to live with, and treat, the said Mary, as his lawful wife as long as he and she should live. Whereupon, Rosalba; That this Session do adjudge the said Donald McGrimmioisy to be guilty of the crime of zncest, in taking to himself, Mary Dunlap, the sister of his deceased wife; and in living with her, in the same state of intimacy and co-habitation, as if she were his lawful wife; and that the said Donald McCrimmon be, and he hereby is, henceforth, suspended from the exercise of his office, as a Ruling-Elder of this church; and al- so, from the sealing ordinances thereof, until he separate himself from the said Mary Dunlap: and give satisfactory evidence, of penitence and re- formation. ‘The sentence of suspension, was then pronounced by the Moderator; which was foliowed by prayer to Almighty God, that it might please him to accompany this Rod of Discipline with his.blessing. Mr. McCrimmon gave notice to the Session, that it was his intention 13 to appeal from the above decision, to the next General Assembly of the Presbyterian church ;—that certain resolutions of the Presbytery of Fay- etteville, and of the Synod of North-Carolina, on the subject to which the. above decision of this Session relates, induces him to consider both these judicatories as having prejudgedhis case : and consequently to decline ap- pealing to either of them ; and to appeal directly to the General Assembly ; and that he would, in due season, lodge his appeal, and the reasons there- of, in writing, with the present officiating Moderator of this Session. Perfectly satisfied of the justice of the above decision, yet, desirous that Mr McCrimmon should enjoy every reasonable facility for having his appeal seasonably and fairly issued, the Session unanimously consent- ed, that the accused should pursue the course announced in the above no- tice of his intention, It was, therefore,, ; Ordered, That an authentic copy of all the proceedings of Session, in this case, be duly transmitted to the next General Assembly of the Presby- terian church. Resolved, That the present officiating Moderator of this Session, be, and he hereby is, requested, to defend, before the next General Assembly, the above decision of this Session; and to vindicate its conformity with the adopted standards of our church, and with the word of God. Adjourned, sine die. Concluded with prayer. Truly extracted from the minutes of Session, COLIN MciVER, Moderator Pro tem. : ELIJAH OTTERY, Clerk. eaeeS eee Extracts from the Minutes of the Presbytery of Fayetteville, and of the Synod of North-Carolina, containing the opinion of these judicatories, in relation to alliances which they consider as Divinely prohibited, referred to. in Mr. McCrimmon’s no- tice to the Session. Extract from the Minutes of the Presbytery of Fayetteville. Resolved, As the opinion of this Presbytery, which opinion is also fully expressed in the/public standards of our church, that a man who marries any of his former wife's kindred, nearer in blood than he may of bis own, and a woman who marries any of her former husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than she may of her own, are, according to the doctrines taught in the word of God, inadmissible to the privileges of the church. Truly extracted from the Minutes of Presbytery, ; COLIN McIVER, Stated Clerk, Extract from the Minutes of the Synod of North-Carolina. _ Synod do judge, that the marriage of a man, with his deceased wife’s sister's daughter, 1s criminal, and highly offensive; and that all such mar- riages are truly detestable, and ought to be strenuously discountenanced ; and that the. persons contracting them, are, by no means ddinissible to the sealing ordinances of the church, Truly extracted from the Minutes of Synod, COLIN McIVER,, Stated Clerk, ae) Ase LEM 5 a 4 14 The preceding extracts, from the Minutes of the § church, ‘of the Presbytery ‘of F ayetteville, and of the rolina, were all, in connection with Mr. McCrimmon’s to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian’ oe ‘in ——— ee ape mie oe MR. McCRIMMON *S APPEAL. To the Reverend, the General Asseibly of the Presbyterian nchureh, in the United States of America. The APPEAL of Donald MolOFiui mos a Ruling-Elder of Ottery’s church, from a decision of the Session of the’said church, by which deci- sion, the said Donald McCrimmon, has been suspended from the exercise of his office, asa Ruling Elder. and from the sealing ordinances of the church, on a charge of 1 incest; to which charge, the said appellant did plead, at the time of trial, and still pleads, in this, ‘his Spper. peti crae BP Dear Brethren—In the exercise of a privilege guaranteed to me by. the Constitution of the Presbyterian church, I do hereby appeal to your Rey- erend Body, from the decision of the Session of Ottery’s church, by which decision, J have been suspended from the enjoyment of privileges I have long held dear, and from the exercise of an office, the duties of which, I have endeavoured to discharge, in the best manner of which” my i abil- ities would admit. In presenting this, my appeal, I am aware, pees in the 6th antpeher ‘of the 3d section of the 7th chapter of the discipline of our church, it is decla- red, that ‘‘ appeals are generally to be carried, in regular gradation, from ‘an inferior judicature, to the one immediately superior ;” but as this arti- cle does not require, that appeals be thus ¢nvariably carried up; and as repeated instances have occurred, of appeals having been tried by the As- sembly, in which this regulation has been dispensed with, 1 humbly appre- hend, that, if, in this instance, I can produce good and substantial reasons tor passing by the Presbytery of Fayetteville, and the Synod of North-Ca- rolina, the Assembly will not consider this, my appeal, as irregular; but will duly try it, and pass such decision thereon, as they shall deem best suited to promote the glory of God, and the good of his earthly Zion, — For appealing directly to the General Assembly, ftom a decision of a church Session, the following are my reasons; viz: Sy aS 1. The situation in which T am placed, by the decision from which I now appeal, is a situation of a most delicate nature; and one, too, in which, to be kept long ina state of suspense, must be peculiarly painful. Should I strictly adhere to the regulation just referred to, the probability is, that I could not expect a final decision of my case, till May 1825; and this long state of suspense, would be to me more painful than I can well express, 2. The Presbytery of Fayetteville have, on their records, a resolution, which, in my opinion, has pre-judged my case. This resolution is express- ed in the following words; viz: ‘'‘ Resolved; as the opinion of this Presby- “tery, which opinion is also fully expressed in the public standards of our 4 15 “church, that.a man who marries any of his former wife’s kindred, nearer “in blood than he may of his own, and a woman who marries any of her “ former husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than she may of her own, are, “according to the doctrines taught in the word of God, inadmissible to “the privileges of the church.” 