burden of proof on those who desire a change, to show that such a change would be beneficial.
I proceed to test their arguments for that purpose, without supposing the existence of any special revelation of God's will upon the subject.
1. They say marriage itself is a social institution highly to be favoured, and that where God is silent man should not presume to restrict the liberty of marriage.
I admit the inestimable value of marriage as a social institution; and in this letter, for argument's sake, I take as admitted the silence of God's law, but I totally deny the consequence—that society ought not to restrict the liberty of marriage except with Divine sanction.
I say, as a matter of fact, that no civilized society has ever existed that has not by law restricted the liberty of marriage, and certain barbarous tribes of India are no real exception. The restriction has been applied to different degrees of relationship, according to the different social habits of the country, but no civilized nation has permitted the marriage of father and daughter, or son and mother. I believe the Apostle Paul was not (as a matter of fact) in error when he asserted that none of the Gentiles tolerated a marriage with a step-mother, a case, be it observed, of affinity. It is well known that an unhappy attachment of step-mother to step-son, and the converse, have been recorded, and poetically and historically exhibited
