THE PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD AND MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10589, 5 September 1896, Page 3

THE PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD AND MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. TO THE EDITOR.

Siai —Where is the synod and the church on the question of this marriage? Tbe Rev. A. M.,Puit-?(ysac, _ clear-headed ancl.well-informed leader, says, in a latter whieh appeared in your coliim-m. on 15ch August that the synod his nofc altered the doctrine of the church »3 to tbis marriage; another, presumably a leader, signing himself " Homo," s&ys through your columns a fortnight later, the synod has changed the doctrine of the church as to this marriage. A »*n?.!i .majority, he says, received " New Light" and discovered that-the Confeaaion of Faith wa* in error in placing this in the list of God-forbiddM manages. They have changed all that. Which of these two leaders are we to believe ? The -members and people of the Presbyterian Church and others have a right to ask this question, and have no choice but ask ifc -through the columns of the newspaper press as the synod saw fit to close its doors against them and exclude t'aem from fche " New Light."

Jesus says, "Let your light shiaa before men.", Ihe small " New Light" majority said, "Not so, close the doors on ifc"; and closed they were. This decision to keep the " New Light" within closed doors was unl'ortun*fce. as it gives rise to the suspicion thafc the "New Light" may not have come froin tho Sun of Righteousness.'

"Homo's" manner of letting the "New Light" out under compulsion of my questioning confirms that suspicion, if it does not prove that which he calls " New Light" is neither " new " nor "light," but " darkness," old as the Garden of Eden, where it was mistaken for " New Light," giving liberty to take what is God-for-biddea,' as does the resolution of Synod giving the liberty to marry a deceased wife's sinter.

Tbe "New Light" appears in "Homo's" letter (1) in misrepresentation »3 fco my zeal. It is not, as he puts ifc, zssil for the Ooniession. of Faith'as against the Word"oE God, but for what fche Confession says, and I belisve says rightly, is the Law of God. The small'"New Light" majority have not shown, and do not say in their resolution, that God does not forbid this marriage. If they have discovered that it is not forbidden, how comes it that they allow fche Confession of Faith to go on saying what is uofc true about God and His law ?

The "New Light" ahinss oufc ia" Homo's'"' letter (2) in what is a slander against the Westminster Confession. He says it teaches chat "children dying in infancy are lost." The CAurcttes way be suppasad to know , what their own Confession teaches. All ths churches holding by the Westminster Confession of Faith declare that ifc doe«. nob teach whafc "Homo" says ifc do3S. If " Homo " is a leader ia our church, did he not join in making that declaratiou on behalf of the church to which he belongs ? He knows be did. Yet iu trying to corner an opponent ■uid help a very lame dog over a stiff stile he asks in apparent good faith, "does 'Nemo*' still hold that children dying in infancy are lost, as taught by thafc Confession." *' Nemo " never held ifc, nor did anyone else excepS ths enemies of the Confession.

The " New Light" comes oufc in ".Homo's " latter (3) in the following extraordinary * statement :—" The truth is that Lsvi-ticas xviii, 6*23, is .not a real snd direct s-i.-cification of degrees of forbidden family relations giving -affinity the same force as oonsenguioily—a conclusion unsupported by Scripture, fareign to Israelifcish ideas,, and borrowed by ths early Roman Church from t'ua old Pagan law of Rome; bufc ifc is aa enumeration of particular cases, so thafc no case nofc specifically mentioned is included in the prohibition'" !t will be hard to find in English literature as much half-truth and untruth in the same number of words as "Homo" has managed to put into this compound sentence. The space I may expect to be allowed in your columns forbids a 'i--fc*-,iled examination of the whole statemani. The following facts, which auyone can verify by examining Leviticus xviii, 6-18, treating throughout of forbidden marriages, will show that the first part o£ "Homo's" statement is utterly unwarranted :— .

1. The only ground for these prohibitions is-.' nearness of kin. -

2. There are more prohibitions because of nearness of kin through marriage (affinity) than because of nearness of kin through blood relationship (consanguinity). 3. Affinity creates nearness of kin sufficient to bar marriage to just as remote limits as does consanguinity (see verses 10-17).

4. The deduction that affinity and consanguinity are equal as creating nearness; of kin sufficient to bar marriage is fully warranted and necessary from the whole scries of particular cases specified,, unsupported by Scriptur.a, is, therefore, not true. "Foreign to Israelifcish ideas "is partly true and partly fake. The truth is Jew againstJew. " Borrowed by the early Roman Church from the old Pagan.law of Rome"—the truth is thafc the borrowing was in the opposite, direction, as "Homo" must know if he has any kuowledge of the history of the fourth Christian century.

The old light of common sense and common honesty is sufficient to show that the closing part of " Homo's " statement of what he calls the truth aboufc Leviticus xviii, 6-23, is not, and cannot be, the truth about ifc. If "no case uot specifically mentioned is included " in the prohibitions of this law, then "Homo"' and the small majority of tbe Presbyterian synod must give liberty to contract some marriages whioh are utterly revolting to human nature, and which even savages condemn. A mother and her son are expressly forbidden to marry, bnfcn . father and bis daughter are not expressly for-, bidden to each other in any part of Scrip-; ture. Does " Homo," with his "New Light," hold that a marriage between a father and a daughter is a perfectly Sc'ripturalmarriage, and as free from stain as any marriage thafc can* be contracted ? He must; hold thafc. or admit thafc tho law forbidding mother and son to each other is to be applied to father and daughter,., because tho nearness of kin is the same in. both cases. So with uncle and nieca, who. are. not mentioned, while aunt and nephew* are. Many other cases are in the same position. No parson of average intelligence canexamine the law of Laviticus xviii without; being shut up to tho conclusion tbat in any number of cases where the nearness ot kinds' the asme the prohibition of tbe one is the prohibition of all. The new light of which. "Homo" speaks appears to have coma: —(1) From tha researches of somebody into something ; (2) from " luraelitisb ideas":; and (3) from whafc some other churches are said to .do and permit to ba done. Presbyterian church courts were wont to look for light to higher sources. May ifc be so again. Ifc seems to me very manifest taat tbe people of the Presbyterian Church need to pray much that the members of synod do not receive any more lighfc of the kind that led them to give the rainiafcers and people liberty to enter -into alliances which cm never be made lawful, so. that tbey may live together as man and.wife.— I as"-, &c„ i September 3. Nemo.