3 The records of the Synod of North-Carolina contain the following judgment, in a case nearly similar; viz: ‘Synod do judge, that the mar- “riage of a man, with his deceased wife's sister’s daughter, is criminal, “ and highly offensive; and that all such marriages are truly detestable ; “and ought to be strenuously discountenanced ; and that the persons con- ‘‘ tracting them, are, by no means admissible to the sealing ordinances of the * church.” Having now, as I humbly trust, obviated the difficulty, arising from my passing over two superior judicatories, in this my appeal, I have yet to ac- count for my personal absence; as the Book of Discipline declares, that “an appellant shall be considered as abandoning his appeal, if he does not “appear before the judicatory appealed to, on ‘the first or second day. of ‘its meeting, next eusuing the date of his notice of appeal, exceptin cases “in which the appellant can make it appear, that he was prevented from * seasonably prosecuting his appeal, by the Providence of God.” That © my case is of this description, is a fact, of which the Assembly will be con- vinced, when I inform them, that I am a poor man; that 1 have a large family to support ; and that I cannot, in justice to myself and them, afford the expense of travelling from my present residence to the city of Phila- delphia ; and there, prosecuting this, my appeal. Having premised these statements and remarks, I will now proceed, di- rectly, to state the reasons of this, my appeal. I do, then, seriously and solemnly, appeal, from the decision of the Ses- sion of Ottery’s church, which accompanies this document, tor the follow- ing reasons; viz: First—Because, although the 4th section of the 24th chapter of the Confession of Faith does declare, that ‘‘ the man may not marry any of his “ wife’s kindred, nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman, “of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than she may of her own;” yet, the texts of Scripture, quoted in the margin, do, in my opinion, fail to support this proposition ; nor can I find any text, in all the Bible, that I can understand as proving this doctrine. Secondly,—-Because, in the list of kindred mentioned in the Book of Leviticus, the sister of a deceased wife, is not once mentioned, as a person whom it would be unlawful for a man to marry; although the 18th verse of the 18th chapter of that book, contains a prohibition in relation to a wife’s sister, in the wife's life-time ; which seems to imply, that, after the wife’s death, such a marriage might be lawful. Thirdly,—Because the Session of Oitery’s church, in making up their judgment, in my case, did not rest contented with considering and pro- nouncing the act wich they so severely condemned, as merely. a rash and inconsiderate act of indiscretion, or as a step unadvisedly and injudicious- ly taken; (all which I freely, admit; and for which, I would, without ap- peal, have willingly submitted to their censure, admonition, rebuke, or suspension :) but they have proceeded so far as to adjudge me to be euilty of the crime of ncest; and to determine it to be essential to my repent- 16 ance for this erime, that I separate myself from the ’ an whom I have chosen as my wife. ee Fourthly;— Because, after all the light I have bel this subject, I cannot but think, that a separation from consider and believe to be my wife, so far from atoning for < tion of which I bave been guilty in marrying her, would itself, be more offensive to God, than the act of our coming toge Fifihly,—Because the assertion of the said Session, t “seany marriag “with the said Mary can never be made lawful by any law of man, or ‘consent of parties. so as we may live together, as man and wife,” al- though it is sanctioned by the language of the Confession of Faith, is yet, in my opinioa. totally unsupported by the Holy Scriptures. Sixthly, and Lasth y,— Because the decision of said Session is at ya- - riance, with the opinions expressed, at different times, in similar cases, by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, to which I now appeal. In the year 1797, in the case of a man who had married his former wife’ s brother’s daughter, and in the year 1802, in the case of aman who had married his former wife’s sister's daughter, the General Assembly have de- clared it to be their opinion,—“ that the marriage referred to, was not of “such a nature, asto render it necessary to exclude the parties from the ‘‘ privileges of the church.” To the same purpose, in the year 1804, the General Assembly have said, “ that they cannot advise to annul such mar- “riages, or pronounce them in such a degree unlawful, as that the parties, “if otherwise worthy, should be debarred from the privileges of the ‘church ;” and, in the year 1821, in the case of a person who, like myself, had married the sister of his deceased wife, the General Assembly have said, ‘that they are by no means prepared to decide, that such marriages, “as that in question, are so plainly prohibited in the scriptures, and so un- * doubtedly incestuous, as necessarily to infer the exclusion of those wha ‘contract them, from church privileges.” With these repeated deélara- tions of former General Assemblies fully in view, it may be naturally sap- posed, that I do not,—that, indeed, I cannot anticipate a confirmation of the decision from which I now appeal : ;—so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the collected wisdom of our church. True it is, lam not ignorant, that, in each of the cases here referred to, the Assembly ‘have expressed, in strong terms, their disapprobation-of the marriages in ques- tion: yet, much as they disapproved of them, they did not think proper’ to annul them. This is, to my mind, conclusive evidence, that not consider such marriages, as either a nullity, or an abomination in the sight of God. oes tk “These considerations, I acknowledge, afford me no small dticbuaape ment, to appeal to your Reverend Body, from the decision of the Session of Ottery’s church, above referred to ; and, if you should not find it é: dient to reverse the said decision (which, nevertheless, I hope you will but leave it, as former Assemblies have done, to the discretion of the’ ial sion, to dispose of it, according to their own views of duty, I yet cannot but confidently hope and _ believe, that I shall have the consolation of re- flecting, that the said Session, should they continue to enforce their deci- sion, will do so, unsupported by the advice or concurrence of the Gennes Assembly. Fil As the. Providence of God, in the manner. dlveady stiteds preven from personally presenting my appeal, I have prevailed on the Rev'd. Ezra 17 ‘Stiles Ely, D. D. to appear before” you, as my Advocast: and I hope the Assembly will allow him to plead my cause, and also appoint such other counsel, to manage my defence, as they may think proper. And now, reposing perfect confidence, in the wisdom and piety of your Reverend Body, to decide the case in such a manner as you may judge best adapted to promote the glory of God, and the edification of his church, I freely commit my cause into your hands: and, praying, that tbe great Head of the church may preside in your deliberations, I sub- scribe myself; Dear Brethren, Yours unfeignedly. . DONALD -McCRIMMON. Bas an the Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in relation to the case of Mr. Donald - MeCrimmon. has Ist, 1824, A. M. An appeal of Mr. Donald MeCatamios from a decision of the