THE TABLET EDITOR'S ATTACK ON THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15384, 22 February 1912, Page 8

THE TABLET EDITOR'S ATTACK ON THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

TO TOE EDITOR. " For fcis t-Jio sport to have the Engineer Hoist with his own petard." —Shakespeare. Sin,—l rheerfully accept tho announcenx'.nt t.hjt tJio discussion on tho No leniem decree Ls closed, and I would express my gratitude to you for furnishing tpneo- to justify (lio deliverance of our Ccneral A.'yenibly. I submit, however, that you will do tile Presbyterian Church of New Zealand a very iorioiij injustico if you do Lot allow me to reply to tho defamatory niadn by the editor of the Tablet apiinet tlio Presbyterian Church in connection v.itJi dio deociK-wl wife's si&l-cr Juarn.'ico. 110 Ism used considerably over SCOO woklo, occupying about 40 inchrs of your R]Vi('<! in claboratitvj a wbolo scries of soaiirfalims cliargos against- the churcli to whioli I belong on this question. I havo not. used a lino nf your siwioo in replying to tho-o oh;irg(*!. but you havo allowed me lo ;uinounco to your readers that 1 woul< J rqily to tlioin, and I have now to ask you lo ennbV nw to keep faitJi with ynur nviders on this matter. Tho materials used bv the editor of tJio Tablet in his asfnult. on Iho Presbytorian Clturch aro of a highly exnlcsiw character, and the man that nto.; e.urJi material must suffer t.lm fato of boing " hoist, with his own petard." 1- I find somo very highly explasivo m.-itflrial in the spurious lilorary coin ho utters, llto seemingly faked quotations that ho works into Ills lottei-s. In his letter of Vtli Deocrober, whicli ho carefully coned,'! in your issuo of t.ho fltli Dec-ember" ho wroto jus follows regarding tJne doings of tJie New Zealand Presbytcri<m Cliurch in regard to marriagx* wttli n dcroosod wife's sißter:In that year ("18831, liowcvor, as the residf, of an ovcrturo from tho Tiinani Presbytery, and out of regard to tho soruples of "thoso ofiico bearers and memliore who bad entered into prohibited relationship, or contemplated cloing so." the Northern Presbyterian Church—as it wa- commonly callcd—decided not to adhero to what it had liitlierto laid down as tho " law of God " on tho subject, but "lo loavo tlio wholo matter an open question"

Now, in tho foregoing thero aro two quotations. The firet quotation, ho lends your readers to understand, is from nn " overturn" of tho Timaru Presbytery. Tho second quotation is psffod oil ns part of the words of tho " decision" of tho Assembly on tho overture. Such aro his representations. Now, ivith regard to the firwt quotation, I lhavo to siy thnt it is nn alwiluto tni.sToppC6d.nta.tion. Tho "overture " neither contains the words nor does it Fct forth anything liko what tho words express. Tho ovortotro piws no liint of anyone Jinving entered into such a marriage nor of opy ofikw-boarer contemplating such ,1 marriage. As regards the second quotation I havo tho samo remark to make. It is nn absolute misrepresentation. Tho Axwrnbly " delivoranoo" contains no .ptieh v.r>rdf. I challenge l.lio editor of the Tablet, to submit to Bishop Verdon or to the editor of t.he Otngn Daily Times tho "Proceedings of the GencraJ Assembly of t.ho Presbyterian Church of New Zealand " for 1883 wiUi (lie alleged quotations I have Known of thw misrepresentation from tho lieginning of this controversy. If tho editor of tiio Tablet cannot fmd> a ropy of tiio "Prcocodinca" in question I will put my ropy into tho hands of the editor of tho Otago Dailv Times, and clmllenge liim to point out tlie quotations. Such is my first rwint. I have convicted tho editor of the Tablet of using falso literary coin. It lies with It'mi to explain where Jio got tho otu'tts if lie did not make tliom.

2. I now bring to light moro explosive material liy cxliibitinpr a shocking and ewuidalous misrepresentation of tho teaching of the Confession of Faith and of tho action of a New Zealand Preslivterinn ,'Wrmlilv. Iho editor of tho Tablet writes in your issue of 20th December as\follows: — In 1883, as I mentioned in my List letter, tiio Northern Presbyterian Church decided lo abrogato the law of Gcd us stated in the Westminster Confession and to do that which tho Confession says no law of man can ever do—namely, to nuko marriage with a deceased 'wife's sister perfectly lawful and honourable. Now, these few lines aro full of misstatements. Tlie casual reader will soo at a gIuJK-o that lie furnishes us with another torsion of tho Assembly's delivornncc from \ . 'Y°" " ,0 spurious quotation above. Abovo ho tolls lis that Hid Assembly- enmo to a kind of nsoative conclusion and left tho matter an "open question." JSut here ho tells us that tho Assembly came to a positive finding and " dcoirled" that such marriages were ''perfectly lawful and honourable." Now, tlteso contradictory versions of a decision may be both false, but they cannot both bo true; and the ropre-cn. Ution in this last version jj glaringly false, rho Assembly camo to no such finding, rurthor, tbo reader is asked to believe bv tho foregoing thnt tho Confession of Kaitii specifies clearly und distinctlv this kind of marriago as prohibited bv ii The roader will be surprised to bo informed that the Confession of Faith makes no sjieeific mention of this kind of marriage at all! The editor of the Tablet in his now notorious loiter of 7th Eooember writes: —

