ao He eT oS Oe

fener Agia RT TIE om merape ore sh prema ve Gi =e wegingerst RSS

Peery Leics Pee or ere eee

v7

oth rem . ee

aie Topeaenes

———

POST RS EAEEE CURRED: 0 monet

ee

@n the Proposed Changes in the Marriage Law of the Pominion, Legalizing Marriage with a De- ceased Husband's Brother, and with a Deceased Wife's Sister.

SUMMARY OF A SERMON DELIVERED IN 5T PETERS CHURCH, BY REY. G. W. HODGSON, ON SUNDAY, 14TH NOVEMBER.

This is a great mystery, but T speak con-'

cerning Christ and the Church, —EPHESIANS, v. 32.

Tues words the inspired Apostle uses when speaking of the relative duties of hus- bands and wives. In the verses preceding the text he had been enforcing» these duties. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ luved the Church; wives to submit themselves to their husbands as the Church te Christ. The sacramental view of the marriage union comes from thinking of it as an earthly representation of a heavenly union, and from recognizing that special divine grace will be given to those married

raons whe seek it, which will enable them to fulfil their high duties, and to set forth the divineideal. It is Christianity alone that hss raised that which was a mere natu- ral union into a far higher sphere, thereby giving rise to the Christian home life with ail its sanctities, and elevating woman to a position higher than she had had before.

Referring marriage to the union between Christ and the Church, as its example and ideal, guards two truths ; i. ¢., the indis- solubility of the marriage vow and the com- pleteness and perfection of the union be- tween man and wife. When one of these truths is tampered with, the other suffers.

An attempt, which very nearly succeed- ed. was made last winter to change the marriags laws of the Dominion, so as to permit marriage between a deceased hus- band’s brother and a deceased wife's sister. The attempt will probably be made again, so it is well the matter should be brought before you.

Some speakers in Parliament stated that the English House of Commons had passed such a bill as this, and that many promin- ent English statesmen and divines had spoken in favor of it. This statement was

uite inaccurate. Such a bill never passed, ? doubt if it was ever introduced into the English Parliament. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a single person of note wh» has advocated it.

It may be granted that the advoeates of @ change in Canada are more consistent than these in England; but that does not alter the fact that no one in England has proposed to allow marriage with a deceased brothers wife.

If we thought of this subject merely as members of the Church of England, the preposel change need not give us the slightest anxiety. The law of our Church is clear and explicit, and Parliament can’t ehange it. Any priest of the church of England here solemnizing such a marriage is liable te degradation; any member of that Charch contracting the alliance, to excommunication. No priest who per- formed the ceremony in such a case can continue in the ministry. No persons who so marry can continue in the Church.

But as citizens of the country we have a deep interest in the question. If the change is wrong, it must do harm. A nation cannot, any more than an individual, escape the consequences of a wrong act, er of a mistaken act, however honest the mistake may be.

In considering the question I will take the lowest grounds possible—will meet the advocates of the change

@N THEIR OWN GROUNDS.

Let us then consider the principle of the existing prohibitions—first without any re- ference to the Bible at all.

Shall there be any prohibitions at all?

Everyone will say Yes.

Prohibitions must be under two heads—of Consanguinity or Blood relations—of affinity or Marviage relations.

What blood relations should be prohibi ted !

These also are direct and collateral.

Let us see what are prohibited under each head and why.

Marriages are prohibited in the direct line in every degree, i. e. parents and their children, grandchildren &c., are prohibited.

There is no need to seek a reason for such prohibitions—the very thought of such uniens is horrible-—We ean speak of them (and anyone will agree) as forbidden natur-

under two heads —

Now as to collateral blood relations.

The principle adopted inour table of prohibited degrees is that these relations may not marry within the fourth degree. In this way of reckoning, the steps are taken to and from the common ancestor, and both parties areincluded. Bat this will be plainer by illustration.