Session of Otttery’s church having been submitted to the Assembly by the Judi- cial committee, was taken up; and Dr. Ely was, agreeably to the request of the appellant, appointed to support the appeal. The documents on the subject were read; andiDr. Ely and Mr. McIver were heard at some length ; the former in support of the appeal, and the latter in defence of the decision of the Session. Adjourned till 4 o’clock, P.M. Concluded with prayer. See printed minutes, p. 207. FOUR O'CLOCK, P. M. The Assembly met, and was constituted by prayer. The minutes of the last Session were read. The unfinished business of the morning was resumed ; viz: the conside- ration of the appeal of Mr. McCrimmon. The parties were heard till they were’ satisfied, and the roll was called, agreeably to a constitutional rule on the subject. Dr. Leland, Mr. Robert Kennedy, and Mr. William L, Maccalla, were appointed a committee to prepare a minute proper to be adopted by the Assembly on the appeal. See printed minutes, p. 207. guNE 3p 1824, A. M. The committee appointed to prepare a minute on the appeal of Mr. Do- nald MeCrimmon from a decision of the Session of Ottery’s church, sus- pending him from the office of Ruling-Elder, and from the privileges of the church, reported, and. their report being read, was accepted. After some discussion, the further consideration of it, was postponed ; and the subject of the appeal was committed to Drs. Blatchford, Richards, Chester, Romeyn, McDowell, Miller, and Janeway, maturely to consider the sub- ject, and report on it to the’ nezt Assembly. Mr. McCrimmon was sus- pended on account of marrying the sister of his deceased wife. See printed minutes, p. 214. 3 18 _ Remarks on the preceding Minute. The word “accepted,” here used, in reference to the report ¢ mittee, it will be readily perceived, does not imply, that the | adopted the sentiments it contained; but only, that they r eceived it, as a regular document, for the purpose of deliberating how it should be dispo- sed of. The concluding part of the minute shews, that it was ilti- mately adopted. Partly: on this account, and partly, perhaps, fror in- disposition to encumber the minutes, it was not placed on record. Hay ing, however, preserved a copy of it, and believing, that many of the read- ers of these pages, will, on perusal of it, unite with me in thinking, that it was a very correct and judicious report; and that the Assembly ought to have adopted it; itis here presented to my readers, as the. next article ; and, although it is not expressly said in the minute, that the report was rejected; yet, I have thought proper to entitle it “ The rejected report;” be- cause, after accepting it—not to adopt it, but to postpone the further con- sideration of it, was, in my judgment, virtually to reject it. It is worthy of further remark, that it was, “the subject of the appeal,’ and not the ap- peal itself, that was committed to the Ministers, whose names are. insert- ed in the preceding minute. It is, I think, obvious to the slightest obser- vation, that the appeal itself, could not, with propriety, be referred to them, unless they had been directed to report to that same Assembly ; but, inas- much as they were required to report, to the next Assembly, the business, if | have any correct understanding of its true nature, from the moment of the adoption of the preceding minute, ceased to. partake of a judicial character. On this minute there are some remarks contained in the preface, to which the reader’s attention is particularly requested.—See pages iv. and v. SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURSHR, ON THE ist OF JUNE 1824. IN OPPOSITION TO MR. McCRIMMON’S APPEAL, AND IN DEFENCE OF THE DECISION OF THE SESSION OF OTTERY’S CHURCH. Moderator—The subject on which, it now becomes. my province, through you, to address this Reverend General Assembly, never was, and Tam persuaded, never will be, to me, a subject productive of the smallest pleasure. I enter on its. discussion, with that reluctance, which every man feels, who engages in an unpleasant duty. So unpleasant, indeed, 20 sir, is this subject to me, that I could not be persuaded to embark in it, by any consideration, short of a deep conviction of dut y-i Sach . Si a tion, however, does, with me, outweigh all other considerations; — id all the objections to my engaging in this cause, which have been sugge my mind by my aversion to an unpleasant subject, are at ont e put | lence. I bring, then, sir, to the defence of the decision of the Se ession 0 Ottery’s church, a firm conviction, that I now appear in the def “of truth and of purity ;—that the Session, in forming a decision which pro- motes a cause so sacred, deserve the countenance, the approbation, and - the warm and unanimous support of this General Assembly iand that, consequently, the appeal of Mr. Donald McCrimmon from so just a deci- sion, ought not to be sustained. ‘The minutes including the decision now appealed from, do, in my judgment, farnish this Assembly with abundant evidence, that the session, in all their deliberations om this subject, have acted with all that care and circumspection which the great importance of the case demanded; and that, whilst, on the one hand, they felt and exer- cised all that tenderness towards their offending brother, which the com- passionate spirit of the gospel called for; they kept steadily in view, on the other, their solemn accountability to the great head of the Church; and, in view of this accountability, were resolved, in this ease, as much. as in them lay, to be found faithful to their master. At the same time, sir, they were duly sensible, that they were, themselves, an imperfect, fallible body of men; and that, therefore, it was possible, their judgment might be erroneous, On this account, they readily consented to the present appeal ; : for, as they possessed the testimony of an approving conscience, they had nothing to fear from an investigation of their proceedings ; and, as their main object was, the promotion of Zion’s best interests, they felt no dis- position to throw any obstacles in the appellant's way; but were perfectly willing, that he should enjoy every facility, for having his appeal fairly and seasonably issued. I trust, however, I shall not find it difficult to prove, that, if, in the decision now appealed from, the session have fallen into an error, it is an error into which they have fallen, in excellent company ;— an error which has obtained the solemn sanction of a body of men, whose memory, multitudes of the faithful followers of Jesus, have long held dear:—even that same learned, judicious, and godly assembly of divines, who met at Westminster, in the'year of our Lord 1643, and there composed that excellent Confession of Faith, which we have, since, all adopted, as the Confession of our Faith. In consulting this excellent summary of scripture-doctrine, I find: sentiments, which, if admitted, will completely justify the decision of the Session. In the 4th section of the 24th chap- ter of the Confession of Faith, it is declared, that ‘‘ Marriage ought hot to “be within the degrees of consanguinity, or affinity forbidden in the word ; apr can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of ‘man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man “and wife.” This