Page:Cihm 02825.djvu/11

6 2. That the contention of "T.F." and others like him is unsound, because the pretended prohibition of LiviticusLeviticus [sic] is over ridden by the passage in Deuteronomy above referred to

See Dr. McCauls's pamphlet, p. 55.

I might add that Sir William Jones and many others well qualified to give an opinion on the subject, say that Leviticus xviii, (verses 6 to 17) has no reference to marriage but to the promiscuous intercourse amongst members of the same family so common in those days.

But perhaps some one will refer me to St.Matthew, chap. xiv. Verse 4, where John the Baptist is reported to have proclaimed the illegality of Herod's union with the wife of his brother Philip. In answer to this let me say that the Biblical critics seem to be agreed that Philip was actually living at the time, and that the rebuke of John had reference to Herod's open adultery with the wife of a living man, and not to his marriage with the widow of his brother.

The Bishop of Ontario in his petition takes this rather extraordinary stand. He says in effect: A man and a woman by marriage becomes one flesh; ergo, a man in marrying the sister of his wife, marries his own sister. This argument or pretention can best be met by a reducto ad absurdum, take the following case: John Smith marries Mary Jones; William Smith, John's brother, then becomes brother to Mary Jones; William Smith, John's brother, then becomes brother to Mary Jones. The latter's sister then must he regarded as William's sister also; therefore, two brothers may not marry two sisters, a conclusion which I do not think His Lordship would feel inclined to adopt.

So far, I have been reasoning on the assumption that the Mosaic law is binding on the Canadian people of to-day, is it binding? If so do we conscientiously obey it? Does "T. F." Does the Bishop of Ontario?

I confess that I am appearing in a rôle' which is somewhat new to me, in venturing to expound the Scriptures and Levitical law, but the fact that your correspondent has—to my mind—distorted a very plain passage of Scripture must he my apology for my boldness.

Let me say in conclusion that no measure which has received the hearty endorsation of men like Gladstone. John Bright, Lord Houghton, the Earl of St. Germans, Earl Grey and the numerous leading divines whose names I have mentioned, will ever attach to its supporters the stigma of subordinating the commands of the Deity to their own ideas expediency.

The restrictions now imposed in Canada upon these marriages are virtually a dead letter, and I feel convinced that the great mass of the Canadians desires the passage of Mr. Girouard's bill. The absence of petitions in its favor is easily accounted for. There is little or no need for them. When the country sees men like the Hon. Edward Blake. the Hon. J.J.C. Abbott. Mr. Hector Cameron, and others uniting to support the bill, it at once feels that the measure is being carefully looked after in Parliament, and requires little outside assistance.

I should add, perhaps, that I have not referred to the many arguments in favor of the measure, looking at it in the light of social reform. These will suggest themselves to everybody. For the present I think I have disposed of "T.F.'s". contentions. A surprisingly large literature has of late years sprung up on this subject, and I am indebted for many learned pamphlets to Mr. T. Paynter Allen, the Secretary of the Marriage Law Reform Association of London, England. This Association has done much excellent work in England and in other British colonies, and comprises many of the leaders of thought and culture in Scotland, Ireland and England.

I must ask you, Mr.Editor, to excuse the length of this communication.

The following letter appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 29;

MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER 'Bishop of Ontario's Text "Contra." TO THE EDITOR OF THE GAZETTE

,—The text of Scripture as given by the good Bishop in his petition against Mr. Girouard's bill, and as reported in yours of 13th instant, is "Leviticus, ch. 18. verses 16, 18, 20 and 21. Let us examine them. I cite from a standard copy of the Bible, with copious marginal references and interpreters by one of the profoundest commentators and interpreters of Scripture, viz., the late Rev. John Brown, D.D., of Haddington, Scotland, with the concordance, fullest we have, of the celebrated Rev. Dr. Hannay.  The text was thus, verse 16: "Thou shalt  not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness."