LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 47, 19 November 1920, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

ST. JOSHES ORPHANAGE v Sir,—ln answer to tho communication of the Hew I'ather Smyth, which appears . in your columns of November 18, permit mo to ask your correspondent; What was tho date of tho meeting of tho Cliaritablo Aid Committee, of which lie suggests tho article in tho "Hutt Valley Independent" of JuCy 10 purported' to be a report? On hearing this I will bo able to answer his questions (a) and (b), and any others which require an answer.—l am, etc., . GEORGE PETHERICK, Chairman, Charitable Aid Committee. November 18, 1920. WHITMOIrfsTREEf BARRICADES.. ..n-'CI me to a lroi '<l re Urn's letter m yesterday's issue concerning tho structures in AVhitffloro Street, structures that must givo visitors an impression that our Government is short of timber and pajut. At. aiHit these structures aro used for every purpose they should not lie used for; they lend themselves to that which may lead to very bad results, for already women making lor their offices, etc., in the neighbourhood havo been molested bv prowlors in this dark street. May I suggest, as it appears to bo tho Government's wish to show they own the K. .simple barrier on posts and hinges, at. each end of their property, and thus earn tho gratitude of tlioso who use ho stmt by day and night.-I am, oto ., BEAUTIFY THE CITr. a bishoplgallllderland DR. CLEARY AND HIS 4TTV«Pr» PRESBYTERIAN NE TEMERe! Sir,-Dr. Cleary, the genial and culturhas sent all over the land some remarkable information about the "acute conK I u .the British Isles .between tha Presbyterian Churches there and the law ot tho land over the deceased wife's sisei marriage He lias sent this remark", able information by post to the Presbyterian ministers of Auckland and to. miiiisters of religion generally all over tho gnu- He nfliruis that in the Old Land the Presbyterian Clrtirches have their Ae lemero decree, and thev denounco this marriage, permitted by' the Stale, as marked by shocking moral depravity. In order that no injustice bo done to Dr. Clcary, I quote his own lurid language. Ho writes regarding tho deceased wife's sister marriage: , "Tho 'incestuous' character of such' unions is still strongly affirmed by the Presbyterian Chfurch in the British Isles, which thereby reprobates tho marriages with a deceasedvwife's sister (tolerated by their brethren here) as sinful unions which can never'be. made lawful by law of man, or consent of parties, so that these persona may 'live logetluer as man and wife.'" Now, this statement of the genial and cultured Bishop is remarkable for its in* accuracy. It is as remote from the fact a 6 was tho student's delinition of a lobster. Br. Cleary's statement is simply tho work of creative imagination. No such condition of things obtains in .the British Isles 10-dny. Tho Presbyterian Churches there have no Ne Temere decreo with regard to this marriage. They are in no wav in conflict with tho law of tho land, nor arc they in any way. in conflict with tho Presbyterian Church of New Zealand on this marriage.

In my former letter I pointed out that the Westminster divines affirmed that the Bible and not the Pope was the final Christian authority on marriage. Thrsa divines indirectly declared against this, marriage, but since their day the Presbyterian Churches of Christendom' have found that.the-.prohibition of this.marriage was iu opposition to tho Bible, and thev have declared accordingly. As far back-as 1817 Dr. Charles Hodge, an eminent Presbyterian authority, pointed out that for half a century* this marriage had been held as valid in Presbyterian Churches in America. L-ibcrtv there as regards this marriage lias obtaincd.-in American Presbyterinnism for 100 years. In tho British Isles ui> to 1007' this marriage, was prohibited by the law of the land, and for many years before this » very large number' of Christian men taught that this Stale prohibition was a violation of the Christian 'law of marriage as set forth in "tho'Bible. Some minister?; of religion married their deceased wife's sister, and lived and died in the British Isles, and were held in the highest honour. A3 a lad I heard the Uev. Thomas Dunlop, of Edinburgh, declare from the pulpit that it was right for him to enter on such a marriage, and he resigned his charge to find frerdom i.n America, but on the way he was stopped at Liverpool and asked to becoino minister of tho Congregational Church nt Bootle, and lie accepted the invitation, but went to Switzerland and got married there. In 1907, when the State law was brought into conformity with the Christian opinion of the land,, the Presbyterian Churches had to reconsider tho statements, now obsolete, in their standards, and make declarations according to tho truth and the law. The Church of Scotland set up a .committee of scholars to consider t)io question, and I have their exhaustive report bciforo me as I write... The Professors of Hebrew ia tho Church found not prohibition, but permission of the marriage in the Old Testament. Tho Professors of New Testament, exegesis found no prohibition in tho New Testament. ' Teachers of ethics were consulted, end they said: "In the interests of morality, and therefore of religion, marriage 'with a deceased wife's 6ister not only mav be acknowledged to be legiti-. mato, but ought to bo so." This report was received .by the Assembly, and in due course tho Assembly made declarations that this marriage was- not forbidden bv the Bible, and that liberty on this matter should be given to ministers and members. The attitude, of ■tho Church of Scotland is the attitude of_tlio other Presbvtorian Churches of the British Isles. 'It will thus be mndo clear that Dr. Cleary's statement quoted above is simply choke full of errors, and I bone ho will do himself the justice that tho situation ho has made demands by making an nmplo apology and withdrawnl.Inn, ' otc " BOBEIIT WOOD. Glendaruel, Karori, November 17, 1920.