general proposition, I presume, no member of this As- sembly will think of controverting ; yet, while this is admitted, some may be. disposed still to ask, Does our Confession of Faith absolutely pro-. nounce the act, of which the appellant, in this case, stands convicted, an incestuous act? I maintain, Moderator, that it does; and I doubt not, but this Assembly will concede the position, on a fair comparison, of the Whar thn, alleged offence, with the language of the Confession of Faith, hat, fant is “na appellant's offence ? From the testimony before you, even. 21 the testimony of his own confession, he stands convicted, of having taken - to bimself,—the sister of his deceased wife. And, on this act, what judg- mient does the Confession of Faith pronounce ? In the same section, to which I have already referred, it is further declared, that “the man may “not marry any of bis wife’s ‘kindred, nearer in blood than he may ef his “own; nor the woman, of her husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than of “ her own.” Will it be contended, sir, that the appellant might lawfully have married his ewn sister? If he might, then, I allow, the Confession of Faith does not condemn him; but, if he might not, then, neither, accord- ing to the rule just recited, might he marry his wife’s sister. Lapprehend, however, that no member of this Assembly will think of contending for the lawfulness of a man’s marriage with his own sister. If, then, am cor- rect in this apprehension, it must follow, as a matter which admits of no nit boa bast that the standards of our church pronounce that man guilty of incest, who takes to himself, the sister of his deceased wife. Of this trnth, the evidence I have furnished, will, I think, by every member of this Asseiubly, be considered as amply sufficient. All evidence, however, re- jating to this point, is, on the present occasion, quite unnecssary ; as the appellant himself distinctly admits, that what the Session has charged against him as an oifence, is explicitly condemned, as incestuous, in ‘the Coilession of Faith: my only reason, then, for offering any proof on this subject, was, that I felt extremely unwilling to take the advantage of an adinission, which, to others, the appeilaut might seem to make, without sufficient reflection: And if the decision of the Session be thus clearly supp@rted by the Confession of Faith; which, I think, no one will now deny,—I ask,—have they not a right, to calculate, with confidence, on the countenance, the approbation, and the support of this General. Assembly ? Is there any souad principle of reason, upon which such support can be denied them ? Caa you venture to sustain the appeal now before you, when you clearly perceive, that it is an appeal from a decision, which is firmly fortified by the Constitution of our church ? What, sir! Sustain an-appeal, from a de- cision, supported by that Confession of Faith, which every member of fhe Session,——which even the appellant himself—yea, which every member of this General Assembly, has, at his ordination, publicly and solemaly pro- fessed, to have “ sincerely received and adopted, as containing that sys- “tem of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures *’ Sustain an appeal from a decision, supported by that Confession of Faith, to the doctrmes con- tained in which, former General. Assemblies. have publicly and pg! declared their uniform adherence? Sustain an appeal, from a decision, supported by that Confession of Faith, a strict and undeviating ailccanee to the doctrines contained in which, former General Assemblies have strictly enjoined on the judicatories and churches-under their-care? Sur, I should find it extremely difficult, to reconcile such a supposition, with the confidence I repose in the good sense, orthodoxy, and fidelity, ef this Gene- ralAssembly. But, sir, thereisnoneed of apprehension on thissubject ; for, if sentiments found repeatedly expressed on your records, be correct, then am I warranted in saying, that this Assembly have no authority to make any decision, that shall contradict any part of the Constitution of our church; : and that, should they venture to do so, any decision thus made by them, must, of itself; be null and void.- The Assembly of 1804 acknowledged this position, when, in a letter addressed to the Rev. David Rice, of Kem 22 tucky, speaking of a measure, which they considered unconstiutional, they expressed themselves thus: ‘‘ But, were our opinion on this subject different “from what it is, we cannot lawfully and conscientiously depart from our ‘present standards, till they be changed, in an orderly manner, by the con: “of a majority of the Presbyteries, which compose the body of the “ Assembly.” A similar testimony was also given, by the Assembly of 1816, aaa expressed, if possible, in even more explicit and unequivocal terms. Their words were these: “ The articles of the Constitution, must " govern the Assembly themselves ; and cannot be altered or abrogated, but “in the manner pointed out in the Constitution itself.” Ifthese principles be just, sir, and I presume they will not be controver- ted, I might now, without any further investigation of the subject, justly claim from this Assembly, a decision, in favor of the appellees, and against the appellant. If the standards of our church, have pronounced the marriage now in question, an incestuous. marriage, I humbly appre- hend, that this General Assembly are bound to decide, that the word of God, the only infallible rule of faith. and practice, has pronounced, against such marriage, the same condemnatory sentence. This, sir, I think, I might insist on, without subjecting myself to the imputation, of being, any way, unreasonable, in my expectation; but, as this would fall short of sat- isfying the appellant; who, while he admits that the Confession of Faith justifies the decision of session, yet contends, that the texts of scripture quo- ted in the Confession do fail to support the proposition therein contained, and tells us, moreover, that he can find no text in all the Bible, from which, in his opinion, the doctrine for which I contend, can be proved ;——I am oll. ing to extend this investigation, even as far as he wishes it :—I am willing” to go, ‘‘to the law, and to the testimony,” and if, on such investigation, I shall be able to show, that “ agreeably to the rules of just interpretation, the ‘marriage of a deceased wife’s sister, is actually forbidden” in God’s Ho- ly Word, then sir, [ cannot. doubt, but this Assembly will, not only con- demn the appeal; and confirm the decision appealed from; but also, pro- nounce the question now before us, as ‘‘ decided by an authority, which it “would be impious to contradict, and dangerous to disobey.”