# Why does the 1689 and the WCF differ on the section on marriage?



## Pergamum (Apr 25, 2016)

Here is a tabular comparison of the 1689 and WCF. I am intrigued by why the 1689 framers deleted some sections of the WCF on marriage: http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

Why would they feel the need to purposely delete these sections? Particularly the end of paragraph 4, and the totality of paragraphs 5 and 6. 



> 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.





> 5. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
> 
> 6. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2016)

I'm guessing it has to do with Baptist antidisestablishmentarianism.


----------



## MW (Apr 25, 2016)

Rich, an anti-disestablishmentarian is against disestablishment, i.e. for establishment. Ironically, though, it was a type of establishmentarianism which led to the omission. It was carried over from the Savoy of 1658, and the preface to the Savoy tells us these sections were not included because they had been laid aside by the houses of Parliament.


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 25, 2016)

Interestingly, the portion from the end of paragraph four was struck from the WCF in its American revision.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 25, 2016)

How would this impact marriage?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 26, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> How would this impact marriage?



In the UK in 1907 the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act was passed into law, which changed the law to allow- in the example of the act- a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife. The FP Church passed a resolution condemning the move as allowing incest and contravening the Bible's and the Confession's prohibition on marriage between people in such close degree. The resolution can be found at the below link, on page 260.

http://archive.fpchurch.org.uk/magazines/fpm/1907/FPM-November-1907.pdf


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 26, 2016)

MW said:


> Rich, an anti-disestablishmentarian is against disestablishment, i.e. for establishment. Ironically, though, it was a type of establishmentarianism which led to the omission. It was carried over from the Savoy of 1658, and the preface to the Savoy tells us these sections were not included because they had been laid aside by the houses of Parliament.



I just wanted to write a word that was once the longest word in the dictionary.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2016)

Why would have the 1689 baptist framers have left out these seemingly important sentences?


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 26, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Why would have the 1689 baptist framers have left out these seemingly important sentences?



I don't have my notes, but I remember poking into that question around 10 years ago. 

One thing going on was that not all particular Baptists agreed on whether an "innocent party" in a divorce could remarry. The Confession was adopted as a unity document, among other things. So, in part, they left out teachings that would divide the otherwise agreeable parties.

I think there was a similar dynamic in the Savoy congregations, so the LBCF drafters decided to follow the Savoy on this point.


----------

