The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-26 00:00:00

THE SUNS LONDON; SATURDAY EVENIN-Cr,__APRIL

;5 •
• , .1'44. ',F.
**k3 f. fon

ryl.iLal i~ L. Y s ~

Lets,th:,
Cora Paw,

yesterd .

UV 4.3,,
this lay

it; UN OFFICE, 'Seven o'Clock.

95 - 97
94 - 98

TAT EZRSALT23.—(This Evening.)

11 - 13
133 - 135
4f

TWO THOUSAND GUINEAS.
2to 1 agst Yellow Jack
sto 2 agst Porto Rico
7 to 2 agst Fazzeletto
12 to 1 agst Milton (offered)

see ""'

CHESTER CUP.
Bto 1 agst Imogene
10 to 1 agst Yorkshire Grey
10 to 1 ag-t One Act.
12 t) 1 agst Yellow Jack 4

los

fit :Di

DERBY.
9 to 4 agPt.Wentworth.
7to 1 eg-t Cannobie.

ARRIVALS AT NEWMARKET.

26 - 26

Kalpyge, Milton, Enchanter, Porto Rico, Oltenitza,
Queen's Head, Yellow Jack, Result, Barba c, Miss
Whip c, Little Emma, Ph3mlis g. (5 yrs.), Maid of
Masham c, Prarre, Birdcatcher, and Glenlee.

