MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10595, 12 September 1896, Page 3

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

TO THE EDITOH. Sik,—l am sorry to see that "Nemo" resort's to misrepresentation for grounds on which to continue the discussion on the- subject of his synod's action on the above question. He writes: "The Rev. A. 111. Fiolajbou . . . nys . ." . tint the synod had not altered the doctrine of the church, as to this marriage. . .' . Another, presumably a leader, signing himself ' Homo,' says ... the synod hai changti tin doctrine of the church a 9 to this rp»rri»g«."

Now, "Homo," who, by the way, is not ■ " leader," did not say anything of the tort, not contradict the Rev, Finlajson... I, as a Preebyttrian, loyal to my chttrcu, {SoTTgh haviSg do part cr lut in their action, did not like to hear a man patting forward false charges, and sought to defend the synod (though better able to defend themselves if they cared to) from tae charge of making the the law of God of nooe effect by ohowing—firstly, that the Confession is not coequal with the Scriptures; secondly, that it presumably, being uninspired, may ba cpen te errors; thirdly, that many believe this to be t> case in point; and, lastly, that in this disputed point (about which "Nemo" it so sure he h«i the infallible truth) the synod thought it wiia to allow " h'bsrty of conscience " without com" milting the church to an approval of "inch marriage]." la that saying that " they hai changed the 'doctrine of the church " ? If it was a misunderstanding it doesn't say much for his powers of discernment; and if a misrepresentation, as a Presbyterian (not to say a Christian), be should be above such tactics. Again, I a3k. Is it to be unwoithy quibbling or honest, courteous argument ? ' ' ,

Regarding the Blander be sllegei I mata against the Confeeaiou of Faith, I ask, If the Confession did not teach, or seem to unlearned men to teach, that babes dying unbaptised, aro lost, what need was there for the publishing of a declaratory statement mors recently appended, which says, "In accepting the standards it is not required to ba hold that any who die in infancy are lost" (p. 77, Roles and Forms,, Victorian Church) ? That declaratory statement is a proof that that church thinks the Gonfe«3iou incorrect in that, amongat other points, and my argument was, that if incorrect in one point', it may be in inofeiisr, and that the Synod of Otago was justified in giving liberty of conscience to such of its members who fell conscientiously that this " duetrine of. degrees" «v uuscriptaral. Let tb.3 syaod adopt "Nemo's" principle of holding doggedly to ill mistakes, and forbiddiug any' departure, on any ground;, from the conclusions of good men In the past, and oar church will be hopelessly rent asauder. la the church a time-bound fossil, or a living, developing, spiritual organism,? Her ruiu—spiritually, mentally, and praotically— will be the necessary outcome of undo* doctrinal tight-lacing!

Once more. Is " Nemo's " insinuation, contained in his second paragraph, a gaaeroai one—ttwt the reason why the syuod closed it» door during discussiun of the subject (?) was because it 'felt it was doing a wrong and indefensible thing, and so chose privacy ? Are the majority of the synod all base, lewd men, work* ing for soaae unholy end iv darkness ? Hjitb they no consciences ? Shame on ycra, " Nemo." Give them cradit for houesoj and a love of light &t least equal to your own. When courts have matters or a delicate naturd to discuss for tha sslie of freedom of argument it is customary to conduct the proceedings with closed doors. He owes an apology to the »ynod.

As for myself, I baliive tbo trne ground for these prohibition!) is, as the best Hebraists hava agreed, from verses 6 to 13—"blood relationships (first generally stated and then specifically mentioned) a bar to marriage." The case of marriage between father and daughter, which "Nemo" so triumphantly trots out, being atnplj met by the genoral statement ia veraa 6 and the particular in versa 19. " ' N' ~.' From verses 14 to 16 those specified are ail cases of affiuity, and all in connection with the male !side only—uncle's, son's, and brotaet'lwives—and are also particular instances. And now for the reason. In marriage there come* a one-fleshneas between husband and wife ; bat the chief physical change is in her, not in him. She becomes "bone of his bone and flesh ol his flush," and iv Eastern and primitive idea* she becomes a blood relation to her hn>baad'i friends, in some degree, like himself ; whilst hi does not, in the same way nor to the i same degree, become a blood relation to her friends. Thus the father's brother's wife is prohibited, whilst the mother's brother's mfc ii not; or, more to our purpose, the brother's wife, <* widow is forbidden, but the decswed wife*! sitter is not. '

This is Scripture interpreted in " the. old light of common sense and common honesty," as well as the view taken by the most learced Jewish rabbis, interpreted in the light of Oriental, and not Western, ideas—ideu then prevalent, as is sufficiently manifested by Urn use of the expression " near of kin to him,"" ot, literally, " remainder of his Seib," and new " near of kin to her." '.

I do not want to continue this correspondence, as I seeit will tend to no good. I have accomplished my object—viz., to state the position I understand the synod to occupy. It may not be satisfactory to "Nemo," but doubtless it will be to those who are unprejudiced. It "Nemo's" opirron that "affinity creates nearness of kin sufficient to bar marriage to just as remote limits as does conoanguinity " is correct, then his remarks as to tho incestuous nature of the union we are discussing are just. But did God me&n it so ? I honestly believe He did not, and evidently the majority present at that synod felt there was a strong doubt » '" ( tb its being.no, notwithstanding the vtewheH by the venerated framers of the Confession of Faith; and as the weight of scholarship and common seme lies on tho aide of the doubters perhaps it had better, not be called by that ugjj nsme.—l am, &6* BOKO.