Take brother and sister. This is called the third degree, counting thus:—Brother one, up to parent two, down to sister three.

The reason of this prohibition is not

nite the same as thatof the former.

here may have been atime when such unions were necessary. But it is quite evident that the close and intimate family life of brothers and sisters makes it of the utmost importance morally that such unions be not thonght of. And when an opinion is passed on from generation to generation, being thus hereditary, it be- comes instinctive. These unions were forbidden as svon as possible on moral gtounds,—aversion to them has now be- eeme an instinct of all civilized races.

_Now take the next step, viz.: uncle and niece. In counting as before we begin with brethe. one degree up to parent two, down to sis’er three, down to sister's daughter four—-within the fourth degree, therefore, prohi! ited.

_ The reason of this is a similar one to that in tho case of brother and sister, though not so strong. There may be many cir- eumstances under which a father’s brother will tuke almost a father’s place. In the very great majority of cases the difference of age is such as to assimilate the relation-

aie

ship in some degree to the paternal. There is a very general agreement (we shall see by-and-by net a complete agreement) that for moral reasons these unions also ishould be prohibited. | Counting in the, same way as before, it that cousins are in the Sth

will be Been :

degree. They are not prohibited. Many ~~ .

lthink they should be; and they are not

without strong reasons in support of their opinion. It is, however,jplain that, if pro- hibited, it would be on a different principle ;from the other collateral relations. Cousins ido not live intimately in one family as do brothers and sisters. There is not the same nearness to the father as in the case f the uncle, nor ordinarily the same ditfer- They would not be prohibited on moral grounds. If forbidden, it would be for physiological reasons. It 1s prob- able (to say the least) that on these grounds it would be better te prohibit them. But [am now only showing that the table is consistent with itself in not prohibiting them. However desirable that it sheuld do so, it has not gone into these reasons. It may be imperfect—itis not inconsistent.

So much for blood relation. Now, as to the question of affinity or marriage rela- tion.

it comes before us in this form: With reference to this question, are a man’s wife relations to be considered his own ?

Now, surely there can be but two answers to this question—yes, or no. Ow present laws say yes, and act consistently on that principle. If there are any who think the answer should be ‘‘ne,” their posi- tion would be intelligible and their course clear. They must say, a man, therefor, can marry his deceased wife's sister, mother or daughter and awoman may marry her de- ceased husband's father,, son or bro ther. If a man’s wite’s sister is no relation to him, neither is his wife’s daughter (by a former marriage) nor his wife’s mother. Do let these who propose the change adopt some principle. The present table is log- ical and consistent. One which wholly disregarded affinity would also beso. But this proposed one is

NEITHER ONE THING NOR THE OTHER,

Suppuso these changes made, what mortal could give any reason for the prohibitions as they would then stand? What principle would have been adopted / What guide have been followed? Such hand to mouth, unprincipled (1 use the term in the sense of being based on no principle) legislation would be absurd and dangerous on any subject, much more so on so important a ene as holy matrimony.

Without, then, any reference to Holy Scripture or to ecclesiastical tradition, on the simple grounds of common sense, and logical consistency, these changes should be regarded as doing either too much or too

ence of age.

little. Standing alone, they are wholly in- defensible. Further they are highly inex- pedient.

Their proposers say that an uncle or aunt will always be the best to take care of the fatherless or motherless children. Asa matter of fact, a man can, and very often does find a very good stepmother for his children without marrying their aunt. But give what weight you please to this argu- ment, it tells quite the other way. At the time of the mothers death the aun can aud often is of invaluable assistance, because she is considered as the man’s sister Shecan immediately be present and help- ful. But suppose that this relationship ceases, what can she do! She can’t be in his house asa servant. Ought a single woman to live intimately on a footing of equality with a single man whom she may marry? To take the lowest ground, te what cruel aspersions and innendoes would she subject herself? Is the worli so uncen sorious that it would never attribute her devotion to her sister’e children to another moti-e. Su pose two sisters — both anxious to come at once and iake care of the children, the wid» wer must decide thcir conflicting claims, and take the chosen one into his house to live with him as a sister antil a decent interval had elapsed before he made her his wife !