92 - 94

- OP
56 - 58

45 47

133

•..
74 8
lid
1

23

the particular chapter in Leviticus, generally relied on by the
Opponents of the bill, did not relate to marriage, but to em.
-lawful intercourse. Let any unprejudiced man who had never
heard of tlie dispute upon 'this question refer:to hitaßible for
information. Would he not tell their lordships that the only
passage upon the subject-was the 18th of Leviticus, where a
' man was desired not to take a wife to her sister to vex her
•in her lifetime ? Attempts had been made to show that the
words: used in the authorised version did not truly express
the Words of the' original ; but almost allaithe mot eminent
biblical authorities assured us that the translation of this
passage in the authorised version of the Bible was most aeon
rate and coereet, and that the Ofialdee, the Samaritan, and
all the ancient versions gave the same sense as the ,authorisede
version. 'There-Was nothing in the Bible to show that a man
was not at liberty to"do the same act at other times and,•in
otherplaces: There .was a Divine instruction-s" Ye shall
`not add to the Word that I command 'you." It appeared to
hith a perfectly unsound argument to say that; if ' marriage
with a brothefe'veldow were prohibited,- Maniple-With a de-
ceaeed wife's sister ought-not to be allewed; or that it ought
to overthrow the permission contained in the 18th of Leviti-
case Jereniy Taylor, in his Dueler Dubita:ntiunt, said
But if any scrupulous person shall inquire 'farther, and
suspect that some degrees or persons are forbidden- to marry
that are notbere expressed, but included by a parity of rea-
son, as it happens in another instance, forit is not forbidden
to marry our mother's-brother's' wife"; but because here it is
made unlaWful to marry Our father's brother's wife it is to .be.
' concluded also for. the other, there' Wag the same degree and
the same reaSon • • • - .
• .
" I answer to this by Parts. le It is very 'likely that it is
so intended that in -equal eases there is an equal prohibition
-but it cannet.ceitainly be eonclude,dand relied upon that it is
so. la.l3ecause upon this account eases' of fear and scruple
might very much be Multiplied to no purfae'o; fdr I remember
that Fagius reckons out of the books of the -Itabbins 20 per-
sons forhidden to marry, which yet are not reckoned in Le-
viticus. - 2. 'Because of the rule of -the law. !C. Mutus, 43
'D. de pro Cur quod lege prohibitoria non vetitum est permis-
sum intelligitur.' In negative precepts that which is not fur-.
biddenle presumed to be allowed. And to add more out of
fear is either to be wiser than the lawgiVer, or to suspect 'him
to be apt to quarrel by unknown measures and secret rules
-of interpretation. 3. Because I find thatienicing *rise nations
the same degree does not always admit the same prohibition."
Then it was said that there was 'a degree .ofconsanguinity
betwCen a manand his wife's sister. `On this subject Bishop
Milner-said ' • " . • '
"It is- at this day. a groat question-among all men whether
brother& ahidsi'sters' ellildreti or cousins Berman may lawfully'
marry I -Whithquestion supposes not onlyc :that the Levitical
degrees are still ththight obligatory, but even' all those other
degrees which by a parity of reason can be' reduced to those
measures." • •
On the words " near of kin" Jereiny Taylor said:—
" Our English is not sufficiently expressive.. of the full
sense of it, The- Win is something nearer toe the Hebrew.
Vir
.non accedat ad prophmaitatem carnis sum.' God
never forbade to marry our kindred, but he forbade to marry
the nearness of our flesh. nemingius gives a rale for this as
near as_can be drawn from the words and the thing, Pro=
pinquitas. carnisS,sitith he, gum me-sine lutervallo attingit.'
That is, ` She that is next to me, none intervening between
the stock and me.' That is, the propinquity or, nearness of
my. flesh ; above me is my mother, below is my daughter, on
the side is my sister—that is. all. e fl()
" In negative precepts that.wbich.is not forbidden is pre-
sumed to be allowed. . ma. • '.
Unless God-had intended these a.perfeet. enumeration :of
all the persons forbidden to contract marriages mutually, it
cannot be imagined why He should lie pleased to repeat Some
degrees twice, which are equally forbidden in the several in-
stances ; for if the parity of cognation were to be the mea-
finre, then.those degrees which are twiee-repeatodznight with-
out such repetition have been better reduced to the rule
under which they were sufficiently prohibited.
" The same degree does not_ always admit the same Prohi-
bition ; to marry my father's sister was forbidden, but it was
not forbiddeu to marry my brother's daughter."
A right rev, prelate who had made a speech on this subject .
which had been published in a pamphlet, had fallen into an
unintentional error in.n quotation from Jeremy Taylor, which
he had uo doubt he would correct in any future edition. 'We
could laive nobetter definition of the: words " nearness of
on.. which the opPOnents of this measure relied, than'
that given by God himself, which gave no sanction to the
existing prohibition. The words "in her lifetime," in Levi-
ticus, clearly spoke for themselves, for the injunction to a
man not to a certain thing at a :particular time and place
must be taken to imply a liberty. to do it at a different time
and place. -No argument drawn from analogy could Over-
eonie-that plain and unmistakeable inference., Nobody pre-
. tended that our Lord or any of his Apostles had eapressed
any disapproval of these marriages ; and the absence of
any condemnation of them on the part 'of St. Paul was
especially significant, inasmuch as that inspired writer
treated- very copiously of -the subject of marriage.
The case of the elicit connexion between Herod and
Herodias,' which elicited the remarkable reproof of Jelin
the Baptist, was sometimes referred. to in arguiag this ques-
tion ; but, when impartially examined, it would be found to.
fdrnish no ground for adherence to the present. restriction.
Jesephue on this subject said—" After whose death" (that of;
Salome) " Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of
our Zountry,read divorced herself fromber husband while lie
-was alive, and was married to Herod (Autipas), her husband's
brother by the father's side; lie was Tetrarch of Galilee."
7To.this a notele appended by Whiston, via.—" Nor was it;
as I egree with Grotius and others of the learned, Herod the
Tetrarch,- but•this Herod-Philip, whose wife _Herod the Te-