* Let us proceed, then, sir, in the fear of God, seriously to inquire, what testimony he has given us, on the subject now before us, in his Holy Word, Tn entering on this inquiry, it is of importance, that I distinetly announce what it is I propose to prove; and in what manner my proof is to be ex- hibited. I propose, then, to prove, that God, in his Holy Word, has actu- ally forbidden the marriage of a man, with the sister of his deceased wife. This, sir, [ propose to prove,——not by pointing to a text which literally ex- presses this prohibition ; but, by shewing, that, “ agreeably to the rules of "just interpretation,” this prohibition is contained in the Oracles of God. Ifa person who wishes ‘to have a:correct conscience on this subject,” should “ take his Bible, and search diligently to find the words, ‘ Thou shalt not marry thy wife’s sister ;’””—I grant you, that he will search in vain: if he should also critically search, to find the words, ‘‘ Thou shalt not marry “thine own daughter ;”—he will be equally disappointed. “ But will he, ‘then, gravely lay aside his Bible,” and take it for granted, “that these in- ‘stances of marriage are lawful, because he does not find them forbid- “den, expressly, inso many words? God forbid!” With equal truth, = * Livingston. 23 good sense, might he conclude,—‘ that it is lawful to steal a woman or “child, and sell it, because not expressly forbidden ; although it is” explicit- ly “declared, that whosoever stealeth a man, and selleth him, shall surely be put to death.”* From so gross a mistake as this, even common sense will save any person of ordinary understanding or reflection. But, in what part of the Holy Scriptures, shall we commence our search ! That there is such an offence against God, as that which we denominate incest —that this offence is an abomination in the sight of God ;-——and, that, in his Holy Word, he has given us all the information that is necessary to enable us to , ascertain, wherein that offence consists,—are positions, which, I presume, no one who is familiar with his Bible, will hesitate to admit. But, in what part of the inspired volume, shall we find this necessary information ? Shall we find it in the Old Testament, or in the New, or in both ? If we lookinto . the New Testament, for information, respecting “ the degrees of consan- “‘guinity, or affinity, within which, a man or woman may, or may not mar- “ry,” we find, in this part of the scriptures, “not one word’ on the sub- ject, “except John’s reproof of Herod, for having his brother Philip’s “wife; and Paul’s reproof of the Corinthian church, for communing with “9 man that had his father’s wife,”, which he considered as ‘a notorious “scandal. And why do we find no marriage-table, or scale, in the New “Testament ? For the best of reasons,’ sir :—‘‘ Jehovah had already giv- “‘en one, in the Old Testament,—never yet repealed,—fit, in its nature,—. “sufficiently liberal for the convenience of the human family,—and de- “signed to be permanent. This table, or law of God, is found on record, “in the 18th chapter of the buok of Leviticus.” t In this chapter, I appre- hend, sir, we are to find the true solution of the question now before us; “ for there is no other passage in the Bible,—--not asingle paragraph to be “found in the Old or New Testament, where the prohibited degrees are ‘enumerated, excepting in this 18th chapter of Leviticus, and a few verses “in the 20th chapter, where some of the precepts are repeated.”{ The 6th verse of the 18th chapter, contains a general law on the subject now before us, wherein all persons are forbidden to marry any that is ‘‘ near of “kin” to them. Inthe next 11 verses, commencing with the 7th and end- ing with the 17th, the limitations of this law are particularly specified, pointing out, in 15 distinct. cases, the degrees of kindred, within which, marriages are prohibited, under this general law. ‘That this general law, with its various limitations, can relate to nothing else than to prohibited marriages, I think, must evidently appear,——“ from the express'designation ‘‘of the crime,—the definition of the subjects of the Jaw,—and the min- ‘ute enumeration of the degrees of kindred, which constitutes the basis ‘of the prohibitions. Any attempt to prove, or illustrate this, would be su- ‘“‘perfluous, The object of the law, and the meaning of the divine law- * giver, cannot be mistaken.’ I conceive it ‘ impossible,” sir, “ to hesitate ‘“‘in determining, that this is a law, which condemns, what is called iN- “cesT ;” and “that its immediate scope and design is, to draw the line of ‘prohibitions ; and ascertain, with precision, the degree of kindred, with- “in which, God forbids the consummation of marriage,”’§ Before I consider the particular prohibition, which is the immediate ob- ff * From an anonymous tract. + Report of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgie. } Livingston. ‘4 Thid, 24 ject of our saab bic: I beg leave, sir, to state a few pl : rinciples, which I believe to be essential to the true interpretation of thi Jaw ; j ‘and which, ] hope, this Assembly, will readily admit. At will, then, 7 be allowed a ist. That “the term, near of kin, specifies that degree of relatio “approximates too closely, to tender a marriage legitimate, betwee ‘sons thus related;” and that “ the ncarness of kindred is the essei i “principle of the law against incest.”* 2ndly. That the prohibitory phrase, which is familiar‘to all the Grenier of this Assembly, and which, for an obvious reason, r forbear to repeat, “is used to signify marriage ;” and that “ the meaning” of it“ cannot be mistaken,’’T 3dly, That “the term, wife, in this law: ” invariably “ signifies, « wide. 3 This position, [ think, cannot well be controverted ; for, ** were the hus- “ band still alive, it would be adultery, which is not’ the crime intended, or “ designated, in this law.”’f dthly. That. ‘in the enumeration of the degrees ef relation, the sour-: “ees, by consanguinity and affinity, are indiscriminately blended ;”=-that “the relations of the husband, and the relations of the wife, in consequence Be the union produced by marriage, are considered as equally near to “ a and that ‘‘no distinction is made, in the direct or lateral line, be- ‘ tween those who are related by blood and by marriage.”§ Sthly. “'That, wherever a degree of kindred is named and prohibited, all ‘the relations, either in consanguinity or affinity, which are in the same be “ degree, and especially such as are nearer, than that which is mentioned, ‘are necessarily included, and equally forbidden.”’|| -EHaly: That ‘the same prohibition w hich binds a man, is equally bite: ‘ing upon a woman: and 7th and lastly. That ‘‘ every relation of the same degree, when reversed, “must be understood to be as much included in the precept, as if it had “ been specifically mentioned:” for, “to have repeated all these, vice versa, “would have unnecessarily multiplied the words of the law, without ren- ‘dering them more explicit, or intelligible.” {{ These principles being premised, I am now ready, to consider the partic- ular prohibition, which is the immediate object of our present inqui Where, then, Moderator, shall we find the evidence, that God has forbid- den a man, to marry the sister of his deceased wife ? It is found, sir, in the’ 16th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus; where aman is expressly for- bidden, to marry his “ Brother's Wife.” “Ts remove every temptation, ‘and silence all prevarication upon this article, the same precept is,” in tite 21st verse of the 20th chapter, plainly “ repeated : “If a man shall take - ‘his brother's wife itis anunclean thing.’’’