This consideration further shows the fallacy of the statement that a new law merely would give liberty to those who wish thus to marry; and leave others in the same position as they now are. It wili do nothing of the kind. From the moment it passes, 1t changes the domestic relations of every man and woman who could be affected byit, from one end of the Dominion to the other. Froin the time it passes, it in every case deprives the bereaved children of their aunt’s care at the time it is most wanted. For if a widower may marry his sister-in-law, he ean’t take her to his home unless as his wife ; and he can’t make her his wife immediately.

In the majority of cases it deprives the children of their aunt’s care altogether, for many men don’t want to marry a second time atall, and of those whodv only a small proportion wa to marry their sisvers-in-law. In fact, wherever the law has effect at all, it will completely abolish for everybody the relations of brothers and sisters-in-law, and will make achange in every house. It is therefore contrary to the first principles of sound legislation; for it inflicts a great inconvenience on the many for the convenience of the very few.

NOW LET US TURN TO OUR BIBLES,

and consider the question with the light thrown upon itthere. And here we will only take up the degrees of affinity. Be- sides the foregoing reasons, are there any from Scripture why degrees of affinity should be counted?

So doing, guards and enforces the great Scriptural truth of the Unity of Man and Wife. If not an absolutely necessary deduc- tion from that truth it is at least a reason- able conclusion from it naturally and wisely adopted.

But—it may be said—death having dis- solved the union between a man and_ his wife,a furtiori, it is dissolved between him and her relations.

Granted for argument’s sake. But is it seemly, is it decent, is it compatible with any high or pure view of those relationships that a man, having once eonsidered a

woman as his mother or his sister, ma afterwards take her as his wife ? While his wife lived she was his mother-in-law, or his sister-in-law. Ought she then ever to become his wife? If the relationship 1 \dmitted as a natural deduction from » Scriptural statement during the wife’s life, then surely every right feeling person would have it continue.

But now as to the directions in Leviticus. Here it will be fairer to separate the cases of the husband’s brother and wife's sister. [ake the former.

“ff aman shall take his brother's wrfe itis an unclean thing, he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness,” (Leviticus xx: 21,

And}

“Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 0f thy brother's wrfe ; it ‘is"thy brother's naked ness.” Leviticus xvii: 16.

Very many are of opinion (the West- minster confession emphatically asserts this) that these laws are part of God’s re velation tothe world generally. If so, there is

NO KOOM FOR FURTHER ARGUMENT

on this point, for those who accept that revelation.

But, as I have said, I want to meet the advocates of the change on their own ground. Grant, then, for argument’s sake, that these are merely Jewish laws. What then would be the case! The

THE JEWISH VIEW OF MATRIMONY

was lower than the Christian. Polygamy was tolerated. Divorce was made easy. Yet even with thig lower view, they re membered thata “man and his wife are one flesh” (Gen. ii, 24); and forbade a woman to marry the brother of her own flesh. But Christian legislators are going to be satisied with a lower view on this peint than was the Jew. That certainl seems a very unworthy position. It is

actually a going back or going down. One can understand restrictions being in

creased, but on what ground are they to be relaxed?

It is said, ‘‘but in one particular case it was commanded” (Deuteronomy xxv., 5.10). A special exception in no way invalidates a general rule. Our law gene- rally is not to kill a man; butin self- defence I may killa man. How absurd it would be to argue:—Because the law of England permits killing a man in ene case, evidently it cannot think it wrong to kill a man even though there isalaw against

it. New, clearly understand what this argument is. A Jew with his

lower view of marriage, forbid generally such marriages. A Christian with his higher view may even go beyond the Jew aud forbid them altogether. He can’t surely fall below the earlier standard, and permit them altogether.

