A BISHOP IN BLUNDERLAND

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 44, 16 November 1920, Page 7

A BISHOP IN BLUNDERLAND

DR. CLEARY AND THE WESTFUNSTER CONFESSION. Sir,—Bishop Clcary, iu'his paper, "The Month," of September 18, writes lis follows:—"111 the event of tho Marriago Amendment Bill reaching tho Statute Book in its present form it will place the Presbyterian Church in aeulo conflict with the law, unless that sturdy body of Christian •men and women arc satisfied to avoid the collision by a drastic alteration of its doctrines and its laws." The Bishop follows up this tragic statement by citing what he calls the "doctrines and laws" of the New Zealand Presbyterian Church which, have placed it in "acute conflict with the law of New Zealand." He writes: "Thus in Chapter ixiv, Section iii of its official Confession of Faith, the Presbyterian Church declares its marriage doctrino in the following emphatic terms: 'Marriage ought not to be within tho degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in tho Word; nor can any such incestuous marriages ever be .mode lawful by the law of man, or consent of parties, go as those persons may live together a 6 man and wife.'"' Bishop Clcary next gives an explicit explanation of what ho means by an "acute conflict" between the Presbyterian Church and tho State. Ho writes: "The responsible persons in the Presbyterian Church would bo each liable on u summary conviction to imprisonment for one year or a lino of .£101) for authorising or being a party to the publication or issue of their Confession of Faith." Now, these statements of the genial and cultured Roman prelnte are very remarkable—for their inaccuracies. Henry Drummoud used to tell a story of a student who in an examination said a "lobster was a red fish that walked backward," and tho examiner had to say, "first that it was not a fish, second it was not red, and third it did not walk backward. " To begin with, Bishop Clcary is somewhat unhappy in his references—Section iii, Chapter xxiv of the Confession of iaith does not contain ono word of what ho says it contains, but the words he quotes have their piace in another section of the Confession, and the Bishop may have been misled by quoting from some sec-ond-hand authorities. But this is a trifling error, and need not bo stressed. Tho Bishop gets into a bog in blunderland by finding in the words of the minster Confession of Faith a condemnation of our New Zealand, marriage lawß. The words ho quotes were written nearly 300 years' ago—2oo years before New Zenland came into existence as a State—and can only be understood by recognising their historic setting. Ancient documents must all be interpreted in tho light of their historic setting. Pope Pius V, for exnniplo, in his bull, "Regnans in Excelsis, decreed- that an English monarch, "was deprived of his pretended titlo to the said kingdom; and the nobility, subjects, and people of the said kingdom, absolved from tlicir onlhs of allegiance." But this cull is Hated February, 1570, and can in no way bo cited as describing the present ,day relation of the Vatican to the monarch of Britain; and the statements in the Westminster. Confession bear the date of ili-17 and have no bearing on our, situation in New Zealand in 1920. The Westminster divines, in KH7, had not the gilt of vaticination that would enable them to specifically condemn , our marriage laws in New Zealand in 1920. Dr. Geary seriously errs in his misapplication, of tho words of the AVostminster Confession.

. 11l 16-17 tlio AYestiniiister divines appointed by tho English Parliament to draw up tho Confession of Faith were deeply impressed with the scandals of "laws of man" making "incestuous marriages" lawful, and the section of tho Confession is charged with shot and shell and directed against the men that made such laws. Isow, who was tho "man" or the "men" thus fired at by the Westminster divines iu 1647? It was not tho English Parliament that called the 'Westminster Assembly into existence, supported its members for seven yearn and accepted tho fruit of its deliberations. Tho guns of the Westminster divines were directed m 1647 against tho doctrines and the practices of the I'ope of Rome with regard to marriage. Tho Council of lrent, m 15KJ, had decreed that (lie ifonun Church had power to make burners to marriage and also to remove impediments tq marriage, and it pronounc- ?■-■. a £? rs P °" a " " ho tleuie < l "lis claim Ihe Westminster divines, in tho section unhappily quoted by Bishop Clean-, came under the curse of Trent, for it declares tliat the law ot marriage is set forth only m the Bible, and no law of man (i.e., no law of the Popel can ever make lawful whut the word of God condemns. Ino Westminster divines condemned not only tho Pope's marriage laws, but Ihev condemned the evil fruits of these laws. Priestly meddling- with marriage had filled Luroue with soaudals in the aires beioro the Westminster divines saf. Lord 4 ct °„V,? us "Pwtoricnl Essays," pp. and political influence by marriage dispensations. He writes: "Louis XIT w shed to marry tho widow of his predecessor whose dower was the duchy of Brittany; lie was already married, but Caesar (tile lopes .pushing son) was dispatched to trance' with permission for the king to put away his wife. ' He was rewarded bj a French principality, a French wife, audi a irench army wherein th to conquer Eomngaa. Ladislaus of Hungary desired (o put away his wife, the widow o Mathias Carvinus. The Pope gave urn leave and earned 25,000 ducats by ho transaction. He twice dissolved the marriage of his own daughter, LucreUa"' ■these- are ■ samples of the '•incestuous marriages* condemned by l|,o Westminster divines. . The man or to men condemned by the divines were not statesmen, but Popes and. priest* of the Roman Communion. Bishop deary ha, drawn forth this statement, and he must abide tho recoil of his miejeadin™ «tate- " S tbe C ° nfeS3ibu of Fn "l'- , „ ROBERT WOOD GlendarncLJCarori, Nov. 15, 1920.