The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-26 00:00:00

SCOTLAND.

A few insulated cases of cholera have appeared in
some of the large towns in Scotland, brit it does not
appear to have fixed itself seriously in any Of them.
The public authorities are making strenuous efforts to
remove all predisposing causes, and have taken time by
the forelock in appointing medical officers equal to any
emergency that may occur. At Aberdeen, besides the
legal proclamations ordered by the Board of Health,
the magistrates have published the following "precau-
tions" in handbills all over the city :
"1. Cholera is not so suddenly fatal, as is supposed;
it comes on with looseness, or bowel complaint, NMI&
goes on for some hours, or even for a day or two ; there
is often no pain, but no one must be off his guard by
this circumstance, but must immediately, when purging
comes on, apply for proper medicine, by which the dis-
ease is usually stopped. Where cholera is prevalent in
a district the neglect of this caution for a few hours may
be fatal.

"2. Cholera is often brought on by improper diet.
Acid fruits and vegetables, unripe fruits and uncooked
vegetables, of all kinds, should be avoided.

3. Cholera is often brought on by excess even of
wholesome food. The greatest moderation should be
practised, both in meats and drinks, always avoiding
long fasting. Ardent spirits should be taken only under
medical advice. Drunkards always suffer most.
"4. Cholera is often brought on by cold. Wet clothes
should be immediately changed ; the feet especially
should be kept warm and dry. The most violent attacks
often come on immediately after incautious exposure to
damp, foggy night air."

THE AFFINITY MARRIAGE BILL IN SCOT-
LAND-A CASE I.\' THE CHURCH COURTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Six,—Some time since I saw in your esteemed journal
an article in vindication of the proposed legalisation of
affinity marriages. As is well known, the present Re-
corder of London, Mr. Wortley, introduced a bill with
this aim, but afterwards dropped action, declaring that
Scotland was against the change. I deny the assertion.
Scotland is not against the change—but multitudes in
Scotland are afraid to open their mouths. They are
gagged and fettered, and the principle of the alteration
of the law (if, indeed, in Scotland an alteration of the
law be requisite) does not come home to their business
and bosoms. This is not exactly a case where men
choose to speak out in defiance of ecclesiastical fulmina-
tions. In this place, whoever I spoke with, (and they
were persons of no mean understanding) what was called
the Affinity Marriages Bill was approved of in every case
save two, and the argument set up was utterly absurd ;
in the one instance, that a text in the Old Testament
Scriptures was against such unions, though the entire
contrary be the case ; in the other, that legal permission
should not be granted to form such unions lest it should
fret the wife during her lifetime. The Scripture and
reason are demonstrably on the side of the concession,
which should never have been required. I need scarcely
remind you that the saintly Dr. Chalmers was on the
side of affinity marriages. He read the " Book of Life"
devoutly and intelligently—he read it as a "Bible Chris-
tian," and he could there find nothing adverse to the
view I presume to advocate. Since his lamented de-
cease, a very able man, a professor of theology in one of
our strictest sects, the United Presbyterian Church, has
stood forward in vindication of the truth on this subject.
Others of his order would, I believe, do the same, but
they are afraid to think on the point, or dread hostile
sentiment among their brethren. As for petitions from
the Church Courts, these are to be taken as matter of
course--as common-place actions ; and petitions other-'
wise are such easy affairs, that they might be had for the
establishment of a republic, the banishment of 'all Ro-
man Catholics from the United Kingdom, or almost any
thing whatever. The people of Scotland have never yet
properly spoken out on the subject, and perhaps not a
great many of them have taken it into consideration.
There are cases in human life where the arguments
pro and con are about of equal weight. In other in-
stances of debate the party who has not the best cause
may have a good account to give of his convictions. At
times, although we oppose certain opinions, we are com-
pelled to allow that they are such as a wise and good
man might hold. The opponents of the just and rational
arrangement under notice are here decidedly at fault.
However able as reasoners—however enlightened as
theologians— when their hostility is made to wear the
form of reasoning, it is at once found to be weak and
vicious. This was particularly exemplified in respect to
a case which came under adjudication at the last meet-
ing of the United Presbyterian Synod at Edinburgh. A.
member of that church, a female, had contracted an
affinity marriage, and was in consequence excommuni-
cated as asi liner unworthy of church privileges. The
poor woman appealed to the highest jurisdiction in her
communion. Illness prevented the offender from being
present ; but as she explained, supposing that she could
attend, she would not feel herself at liberty to speak

in an ecclesiastical court. In the United Presbyterian
Synod lawyers are not permitted to appear for or
against parties, and the individual would have been
left wholly undefended, had not a gentleman belong-
ing to the congregation of the accused volunteered
to be her representative. At this point was brought
out the truth of what I have advanced as to the poor
figure cut by the adverse party. Men of talent, of logi-
cal power, and fluent eloquence, spoke in the debate,
but only to display weakness and perversity. Contrast-
ing the appearance of those theologians, on this occa-
sion, with others more becoming and more characteristic,
you might picture forth the strong and active man run-
ning a giant's race, or wielding a giant's prowess, and
the same individual shorn of his strength. and grovel-
ling on the floor in a fit of apoplexy. The truth is,
neither Scripture nor reason could be consistently ad-
duced in respect to the judgment. The same result,
and more strongly marked, will be noticed in cases where
inferior minds are concerned. Where feeling and senti-
mentalism are made to supply the place of argument,
we have the most gross inconsistency—for we are suffi-
cientiy aware that the man of maudlin emotion would

repudiatdand protest against being affected in his own case
by such inferior and fickle influences—which may be
employed in any way, and are often on the side of sin

and error.

But, say some here, the Westminster Confession
(used as a subordinate standard of the Presbyterian sects)
is against affinity marriages. I could wish to find it
determined by authority as to whether casuistical matter
found in this book has the force of law within the realm
of Scotland. If so, it is time that the Legislature inter-
pose for the relief of the people, as in this very case it
has already substantially done. Witness the toleration
of Dissenters, the emancipation of the Romanists, and
the renunciation by the civil magistrate of the power to
persecute Separatist.o—all contrary to this very code.
To hold a nation of civilised, educated people, with the
Bible in their hands, to be the abject subjects of canons
made by fallible men some centuries back in a village
near your place of business, is rather too bad. On many
points I agree with the Westminster Confession, but
would repel it as an authority to bind the conscience, or
to determine the civil actions of the citizen. Let those
to whom that standard is a link connecting them with
benefices in the Church uphold its dicta. It is matter
of wrong and dangerous policy to allow ecclesiastics to
dictate the arrangements of society. We know the use
made by the Church of Rome of the "prohibited de-
grees." We know that the ancient ecclesiastical laws
against usury would have stopped the business of human
life, and have left the people starving and unemployed.
To assume that a Protestant people are ever to
be the slaves of the Westminster Confession is to
hold them more infelicitously situated than the
Papists themselves. Ii countries decidedly Roman Ca-
tholic, the canons of the oecumenical Council of Trent,
so far at least as regards discipline, have been but
and those regarded as
par-
tially received—an election being made betwixt those
rious. Surely the regarde regarded
unnecessary a s so ur i t
iamb Ipe al nt
idu prour
Ile
jr
u,
pre-
sent age is fit to judge for itself in what concerns the
interpretation of Scripture and the morality of domestic
and social life.
Let no onesay that the affinitynaarriage arrangement is
contrary to the mind of Scotland. If any one ventures
on such an assertion, he has no authority for making it.
—I am,
Sir, &e.,

SCOTU S.

Edinburgh, 1858.