,J I,C Confession of Faith (Chap, xxn, s. 4) not only condemns such marriage as invalid, but adds, " nor can Mich incestuous marriages ever lw made lawful by any law of man, or «>nsent of particu, to as those persons may livo togethor as man and wife." Now, tho wortls in tho Confession precedimtho words quoted niiiico no referent,, ( 0 t|„s marriago at all-os I liavo nlrcvuly said no such specdm reference is to lie found in' ||,o Confession. Tho words immediately preceding aro ius follow:—" Marriages ought not to bo within tlio degroes .of ton* saugumity or attinity forbidden in the Word, and then follow the words quoted )V tho iablet editor ( ,lwt marriages forbidden by Word of God cuii never bo mailo 'Y- . *?y V' y , of " lun_< '- statement, which simply lues slml, and slioll at the claims of tho Tablet Editor's spiritual superiors, who say that by •• dlspensaticuis ' tlioy can mako lawml mtiniag.K 'forbidden in fcho Word." Hero, again I challenge the Editor of the Tablet "to put into tho hands of Bthop \'crdon the Editor of the Otago Daily Times a copy of tlio Confession where a sjieoilio condemnation of marriage with a deceased wife's sister precedes tho worth ho quotes above. Ho cannot; and all his writing o n this jmiiit is simiJy a dishonest attempt to throw dust in the eyes of Ids readers. Tim Confession of 1' a:ill is <inly a subordinate Manilird of the I'ri.sliytcrian Church; it points those who accept it |/> tho simi-cme Man(fcird. tlio Word of Cod, and it'ii tho duly of the Presbyterian Church to make it« suliordinate t-Umdnrd conform where wry to ilt> supreme standard. Tit,! Pres. b.vtorian Church of New Zealand and <fcr. where has abandoned the generalisation «f the Confession t.liat aflinity is rqu:il to consanguinity in the matter of prohibited de-' grees of mai-rioge. Tiie Christian jchoiirKliip of the last 50 yean-, as rcprwnted hv tlw writers in our great Bible Dictionaries, edited by .Smith and Hastings, mvs there is no rinrvhiliition of this marriage in the lAnd tl>w hns led the l'rosbyterian Church. in loyalty to the revealed | aw c ,f fnid, nc/t to prohibit what Clod has t:ot prohibited, and to declare for " liberty of opinion " 011 the question, Such is the attitude of the Presbyterian Church to-day in N'ev,- Zealand. And the Tablet. Editor >ho dccided to-in I£33—abrogate and revoke the law of God!—a shocking misstatement ! 3. I find a largo quantity of explosive material in tlio Tablet Editor's extraordinary series of niisreprosonl.Uif.'tis of Presbyterian history on this question. Our Editor ; s nothing if not oraoidar! For 200 years, j he says, tiie practice of tho Presbyterian I Church has been to declare snob marriages as this "incestuous." Jin represents the Presbyterian Hindi .is rayintr ontsido of New Zealand to those who have contracted such morri.-urcs* '* You arenot married ail. . . . Yon arc -living in incest. . . . Your children aro illegitimate," elc., et/\ letter, December 20). And lower down, in tin- same letter, he indi- , cate.i tha-t tlii". thins is going on in Scotland to-day. v New. all this so-o-allcyl history could only cotne from the same source as the faked'nuotations! lie has not a shadow of a shade o: fact on which to rest his statement*. He professes to know the history of this quwiion for at least. 2CO years in the Presbyterian Cliuroli. Well, let in we where he as regards t.nith. I co over ICO years, and 1 find this mnrn.'ige bronchi before a Presbyterian As : nomblv, ami tho finding was as follows in j 1610:- _ i Resolved that this reference be answered br the following d«nsion« of IS-CkJ: "TiiC Assembly, having given repeated decisions on similar cases, cannot advise to annul such marriages or pronounce them in fuch a decree unlawful ns that tho parties, if otherwise worthy, should bo debarred from the privileges of the Church." etc.. etc. IPee "Church and Polity," by Ilodtje, p. 505). This is sufficient to r.iil to the counter the ial.-e statements with regard to tho deviling of tho Presbyterian Church with thoso of

