FACT VERSUS UNION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10731, 20 February 1897, Page 3

FACT VERSUS UNION.

TO THS EDITOE. Siaj—l scarcely expected a reply to my le^^^^^fl ■? D - ? sJ c a "ZM t0 «*»«* »»* such a l^^^^fl should be free from an affectation of si^^^^fl cuious contempt, totally uncalled for Sc^^^^^l style is a degradation to the writer, but u^^^^^fl tne. What "Fact" means by his sar^^^^H remarks about my high-souled generosity^^^^^H ofcher people's goods I do nofc know, as tti^^^^H ab&olufcely nothing in my letter to call^^^^fl forth, at least to, any intelligent reader. I^^^^l not assume, neither does ray advocate of ij^^^fl union between the two churches assume, th^^^fl t&ere is now disunion between them. The veH^^^l opposite is the ease. Ifc' ia because a brotherlv^^H Christian spirit is manifested oo both sides^^fl that we desire the two to be still mote close. I thine the argument will hold its own; my logic ~fl «*J ,£ c» pcSli*r' bui not so 'aneh so as tbatSf ■ v.- '"Sw -raw ancther exquisite specimen of ■ nis: THe disruption of which we are all so ■ proud, wns followed by increased zeal and ■ liberality. Clearly, therefore, according to Mr ■ Morrison, the churches should disrupt {not a very ekgant term). My reasoning may be imperfect, but it fe g o od enough to prevent me using so very sHly an argument; as this. I - do no„ see, because that great evem; (tha disruption) was followed by such good results, why this proposed union, may not be equally beneficial to the eaase of Christianity. Zeal and liberality may spring from more causes than one, so we do not require to « disrupt. I take fche liberty 0 f recommending a° - x- a P*s"lß*l oi " Whately's Logic.'? - Again, I did not state that anyone expressly affirmed that the marriage of a man with his sisfcer-m-lav- is as great a. sin as marriage to one s own sister. But Ido a£Bim thafc when a church puts both actions in the same category as incestuous she virtually does so. There may he decrees in incest, as "Fact 55 states. But I indignantly protest; againsfc the assertion that a marriage with a deceased wife's sister is incest m any degree. As I pointed ou% God not omy permitted bufc positively commanded, under certain circumstances, what is virtually the same thing —a woman to marry fcwd brotuers. If the one be incest so is the ofcher. . Dr Dunlop, who lam sure " Fact" will admit to be a high authority, in the aynod of 1895, said thafc certainly the marriage with a decased's wif<* sister was tolerated (I think this term expresses the doctor's meaning) even under the Mosaic d l ,f-P^ satlon- I aln perfectly well awara that all the great churches have hitherto been opposed to thia matter. This, however, is no proof they will continaa to be so. Ifc is quite manifest there is an uneasy "feeling, a vague doubt, as to whether the marriage law on this question be too stringent or not. This is so much the case that everyone should discuss the matter calmly with "sympathising consideration for those who have contracted such marriages, and who certainly think they have done no wrong. Are we equally certain that we are doing them no wrong. Eobert C. Morrison never dreamed of setting up his opinion against the Free Church leaders or tie four great lawyers. It would indeed be quite as ndienlons as to expesfc civility and courtesy from "Fact." My argument was rather the other way, and to support my position I quoted from Principal Cunningham, to prove thafc there are doctrines and doctrines. I asserted that if any church denied one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity then she was vitally and essentially a different church from that which was endowed, and thafc therefore she had no righfc to funds that were given for the express pumose of promulgating the very truths she had departed from. But, I added, there was not a judge in the British Empire who would venture to disendow the church because its members differed in opinion as to this vexed question—the marriage of a deceased wife's sister. This may be bad losic, but I should not hesitate to repeat it" in the presence of even the four great lawyers. To ba sure they would understand it better than fact. I might nofc be able to convince my old professor, Principal Sainy, * or my old class-fellow Dr Candlish •; hufc this I do know, my remarks would be replied to in a kindly way. Like the gentlemen they are, they would nofc willingly hurt the feeling 3 of the lowliest. I cannot gaze on the sun, though an eagle can, so the very feeble joke about my impaired vision "passes into thin air," to quote "Fact's" borrowed exures3ion.^ I am, &c,

_ ROEEKI C MOSEISOS. Dunedin, February 16.