Now as to the wife’ssister. In Leviticus xviii, 18, we read: ‘‘ Neither shalt theu tuke a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other in her lifetime.” The interpretation of this verse 1s deubtful. In the margin of the common vyerson we read instead of a *‘ wife to her sister,” ‘‘ one wife to another.” If this be correct, the verse would only ferbid poly. g my.

Ut course those who threw overboard the direct, explicit statement about the hus. band’s brother, cannot claim this verse tu support their view about the wife’s sister. They cannet claim this verge as a ground for permitting the one union if they refuss to allow verse 16 to forbid the other, But no doubt there is

A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER

of persons who consider the Levitical lax as not without authority—who thereupon disapprove of the marriage with a hus band's brother ; but who, relying on this verse, would permit the other, To rhat class the following argument is aé dres ed.

Graut, for argument’s sake, your inter- pretation of the verse. What do we see | Among the Jews, a woman was forbidden ‘o marry her deceased husband’s brother : but a man was permitted to marry his de- ceased wife’. sister.

BEAR THESE TWO POINTS 1N MIND.

Now, come for a moment and think of a Christian marriage service. What ides runs al) through it? The equality of man and wife, so far as that is possible. Have you ever thought of the meaning of the fol- lowing minute and careful directions given in our marriage service.

‘¢ The minister shall cause the man with his right hand te take the woman by her right hand and to say: I M. take the N. to be my wedded wife, &c., &c.”

And now, observe—

‘¢ Then shall they loose their hands ; anp THE WOMAN WITH HER RIGHT HAND, TAKING THE MAN BY HIS RIGHT HAND shall likewise say: IN. take thee M. to be my wedded husband.” If tne man takes the woman's hand, then their hands must be loosed, that she, in turn, may take his. Not only does the mAn take the woman to be his wedded wife; but the woman takes the man to be her wedded husband.

THERE WAS NOTHIN GOF THIS SORT among the Jews, or with any Eastern nation. The positions were not equal. The man took the woman, but the woman did not take the man. She was not allowed

=

so to do. Consequently, when a man “took a wife,” he brought her into his family His brothers became hers, so she

was forbidden to marry any one of them. But as the woman aid not ‘‘take the man,” he was not supposed te go into her family; ber sisters were not his, andhe might marry them.

The ene can be forbidden while the other is } ermitied only on the low view «f woman's pesition, that she is not an equal in the contrabt. And so, actually, men who take this view are (no doubt unconsciously) yet really degrading their sisters, daughters, mothers and wives, in this particular, from the lofty position in which Christianity has placed them, to a level with the inmates of an Eastern harem.

THE PROPOSAL IS A BURNING INSULT TO EVERY WOMAN IN THE JAND.

There is another matter im connection with thie subject to which I must refer.

lt is impossible to read the debates that took place in Parliament on this question, without seeing how prominently the pecullar ctaims of the Roman Catholic denomination were brought forward. It may be well to state what ground that Church takes on the question,

She prohibits all the degrees, both of con- ganguinity and affinity, thatwedo, She alse prohibits the marriage of cousins, She further recognizes spiritual afunities as a bar, i; Ga a goitather cannot marry his yodchild. Having thus widely extended the prohibition, the Pope claims power to dispense with them. { do jot know whether he is supposed to have the power to dispense with ail. As @ matter of fact he dispenses with spiritual affinities with cousins, with brethers and sisters-in-law, with uncles aud neices, nephews and aunts, Ordinarily these dispensations are not pro- cured without a money payment, Last winter a member of that Church wrote to one of the papers that he had obtained such a dispensa tion at the cost of one hundred dollars,

I quote now from the official report of the debates (Hansard, session of 1880, vol. Il p. 1983). where M, Girouard read letters he had received from several Bishops.

The Bishop of Sherbrooke writes, while ap- proving of the Bill: ‘* Would it not also be apropos to repeal, at the same time, Article 126 [of the Quebec code}, which prohibits marriage between uncle and niece, aunt and nephew ?”