\\l] ‘This, sir, agreeabl. to the: principies already stated, is, in my apprehension, tantamount to a ara- tion, that, “Jf aman shall take his deceased wife's sister, at 1s an ances Those who controvert the doctrine for which I contend, may, pethaps, 1 disposed to smile at this suggestion: yet, sir, if I ask those very persons, whether a man may lawfully | marry his own daughter, they will not hesitate in saying, that he may not: if I then ask them, how they prove this, from scripture, they will confidently refer me to the 7th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus; where a man is forbidden to marryhis own mother. This ig: + *Livingston. {Ibid. t Ibid. § Ibid. gTbid. ‘Ibid. tt Ibid. i Ibid. 25 the oniy text, from which they can preve it. _They will tell me, that a ‘daughter is as nearly related to her father, asa son is to his mother ;—that, therefore, if God has forbidden a man to marry his mother, he has, by the very same law, forbidden a woman to marry her father ; ane. that, ifhe has said, that a woman may not marry her father, he has also, necessarily said, that a man tay not marry bis daughter. This reasoning, sir, I confess, I cannot resist; and therefore, precisely, 1 in the same manner, prove, from ‘scripture, the unlawfulness of a man’s Ss marriage, with his wife’s sister: I Say, no one will deny, that a sister is as nearly related to a sister, as a bro- ther is to a brother. If, then, God has forbidden a man to marry his bro- ther’s wife, he has, by the very same law, forbidden a woman to marry her . sister’s husband ; and if he has said, that a woman may not marry her sis- ter’s husband, he has also necessarily said, that @ man may not marry his wife’s sister. Willit be said, sir, “in objection to this demonstration, that “the relationship of a sister’s husband, is further off, and more remote, ‘than the relation of a daughter to a father?” This sir, is worse than tri- fling: “admitting it is further off;—the same Divine Being forbids both: One as truly as “the other, and both on the same principle.” And here, sir, I cannot help observing,—that “ those who speculate upon the style “in which the Jaw of marriage is” expressed, “and complain that it is not “‘suficiently explicit, would do well to remember, that the scriptures * were not written, in the ‘words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the “ Holy Ghost teacheth, or taught. It is dangerous, therefore, to indulge “this complaint. ‘To impeach the wisdom of the Divine Spirit, carries ‘“‘ something in it impious and shocking. All should remember, that Mo- ‘ses, in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, laid down what was law, respect- “ing marriage, He had not done this before; nor was he here treating “ of the breaches of this law. But, after stating the ground work of the “law, he identified relations simply; which relations, as such, might not in- ‘‘termarry. .A son might not intermarry with his mother, whether his fa- “ther was living or not. A nephew might not intermarry with his aunt, " or uncle’s wife, whether his uncle was living or not; and so, of all the “rest. Relations, stmply.as such, are forbidden. Of course there was no need of calling a mother, a father’ s widow,——an aunt, an uncle’s widow, ‘—or, a brother’ s wife, a brother’s widow.”* [‘‘ It is presumed, that it is not possible to conceive of a reason against ‘ marrying a brother's wife, which will not apply, in its full force, against bi marrying a wife's sister. The prohibition, in the one case must equally ‘apply in the other, Things which are alike, in themselves, are alike ‘virtuous or vicious: arguments, therefore, from analogy, or similarity, ‘ dre no less conclusive and satisfying, by the common consent of mankind, “than such as have their foundation, in express commands and probibi- “tions. The ill effects of marrying a wife’ $ sister. are as great as those of “ marrying a brother's wife ; and the reasons of the prohibition are stron- _‘' ger, in some respects, than for the prohibition of the marriage of a bro- _“ther’s wife. There is more danger of a man’s practising undue famili- _“arities, with a wife’s sister, than with a brother’s wife. The temptations “are greater; and the opportunities more numerous. Brothers’ wives are commonly fixed in different, and often in distant families. They are ‘married women, or widows. But, a wife’s sister, is often brought intq * From an anonymous tract. “ 26 ™ “the same family, in a single state, in_ail the vigor and beni: ‘youth, ‘“The temptations to incontinency are greater, and the opportunities far “more numerous, in this ease, than in that of a brother’s wife. “man marries a wife’s sister. he makes no new relations, be forms no | “ friendships, does notbing to enlarge his knowledge of mankind, or to ene i: ie ot 8 the circle of love and kind offices. But the whole tendency of it s, to prevent the diffusion of wealth and benevolent affection ; to increase oe ‘selfish principle, and the undue influence ot a combination of rela- “tives; and, in this way, to disserve the general happiness of society, he} 1 trust, sir, have now clearly shown, that the appellant’s first reason for appealing from the decision of Session, is not sufficient to justify this Gen- eral Asseiubly, in sustaining his appeal. 1 must now consider his second reason; which is, that, ‘in the list of kindred, mentioned in the book of “ Leviticus, the sister of a deceased wife, is not once mentioned, as a per= “son whom it would be unlawful for a man to marry; although the 18th “verse of the 18th chapter of that book, contains a prohibition, i in relation “to a wile’s sister, in the wife's life time ; which seems to imply, that a er ‘ the wife's death, such a marriage might be lawfal.” ‘The first part of this. reason, sir, | think | have already sufficiently answered. [In addition, however, to what [ have already said. in relation to a literal, or express prohibition, it may here be proper, simply to remark, that, if what the ap- pellant here contends for ‘“ prove any thing, it proves too mueb, and so proves nothing; for it implies,—that it is lawful for a woman to marry “her grandson, though it is expressly forbidden that a man marry his “ erand-daughter ; and that it is lawful for a man to marry his mother’s ‘brother's wife, though he may not marry his father’s brother’s wife ;—that “itis lawful for a woman to marry her father’s sister’ s, or mother’s sister’s’ “busband, though it is not lawful for a man to marry his father’s brother’s “wife ;—that it is lawful for a woman to marry her husband’s grandson, though not fer a man to marry his wife’s grand-daughter.” ‘This, it will be recollected, 1 have already sufficiently exposed ;] yet, the last part of the appellant’s 2d reason, appears to claim a few remarks. The question, here, sir, is, what is meant by the words, ‘‘@ wife to her sister,” in the 18th verse? This question, sir, the translators of the bible have satisfactorily _ answered, in the marginal reading, where they explain it to mean, “ one~ -wife to another.” [‘'The same Hebrew phrase, Isha el achotha, here trans- “lated, a wife to her sister, is found, in eight other instances only, in the “whole Hebrew Bible, in none of which it is applied to a natural sister ; ‘but, in every one of them, itis applied to inanimate substances, — Thus, “it is used twice, in Exodus xxvi. 3. ‘The five curtains shall be coupled “together one to another, and other five curtains, shall be coupled, one to *‘another.’ The literal translation of the Hebrew is this. ‘The five cur- “tains shall be coupled, @ woman to her~ sister, and five curtains shall be “coupled. a woman to her sister. The same phrase occurs-in the 5th “verse of the same chapter. ‘That the loops may take hold, one of ano- “ther. The literal translation of the Hebrew is, ‘ The loops receiving a “ woman to her sister. Again, in the 6th verse, ‘ And couple the curtains- “together :’ In Hebrew “And couple the curtains, @ woman to her sister.* ** So verse 17th, ‘ T'wo tenons shall there be in one board, set in order, one ‘against another :’ in the Hebrew,—‘ set in order a woman to her sister.” * Trumbuk,. + Edwards. 27 -“ Ezekiel, 9. ‘Their wings were joined one to another :’ In the Hebrew, “< Their wings were joined, a@ woman to her sister.’ Verse 23d of the “ saie chapter,—' And under the firmament were their wings straight, the “one toward another :’ In the Hebrew,—' were straight, a woman to her “ sister.’ Chapter iii 13, ‘I beard also the noise of the wings of tie “living creatures, that touched one another:’ In the Hebrew,— that “touched, a woman to her sister.’ On the authority of Buxtorf's concor- “dance to the Hebrew Bible, I assert, that these eight are the only in- “stances of the use of this phrase in the whole Hebrew Bible, besides “ Leviticus xviii, 18. And, since, in all these, it is applied to inanimate “substances, which cannot, in the literal sense, be sisters to each other, I “submit it to. my learned auditors, how far this is an argument, that, in our *‘ text too, it does not mean a natural sister, If it shall be determined, "that, in our text, it does not mean a natural sister, the sense of the phrase “will be the same which it bears in all other places; and the translation “will also be the same ;’* namely, that which the translators of the Bible have given us inthe margin] It is clear, then, sir, that, in this 18th verse, there is not a word about incest: it is a plain prohibition of polyg- amy; and the reason of this prohibition is, that ‘‘ Polygamy is a source of “ domestic veration ; and destructive of all the interesting ends of marriage, “Ifthe natural sister of the wite were here intended, it could not, even “then, be considered as an implicit permission to marry such sister after * the death of the wife; for this” would contradict what “ was already ab- “solutely forbidden in the 16th verse ;” and besides, it is to be observed, that “the whole cause of the prohibition, in the 18th verse, refers to the “‘vexation of the wife :—but why should her sister be specified as the most “vexatious partner? The pretended argument to recommend the marry- “ing of a deceased wife’s sister, would” surely “ prove,” sir, ‘that, of all “ other women, she would be the least exceptionable, and the most desira- “ble associate of a living sister. But, that the natural sister cannot be “meant, is evident; because the law would then imply that a man might “ inarry any other, in the lifetime of his wife, provided she_was not her sis- “ter ; which would be implicitly to license polygamy, instead of forbidding ‘it :—an inference, which no modest commentator would dare to counte- “nance.”} (= By this I would not be understood to mean, that my good brother Dr. Ely, is not.a modest commentator, although, as the advocate of the appellant, in this case, he has contended. that, under the Old Tes- tament dispensation, polygamy was lawful. I cannot but think, that it was through an oversight, that he quoted, in support of such an opinion, both in his defence ofthe appellant, before this Assembly, and in his published synopsis of Didactic Theology, the 15th, 16th and 17th verses of the 21st chap of Deuteronomy, where it is directed, that, “ [fa man have two wives, ‘‘one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children both "the beloved and the hated ; andif the first born son be hers that was hae “ted, then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he * hath, that he may not.make the son of the beloved first-born before the * son of the hated, which is, indeed, the first-born ; but he shall acknowl- ‘edge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double por- “tion of all that ke hath: for he is the beginning of his strength, the right ‘of the first born, is his,” This passage, does indeed, recognize the ez- * Edwards, + Livingston, — 26 astence but by no means justifies the practice of polygamy. That it was then, as unlawful as it is now, is, to my mind, very clear, from the evidence furnished by the Holy Scriptures on the subject, and although the patri- archs indulged in it, their history, in my opinion, plainly — s, that, by this very offence, they often drew down upon themselves, the divine displeasure, * [‘‘ It is plain, by the prophet Malachi, by our Lord, and by the - . “ Paul, that polygamy was unlawful under the Old Testament. Betis. “Sage in Malachi to which I refer, is chapter i ii. 13—15, ‘He regarde “not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. " Yet, ye say, Wherefore ? Because the Lord hath been witness between “thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherous- “ly. Yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did “he not make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore “one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your “ spirit, and let none ‘deal treacherously against the wife of his veuth.’ In “this passage all are forbidden to deal treacherously with the wives of En * their youth. And what was meant by dealing treacherously with them, ‘is explained in these words, ‘ And did he not make one” i. e. one wo- ‘“‘man for one man. ‘ Yet he had the residue of the Spirit,’ and was abun- “dantly able to have created more women for one man, if it had been law- “ful, and best for him to have more. And ‘ wherefore’ did he make but one’ woman ? ‘ That he might seek a godly seed :’ i. e. because monog- “amy, or the having but one wife, is subservient to godliness, and polyg- “amy is hurtful to it. ‘Thus does this prophet clearly decide against the “lawfulness of polygamy, under the Old Testament. The testimony of “of our Saviour, on this head, is not less express and pertinent: it is “in Matt. xix.4—6 ‘ Have you not read, that he which made them at “the beginning, made them male and female ? And said, For this cause ‘shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and “they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore, they are no more twain, but “one flesh.’ They twain,—not they three or four, were to be one flesh ; ‘and a man was to leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, —not “to his wives. And this was the design and institution of God, from the “ beginning,—under the Old Testament, as well the New. The Apostle “Paul also quotes the same words. from Gen. ii. 24, and continues them, ‘in the same sense, as you may seein Eph. v. 31. ‘ For this cause shall a “man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and “they two shall be one flesh.’ ‘Thus clearly, it appears, that polygamy ‘*was unlawful, even under the Old Testament ; and consequently, that. ‘there is no license for it given in Leviticus xvili. 