MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5150, 25 September 1877, Page 3

MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, — I quoted' Lord Penzance’s opinion mainly with a view of showing the change made by the law of 1835, and of establishing that marriage with a deceased wife’s sister was valid in the eye of the civil Courts, until such times as it had been set aside by the ecclesiastical Courts. I had not the opportunity of consulting the necessary books, through the Parliamentary Library being closed to me, or I might have put my point more guardedly. If, however, the illegality of these marriages was beyond doubt, as appears from the Bishop’s statement, is it not somewhat remarkable that the law of 1835, as quoted by him, should affirm “that all marriages which shall have been celebrated before the passing of this Act between persona within the degrees of affinity, shall not hereafter be annulled for that cause by any sentence of the ecclesiastical Courts unless pronounced in a suit which shall be depending at the time of the passing of this Act.” I make no pretentions to legal lore ; but I thought I could safely shelter myself behind the authority of a distinguished Law Lord and Judge to boot of the present ecclesiastical Court in England. Assuming, however, that the Bishop’s view with respect to the legal aspect of the question is the correct one, the inquiry I have to make is this—Why seek to enforce the opinion of the Anglican or Presbyterian Churches any more than the Church of Rome, as to what should bo the

prohibited and permissible degrees of the relationship that shall bar or allow marriage in this instance? In England and Scotland, where there are established churches whose decisions on these matters have the force of law, I can understand such a claim, but certainly not in these colonies where we all stand on the broad footing of religious equality. The scriptural sanction of such marriage is after all, in my eyes, the most important one. I hold that it is as wrong to restrict that which God permits, as to grant dispensation for that which He forbids. Much as I might be disposed to defer to the Bishop when speaking on this head, I am quite unable to agree with him as to the clearness with which he has established his position in his letter of the 17th. He affirms that the moral law forbids such marriages ; but be does not give us the criteria which enable him to discriminate so positively what is moral in the law of Leviticus, binding upon all men everywhere, recognisable by the moral sesae of man ; and what is ceremonial and temporary. Why should the law which forbids marriage with a deceased wife's sister be moral, binding on all men, but the law which requires a Jew to marry his deceased brother’s widow be Jewish and temporary ? I might have ventured on a, criticism of the passages in Leviticus ; but it struck me as a more advisable method—one more likely to carry conviction and to lend help in the removal of the present obnoxious restriction—if, instead of saying what I thought upon the passages, I urged the testimony of men of acknowledged learning, who might reasonably be supposed, from their ecclesiastical standing, to hold a contrary opinion. What the quality of that testimony is can be seen from the specimens which, with your permission, I will give. Dr. Lee, the late Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, says :—“ From all that I have been able to learn on the question whether a man may marry a deceased wife’s sister, my opinion is that neither does Holy Scripture anywhere forbid it, nor even did the Jews.” Dr. McCaul, Profes-or of Divinity and Hebrew Literature in King’s College, London, says;— “ Having again carefully examined the question, and consulted some of the highest authorities in Hebrew literature, as to the meaning of the Scripture passages, I am confirmed in the opinion formerly expressed, that marriage with a deceased wife’s sister is not only not prohibited either expressly or by implication, but that according to Leviticus xviii., verse 18, (concerning the translation of which there is not the least uncertainty), such marriage is plainly allowed, confirmed by the testimony of antiquity, and the judgment of the most considerable interpreters at the Reformation, and since the Reformation—l now believe that there is no reasonable room for doubt that there is no verse in the Bible of which the interpretation is more sure than that of Leviticus xviii., verse 18. And I think it a case of great hardship that they should by the civil law be punished as transgressors whose marriage according to Divine law is permitted and valid, and harder still that the children of such marriage, legitimate in the sight of the Infallible Judge, should be visited with civil disabilities.” The Bishop says “ there is abundant evidence to prove that the relaxation of the marriage law has produced demoralising effects in Germany and America.” I cannot, for a reason I mentioned at the commencement of this letter, produce testimony to the contrary respecting Germany, but with regard to America I offer the testimony of three Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, which ought to go for something. Bishop Mcllvaine says : —“ Such marriages, I apprehend, are neaily as frequent as the circumstances which usually give rise co them. I have not known any social disadvantages attending them.” Bishop Burgess says ; —“ I know of no social disadvantages attending such marriages. The apprehensions expressed in England on this head are entirely dissipated by our experience.” Bishop Potter says :—“ lam not one of those who hold such marriages forbidden by Scripture, and I am not aware that any special disadvantages, social or domestic, have resulted from them.” —I am, &c., W. H. West.