ita ordinary membership who had cnterrd into this marriago Tho marriage was looked upon as undesiral>lo, hut it was valid, and did not bar from Church nrivilopes. Suc.ii has l;t:rn tho practico at loast of Iho largest, Presbyterian Church in tho world—tho American Presbyterian—for "I'iro than 100 vcare. The Confession of rniUi is not imposed by tho Presbyterian mrch <m its ordinary niemliersliip. and „f° V T. ! i 1 l( ' c°;istruct iv(< prohibition L «-';ft«ion, «lu] o it bound officetlmn ' i"- '"embers. So much ISnL u? r i " S | n ' )ol| t tho past. '''U,!; , h,s 5la( ««»-'nts about tho triKii ii S "J tliey aro as tinlerian Llm T} a ? ,aIM - IW twist (hp tl r t* torturo and Editor of tho Tablet' S '!?' » My ? ,i tho Jogivoforl,is s t«t,mnnl? S" Of .1,0 Tablet" ?» in'a* state of on tho question. The truth afcoul and is simply this: Tim Church of knd and the l Free Church have both locidw . in effect, that (hero is no ecclesi.i" ;o;il stigma attaching to such marriages, ' ' ministers of the Church there, as here " r .yv. ". ot ; Mleniniso such marriages as they h.nk right I nny „f y ollr r ,J m „ i J 1 . 8 " 3 ' 10 "' 0 ' doubt on this point tliev pioliably would have their doubt removed by consulting the |)rofcssors in t)|o Knox College—one 0 f whom up (o a vcrv rocent period was a member of, ant], of course, a legislator in, ono of the«groat .-cottish Presbyterian Assemblies. And so. ' t ,ilo f r of 1,10 Tab,ct st »"d3 conweted not. only of extraordinary ignorance, but of publishing a shocking series of calumnies against the Presbyterian Churches of the natt and tlm present. 4. Tho next canister of exnlosivo material his m™ di'si f- Kd - ito - r of ,llc Tablct for R o«n destruction is in somo respecte tho Jiiost curious and surprising of all. It renr^pn! V !'°- i ß" or,ult i ™d to misthe doctrine and history of tho J rtebyterian Church on this question. But it is surprising indeed to (in I him misroiwrCh'L am, , (iC, T- nK This Iha 7tl! 1W I l' S T torio " 3 lL,t,nr of ho 7tn December ho charts tho l'roibvfemn ChnrcJi of New Zealand 1 with boin- | (forispieuously guilty" bccauso it had c . tea deceased wife's .sister's marriiigi. In my letter of December 35 I referred to Lord Acton's statement thai this marriage was very common in tho Roman Church, and I noted that Popo Alexander \I (a man with ~n awful notoriety) sanctioned tho marriage. Tho Junior before this breeze of information now adjusts his sails and writes as follows: regarding such marriages a?, jronorally speaking, undesirable, tho Church has nevur taken the ground that they arc incestuous or objectionable on . racial grounds, or that they ore absolutely contrary to the law of Gcd.-(Le:ter December 20.) This marriago, then, in the Roman Church, wo aro informed, is " undesirablo" only, und not soriouilv objectionable. This xe* presentation conforms to Lord Acton's report about the practico of the Roman Church. Rut wltat is tho doclrino of tho Church tis set forth by Dr Clwiry in his Catholic Marriages," hearing tfio " imprimatur 1 of Bishop Verdon? Dr Ckury says (on p. 117) that a diriment" impediment bars this marriage, and such a marriage by itoman Catliolics is invalid. jlo further quotes with approval the opinion of the Rishop of I/jndon in 1888 Uiat tho same Inrrinr stands ir. tho way of a mr.n marryinc iiis wife's sister as' that which stops liiin from marrying his own sister t And then Dr Oleary adds:--

Hero wo find statod, with singular force, by a learned Anglican, prelato ono of tho chief reasons which evoked tho wise and ages-long legislation of tho Catholic Church of persons related to each other by ties of consanguinity and affinity.—(P. 119.) I)r Clcary then, jvith tho endorsement of liishop Yoi'doji,' says that* according to I'onwn teaching, this marriage is incestuous, objectionable, and therefore invalid. Ilr deary's book is published in the Tablet olfico. And in clear contradiction of all this, for the purpose of controversy, tho ijditor of tiio 'tablet denies the doctrino of his Church on this marriage, and gives tho false representation above. This false reproduction .M|inres with Acton's report of the commonness of the marriage of the Church of Home, llore. Mien, is a high doctrine about the badness of this marriage, and yet the marriage is so common that I/ord Acton kivs no one thinks of a iaw against the .mawiage! How can this strange anomalv be explained? How e.in illojAMious, invalid marriages, according to the Churoli of Homo, lie mado valid and pure by the use n[ the Pope's dispensing I "over? Tho Pope's law can make lawful tlioFo unlawful marriages. Marriages which Dr Clcary says, in so many words, are incestuous, can 1» made lawful by Papal authority, ami the reported commonness of the marriage is an evidence of a roaring trade in tho sale of dispensations—a traffic which has often been a heart-breaking scandal to nious soul= in the Church of Rome. 11l view of l!i'.< deplorable stat.i of things in Mm Homnn Church on this mairinge. tho trenrlwnt words of tho Editor of tiio Rcolsman may be altered as follows- and wo may say "No sine man can bo of two minds as to the iniquity of this deceawid wife's sifter doctrine of the Vatican, which is but another illustration of how priests manufacture sin." Such, then, are tho fads about this marriage in the Presbyterian Church. In no nart of the Presbyterian Church umlnr heaven does its marriage legislation work as an incitement t« desertion, and nowhero do"S its ira.-riiee legislation affect tliOM out«id-> its iinUliction.—l am. etc.. Kebriv.ry 13. UonEiiT Woon.