18; as there is, if that ‘text be understood to refer to a natural sister ’{] I conclude, then, sir, that all inferences, or arguments, in favor of marrying the sister, after the death of the wife, deduced from this verse, are frivolous and ridiculous, * Although it is not a matter of much consequence, I choose here to state a fact, in relation to the remarks, to which this note is appended, the commencement of which is distinguished by this mark (> Dr. Ely had made the first speech; and | proceeded to deliver mine, as previously written, until I came to the above quotation from Dr. Liy- ingston’s book, respecting polygamy ; when | thought proper to make some reference to Dr. Ely’s speech, and, consequently, added extempore, what is here given, as nearly in the words which { uttered at the time, as my memory would enable me to commit to writing, when I returned from the Assembly to my lodgings in the evening + Edwards. 29 4 Before I proceed to notice the appellant’s next*reason for appealing, I must say a few words, in relation to a popular plea in favor of the mar- _tiage, I now oppose, founded on the 5th and 10th verses inclusive, of the 25th chapter, of the book of Deuteronomy; where, it is alledged, that God himself expressly enjoined the marriage of a sister-in-law, in cases Where a brother died without male issue. ‘ True.” Moderator ; “he did: “and, when an anti-christian age comes on, and the Jewish polity returns, “and it becomes necessary to ascertain, by keeping a distinct register of ““ Jewish families, and tribes, and property, the lineage and birth of the true “Jesus, and the right of property at the year of Jubilee ;”—then, sir, I “will agree to, and” even “commend, the religious and state policy of “such a marriage ;—but not till then.”* [If it be urged, that the injunc- tion here referred to “is a repeal of the general law under consideration, “ to this, it is only necessary to reply, that an exception to a genera! law, “ Of a proviso, in a particular case, is never considered as a repeal of the “law, but a confirmation of it in all other cases in which there is no ex- “ception, nor proviso. See Numbers xxvii. 8. ‘And thou shalt speak “unto the children of Israel, saying, Ifa man die, and have no son, then “ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.’ This is the “case with respect to all general laws. Did a proviso or a particular ex- ““Ception, in some case, under a general law, repeal it, almost all laws “would be repealed: for there are few, ifany, without a proviso, or some “particular exception to the general law.”{ But as already hinted, “as “ the necessity of keeping up every family distinct, which was the reason “of the exception to the law. against marrying a brother’s wife, doés not "now exist among us, Gentiles; so the exception itself does no longer ex- *‘ist; and the general law is left to operate in its utmost extent.’”’{] The pretence. that the law in Leviticus is not moral, but ceremonial, I consider scarcely worth attention: for, where, sir, will such a principle lead us ?—But once admit this principle, sir, and then, it will follow, not only, that “a Christian may. marry his sister-in-law,” but that “he may’ even “ marry his nearest relatives by consanguinity ;” for on this sapposi- tion, “ there is no law in the book of God, to bind him to the contrary. If “ the precept respecting one relation be ceremonial, then, all the precepts “are ceremonial :—a discrimination is impossible. ‘The Jews, then, were “ restrained from committing abominable crimes ; but Christians may per- “ petrate those very sins, with impunity.” Surely, sir, no man of refiec- tion will urge such a plea, “and look at the unavoidable conclusions, ‘‘ without blushing at’’ his ‘‘ prejudice, and” his ‘ rashness "§ [“ But what “absolutely determines the point, that the prohibitions in Leviticus xviil., “are moral, and not ceremonial, are the verses which immediately follow ‘‘ these prohibitions, particularly the 24th and 25th.‘ Defile not yourselves ‘“‘in any of these things; for, in all these, the nations are defiled which I “cast out before you. And the land is defiled: therefore do I visit the in “iquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.” And “verse 27th——‘ For all these abominations have the men of the land dene, “which were before you, and the land is defiled’ Words to the same efiect “follow these prohibitions in the 23d verse of the 20th chapter. ‘And ve ‘shall not walk in the manver of the nations which I cast out before you.” * Report of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. + Trumbull, © ' $Edwards. § Livingston. ‘ 30 “By all these incestuous marriages, the Canaanites were defiled; and for “these abominations, the very land in which they dwelt, was sick of them; ~ ‘and God abbored them, and cast them out. But they were never under “the ceremonial Jaw, nor any other law peculiar to the nation of israel. “They knew nothing of the law of Moses, or the Jewish poli “these marriages, here prohibited, were violations of the moral | “the light of nature; or such instructions as God had given thet “ous to the writing of the law of Moses. The prohibitions were written “in the law of Moses, to guard his own people from those very sins, for “which he destroyed the nations which were before them, to whom the “laws of Moses were never published, It 1s impossible, therefore, to con- “ceive, how they should be defiled, and why God should abbor them, on ‘any other account, than for their sins against the light of nature, or the “moral law. Nothing, therefore, can be more certain, than that the prohi- “ bitions are of a moral nature, and binding upon all mankind. They were “binding, before the law of Moses was written, and still binding ; and will “be so fur ever.. It is pleaded by some, that these prohibitions were ce- “remonial, because they say, the 19th verse of the 18th chapter was cere- “monial, and belonged to the Jewish polity only. But it is by no means “ granted, that this was ceremonial. The contrary is abundantly evident, ‘‘as it is a sin, like others, charged against the Pagan inhabitants of Ca- “naan, who never had been acquainted with the law of Moses; and is ‘declared by God himself to be among those very abominations, for which ‘“he cast them out of their land. The prohibition was made, to prevent ‘‘God’s own people, from committing those very sins, against the light of “ nature, by which the Heathen made themselves abominable, and for which “they were destroyed ; and that the land might not vomit them out, as it ‘shad done its former inhabitants. Besides, the prophet Ezekiel men- ‘¢tions it among other great abominations, and gives it as part of the ‘*character of a righteous man, that he keep himself from it.” See Ezekiel xviii. 5—9. ** With respect to the objection, that the laws of Moses no more con- ‘¢ cern us, than the laws of Solon or Lycurgus, and that, therefore, noth- ‘ing can be pleaded. from Leviticus xvii. and xx. against marrying a *¢ wife’s sister, more than from the laws of those Pagans, «it may be ob- <* served, that this is rather the objection of the Infidel, than of a Chris- ‘¢tian. Will any Christain maintain, that we have nothing to do with the. ‘fen commandments, with the laws against idolatry, beastiality, sodomy, ‘¢nor any kind of incest? Have we nothing to do with the laws agamst ‘* man-stealing, murder, and those which relate to the Sabbath? Will any ‘¢ Christian maintain this? Certainly, he will not. But, where are their ‘