5
MR. McGIBBONS LETTER.
The following letter was addressed by Mr. R D. McGibbon, B.A. B.C.L., Advocate,of Montreal, to the Montreal Daily Witness, and appeared in that journal on Saturday, March 20th. The letter in answer to a communication which had appeared in the same paper, signed "T. F.":—
TO THE EDITOR OF THE WITNESS.
Sir,—I observe in your issue of the 17th March a communication signed "T.F." in which the bill introduced into the Dominion House of Commons by the honorable member for Jacques Cartier. Mr. Girouard, is rather severely animadverted upon. Having for some time past taken a considerable interest in the discussion of Marriage Law Reform—not, I may interpose, from any selfish motive, for I happen to be a bachelor with no intention of marrying into a family of sisters.—I trust you will permit me to answer as briefly as possible the arguments advanced by "T. F." and other opponents of the measure.
First, as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Two questions present themselves.
(a). Are the injunctions of the Mosaic Law in this regard, binding upon present day Christians or not?
(b) If so does that code prohibit marriage with a deceased wife's sister?
As to the first question, I shall merely say that there are many sincere Christians, who doubt whether we should be bound by rules promulgated centuries ago, and intended for a state of society entirely different in manners, customs and civilization from our own. I may remark that the Archbishop of Dublin Dr. Whately, in a letter addressed to the late Dr. Hinds, Bishop of Norwich, says:
"The Levitical Law is no guide for our legislation, even in cases where all admit that morality is concerned; e.g., no one doubts that gluttony and drunkenness and disobedience to parents are moral compass, yet no legislature has (in conformity with the Mosaic Code) affixed the penalty of death to them."
But, admitting for the sake of argument that it is incumbent on Christians to conform themselves to the strict letter of the Mosaic Code,—although I doubt very much if any do so—let us consider the second question: Does the Levical Law really prohibit marriage with a deceased wife's sister?
Leviticus .xviii. 18 reads: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her; to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime.
The Rev. Dr. Chalmers, no mean authority, gives the tersest and best interpretation of this passage. He says:
"In Leviticus xviii, verse 18, the prohibition is only against marrying the wife's sister during the lifetime of the first wife, which of itself implies the liberty to marry the wife's sister after her death."
Dr, Abler, the chief Rabbi of the Jews in the British Dominions, says:
"Neither the Divine Law, nor the Rabbis, nor historical Judaism, leaves room for the slightest doubt on this point. I can only reiterate my former assertions that all sophistry must split on the clear and unequivocal words, 'in her lifetime.'"
The Rev. Dr. Kadie, the Rev. Dr. Moffaft, the Rev. George Gilfillan (Dundee), the Rev. Dr. A. McCaul. Dr. Vaughan, Master of the Temple, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Dr. Kitto, Cardinal Wiseman, and hundreds of leading divines, in all parts of the world, agree in the above opinions.[1]
I would also refer to the opinions of the Catholic Bishops of this Dominion, published in last Monday's Minerve, and republished in this morning's Gazette.
In fact, there seems at the present day to be a general consensus of opinion in favor of the interpretation given to this passage by the promoters of reform. That many bishops and clergymen oppose the bill is of course true, but numbers of these do so, not because the reform is at variance; with Scripture, but because it conflicts with what they call "ecclesiastical law."
Secondly, and now as to marriage with a brother's widow.
Leviticus xviii, 16, reads: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife, it is thy brother's nakedness." It is well known that under certain circumstances a man was distinctly enjoined by Moses to marry his brother's widow. See Deuteronomy xxv, 5.
Now the promoters of this bill contend for several points:
1. Leviticus xviii, 16 does not prohibit marriage with a brother's widow. The words are not "take to wife," but "uncover the nakedness," not "brother's widow," but "brother's wife."
- ↑ Vide page 7.