And the Bishop of St. Hyacinthe writes : ‘‘T have the honor to inform you, in answer to your yesterday’s letter, that 1 would be content to see disappear from our code not only Article 125, but also Article 126 [i. e, not only the pr hibition against brether and sisters-in-law, but also against uncles, nieces aunts and nephews], which in many cases are very embarrassing to us Catholics.”

So that these whoare among the most anxious for the change desire that,not only shall there be a relaxation in the case ot marriave connections, but also in that of blood relations.

it is but right to say that when the bill was altered, Mgr Lafleche, Bishop of Three Rivers, took alarm, and withdrew his sanction from it. As this prelate is confessedly one ot the ablest, if not the ablest theologian on the Bench, it may be that his influence will not be unfelt by his episcopal bretbren.

TAE QUESTION IS NOW BEFORE YOU.

It is a woman’s question equally, if not more than a man’s, for women will be the keenest sufierers by any degradation of the marriage state. Itis a layman's question far more than a clergyman’s; for one clerical family there are hundreds of lay families. You can, by petition aud by the use of every legitimate influence, oppose the bill for the sake of your country; and, if it should pass, you can thank tiod, with all your hearts, that you be- long to a church whieh, under all circum- stances, forbids such unions to all her mem- bers. :

a

APPLES, — APPLES,

WILL SELL AT AUCTION, AT THE QUEEN STREET AUCTION ROOMS,

To-Morrow (TUESDAY), 16th inst,,

aT 11 O'CLOCK, A. M.,

100 bbls. choice Winter-keeping Apples, te arrive to-night direct from Cornwallis

W. D. STEWART, Nov. 15, 18-0— Auctioneer,

a A

No. 1 Winter Apples.

- WILL sell at AUCTION, at my Sale Room, Queen Square, on TO-MORROW,

PFUESDAY, 16th inst., at 2 e’clock,—

100 bbls. No. | Extra Winter-keeping Apples. in splendid order, —Bishop Pippins, Bald- wins, Vanderveers, Spitzenburgs, Northern Spy, etc , ete.

\lso, a collection of HOUSEHOLD FUR- NITURE., .

WILLIAM DODD,

Nov. 15, 1880. Auctioneer,

NO. | WINTER APPLES.

DIRECT FROM ANNAPOLIS.

UST LANDING EX SCHOONER MARY ey ALICE,—

300 bbls. choice Winter-keeping APPLES, all the best kinds. Cail early and select.

Selling low. WILLIAM DODD, |

Queen Square.

Nov. 13, ’80--

Anthracite Coal,

‘y°O ARRIVE, per Brigt. ‘‘Lovisr,” due here about 30th inst.,

220 Tons ANTHRACITE COAL,

Best quality. FENTON T. NEWBERY. Ch’town, Nov. 13, 1Ss@—3i

Flour & Herring.

UST RECEIVED per Schooners, a choice @y lot of large fat Herring, in barrels ant half barrels; and daily expected, a choice lod of Labrador Herring.

—ALI0—

For Sale or to Let,

Y gp well-known Hotel, convenieutl situated on Queen Street. It is pom stories high, and contains 16 rooms kitches shop ete., and has spacious yard : n, stables, sheds and outbuildings. For further particulars apply to William

Dodd; or on the premises, to

MRS. JAMES OFFE Nor. 15, 1880. _

ae ‘| HE House situated on corne Ale Ng te Pownal and Dorchester otreste, i suitable for a private residenee or an hotel. Possession given

ist December. Terms Liberal. Apply to WILLIAM MURRAY, Baker

New Grocery Store, JUST OPENED!

