MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5152, 27 September 1877, Page 2

MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —I venture to infer from Mr. West’s letter that the statute I cited is deemed a complete answer to Lord Penzance’s attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the House of Lords. Mr. West asks : “ Why seek to enforce the opinion of the Anglican or Presbyterian Churches any more than the Church of Rome as to what should be the prohibited and permissible degrees of the relationship that shall bar or allow marriage in this instance ? ” My answer to this question must be a distinct challenge to Mr. West to produce one single instance of any Christian writer, except Diodorus (and the exception is significant), during the first 1500 years of the Church’s history, who ever advocated marriage with a deceased wife’s sister ? If he is unable to do so, is he justified in representing the prohibition of such marriages as peculiar to the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches? In saying this, it is not my wish to take any undue advantage of Mr. West’s inabiHty to consult libraries ; but I think that those who have made this and kindred subjects a serious study during a long course of years, and who are not obliged to get it up for the occasion, have a fair claim to attention for their arguments. Mr. West says he fails to see the ground of my distinction between the moral law and the Levitical law. In reference to the sins forbidden in Leviticus xviii. it is said—“ All these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled.” Surely it needs no argument to prove that these “abominations,” against which the ignorant Israelites were solemnly warned, were not transgressions of the Levitical law ; they were violations of the moral law binding on all nations, which those heathen nations ought to have recognised as such. I hold that marriage with a deceased wife’s sister is condemned in the prohibitions of verses 6 and 16. Verse 6 prohibits marriage with “ any that is near of kin to him ’’—literally with “the whole flesh of his flesh”—(col sheer besaro). There are two words for flesh—sheer (which also applies to affinity), and basarwhich always implies consanguinity. There can be no possible doubt that this verse includes connection by affinity as well as consanguinity. This alone, therefore, might be considered decisive of the question under discussion. But verse 16 prohibits marriage with a deceased husband's brother ; this carries with it a prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. If Mr. West denies this, is he prepared to admit that the command, “ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife,” leaves a woman quite at liberty to covet her neighbor’s husband ? If not, will he explain on what principle of exegisis he would distinguish one from the other ? But let it be observed that if this principle of interpretation is not accepted as beyond all dispute, then not a single passage can he brought from Holy Scripture against marriage between an uncle and a niece, which does not hold good against the marriage now under consideration. I would further ask—ls Mr. West in this instance prepared to apply his formula, “ I hold that it is as wrong to restrict that which God permits, as to grant dispensation for that which He forbids ?” Is he, that is to say, prepared to allow an uncle to marry his niece, as they do, logically carrying out their principles, in Germany ? It will be seen that my argument is quite independent of verse 18. I repeat it would be impossible in your columns to enter into a critical examination of the Hebrew. But Ido not hesitate to say that I will accept any interpretation of the Hebrew of that verse that has yet been given by any competent Hebraist; and still will show that it cannot possibly be forced into giving any support to the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister. I will conclude with the words of one of the greatest living Hebraists, Dr. Pusey, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford :—“Again, take this command itself. It has the character of a very emphatic prohibition. It is divided, alike by the structure of his words and by the Hebrew colon (so to call it), into two halves. ‘ A wife to her sister thou shalt not take: To vex, ad retegendam nuditatem ejus besides her ; so long as she liveth.’ The first half is the absolute prohibition ; the second consists of supplementary clauses. Certainly, so absolute aud peremptory a prohibition of this special sort of polygamy, a polygamy which might come recommended to the Jews as having been used by their ' father Jacob, is an oddly chosen text on which to build the presumption to marry the second sister at all.” Is it too much to hope that the Legislature of New Zealand will yet pause before placing in her Statute Book on such an all-impor-tant subject as marriage a law which at any rate by many is considered repugnant to the law of God ?—I am, &c., O. Wellinoton. Mulgrave-street, September 25. TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —It would be interesting to hear the answer of Bishop Hadfield to that portion of the Rev. Mr. West’s letter which asks for “ 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 sense of man ; and what is ceremonial and temporary ?” Is this catholic and binding “ moral law” contained in the Ten Commandments, or any of them ? I should Hke much to hear what the Bishop has to say on this point.—l am, &c., Libertas.