A General Assortment of

CHOICE GROCERIES,

Flour, Tea, Sugar, Molasses, Gurrants, Raisins, Soap, Starch, &c., &c,

CHEAP FOR CasH. W. A. HUTCHESON, Nov. 11, ’80—l1m 109 Upper Queen St, Next door to Miller Bros,

—

NIONS. ONION

ONIONS. ONIONS,

ar RECEIVED EX M/RAMICHI,~— 100 Bbls. Extra Onions. ,

W. D. STEWART,

Nov. 11, ’80—tf

—

RE-OPENED!

a E Subscriber would respectfully an- nounce to the public generally that he has re-opened the above well-known and popular Hote!, where he will be prepared to accommodate permanent and transient Board ers at moderate prices, to suit the times. Having refurnished the Hotel ‘‘ from top to bottom.” and being provided with a com- petent staff ‘‘from cook to chambermaid,” he

faver him with their patronage comfo aud happy. JOHN McLEOD, Ch’town, Nov. 9, ’80—1w * Proprietor.

WANTED—TENDERS.

under the control ot the Charlottetown Har-

‘bor Master. For further particulars apply to DAVID SMALL,

Ch’town, Nov. 9, '80—Ai

a ce

Very Superior Teas,

35 SS PACKAGES just received ex Ethel eC) Blanche ; 130 packages more to ar- rive in a few days,

Those TEAS will be found very superior in strength and flavor, and we ofier them whole- sale and retail at remarkably low figures.

BEER & SONS, Oct, 29, 1880.

a ee —)

| ants, Lost, found, Su"

wa” Advertisements under this heading, i» space not exceeding half an inch, will be inserted for Ten Cents per day.

tl fe lt gee

Sieovadirenocttpatepeonociipanhengdeliates f-~Gp capella 4 ." LET—A Tenement House, situated on

Kent street, next Goor to Dr. Creamer. Apply to Mrs. Orrer, Queen street.

{no 13 tf

RASER’S DIPHTHERIA REM- Et}-—For sale at his Drug Store, Queen atreet. [no 13 3i *

C+ thorough cure for the above complaint—to be had at P. G,

Ff RASER’S, Queen street. [no 13 3i *

—

OARDERS—Three or four Boarders

can be accommodated with first class board and apartments at very reasonable rates, in a pleasant and one of the most con- venient localities in the city. Apply at his ottice, no 6

‘q\O LET—A House containing 8 rooms,

A large supply ‘of Superior Extra Flour, direct from the milis—Galt, Ont. All®of: which will be sold cheap for cash. }

with stable, coach house, and a large garden attached, fronting on Rochford Squarei Possession given immediately. Apply to J.

HORNE. PIERCE & CO. | T. Crocker, at the Fish Market. {no 2

; No. 125, Upper Queen St. Nov. 13, ’80—2w 2aw ai% BRELLAS—'ihe subscriber wishes | to inform the citizens of Charlottetown

| that the business of Umbrella mending, &c., & L=. |is still ca:ried on at the old stand, opposite

| Mr. R. Bridge’s meat store.—s. ‘Taupviy.

ype desirable residence owned and oc. |

Dundas Esplanade, together with the water

The house aud outbuildings are in a state of thorough repair. For tras apply to Messrs. Hopeson & Mc-

LEoD, or to ALEX, MACNAB.

Ch’town, Nov. 1, ’Sv -ti

ie a2 place to ki your Pripting done is a} | \

the EXAMIAXEK PRINTING ROOMS

lot in front.

{oc 25 lm

cupied by the subscriber, aud situate on)

i cEmee liouse continues to receiv ~

‘Terms mod

[oc 7

‘NOOK—A first-class COOK wanted im- \_/ mediately at the ‘‘ Revere House.” Good wayes.

JAGSTAFF’S HOTEL, Powna Street, continues to receive transien ‘and permarent boarders. {j il.

permanent BOARDERS. erate.

TO LET!

“St Lawrence Hotel”

[TENDERS will be received till the 15th inst. for taking up and landing all Buoys ™

[oc 8 tf ‘

a THE ROYAL OAK,

and large.

fy RP

feels contident that he can make all who a

Apt