trarch. had married,., and that in her husband's lifetime, and
when her first husband had issue by her, for which idelter-
ous and 'incestuous marriage John the Baptist justly reprov, d
Herod the Tetrarch." Origen, in his Commentary on St.
Matthew, chapter xiv., verse 4, also says:--`` Philip was,
indeed, the Tetrarch of Iturf.ea and of the region of Tea.
chonitis. Some think, therefore, that after Philip had
died,. 'and hid ,left a datighter, Herod married Herodias,
tha,wife of his brother, his law permitting marriage when
'Children did not survive. Since, however, it is not by any
means clear tons that Philip had died, we think that Herod's
transgression of the law was yet greater, that he seduced the
wife of his brother while living." In the 'Annala of Bare:
ntius; vol. 1, page 80, it is stated—" We must not omit to
say that that passage of the Evangelists concerniug Herod,
.that he married his brother's wife, was perverted by the Mon-
tauists, who, in order to found the heresy concerning mono •
ganif, that it was not lawful for a widow to marry again, and
that they might be able to prove this from the Gospel, added,
as they incorrectly read, that Herod married the wife of his
deceased brother, as Tcrtullian (ad Marc. 1,4, chap. 34),
who hold the same opinion with them, read. But he wrote
these things when lie was writing against Marcion, who
treated the Gospel with contempt ; when, however, he wrote
against the Catholics, whom he calls Payellichi, in his book
Be Menogainid, he abstains from any false citation of that
kind." A note appended alleged Tertullian to have become a
Montauist. Noldius De Vita et testis Herod= says
This woman, Herodias (the daughterhot of Aretas, King of
the Arabians, as Jerome pretends, in Matthew 14, but of
Aristobulus),Herod the Tetrarch having seen at the house of
his ,brother Herod, when he turned aside to visit him on his
way to Rome, made his wife, contrary to the laws, having
taken her away froth her lawful husband, who was yet alive,
though Augustine in *vain denies this." In the Chronicon
Pascholeit is stated :—" And Josepinis relates that it was on
account of Herodias, the .wife of Philip, Herod's brother, that
St. John wns beheaded, For Herod had put away his yet sur-
viving wife, to whom he had been lawfully married; she: being
the daughter of Aretas, Kinglof the Arabians; and had, more-
over, separated Herodias from her husband while ho was yet
living, having-also on her account put John to 'death." Sdl-
- " De Jure Naturali" argued that, if we understood Jose-
plus aright, we should find the case did not come under
Leviticus xviii., 16, but was simply a ease of adultery :
Atquai ita sane ad legem illam de fratria leviro ducencla res
attinere nequibat, sed adillam qua aliens uxor cuique inter-
dicitur.". The noble lord, contended that the testimony of
those authorities, fairly construed, ought to satisfy their lord-
ships, and even the right rev. prolate to whom he had before
-alluded, that tho-case of Herod and Herodias was whollydrre-
levant to the discuision. Under the Mosaic law it was enjoined
that, when a man died without issue his brother should marry
the widow. Marriage with a deceased wife's sister was au ana-
logous alliance, and might be sanctioned by a parity of reason-
ing. If the marriage with a deceased wife's sister were immo-
ral; that with a deceased brother's wife could scarcely be ex-
empted from censure ; yet the latter conduct had the express
authority of Scripture. It was not to be imagined that the -
Almighty Would have given his approval to a practice which
could under any possible cpmbinatiou of circumstances operate
to the injury of morals. Some right rev. prelates hail asserted
that the clergy were prohibited from celebrating such mar-
riages as the present bill was intended to legalise ; but it eves
worthy of observation that there was no instance on record of
a clergyman being punished for doing so. The clergy of some
of the most populous parishes in a petition presented to their
lordships hOuse; stated that this prohibition was productive
of unhappiness, and in some cases of immorality, and they
therefore prayed for its removal. The act of tho noble and
learned lord not now present (Lord Lyndhurst) had placed
their lordships in a dilemma. A number of- those marriages
had been contracted, although the ecclesiastical law declared
• them incestuous, and the noble and learned lord's bill, which
was passed without a dissentient voice, declared them legal.
[The Bishop of Exoter---" No, no The right rev. pre-
late dissented from this, because he had some crotchet that.
the ecclesiastical courts had still the power of punishing
these persons. He had no hesitation in saying, on the autho-
rity of Sir W. Follett, that had the • ecclesiastical cottrtie:
meddled with them the courts of law would have interposed;
and even' had the courts of law remained quiet, Parliament
would have stepped in to prevent any such exercise of eccle-
siastical power. Muck bad been said lately with regard to
the law of Scotland ou this point. A remarkable judgment
had lately been pronounced by one of the Lords of Session with
regard to this subject. The Lord Ordinary had said :
" Marriage,' says St. Paul, • is honourable in all,' and
against every restriction by mere human authority on the.
liberty of marriage the Protestant authority stands recorded.
-Accordingly, the Scottish law of restraint on marriage is •
avowedly founded on the Divine prohibitions. The doctrine of
-the 'reformed churches is, that marriage shall be as free as the
law of God has left it ; and the Divine law as contained in the
18th chapter of Leviticus is imported into the Scottish statute -.
of 1567, chap. 14, and is referred to in the next statute the
1567, chap. 15. All connexions expressly prohibited by. tb
Divine law in this 18th chapter of Leviticus are de'
1 aers- (tui o
the statute law of Scotland (1567, chap. 14) to be
and punishable with death. To find the exprcalsswir;:inv,liitibisitico._
no-
against marriage with the sister of a , paarnaticuits
cessary only to examine the Scripturel:eic
indraticousre,
larly to construe the 18th chapter of
the
connexion
is
not
there is no express prohibition
incestuous. There has been
n such settled
series of decisions, no
such solemn deliverance, and no isettled judicial practice
as to amount to an authoritative construction of the statute,
and relieve the Court from the necessity of construing it hy_
the canon of the 18th chapter of Leviticus. Then, the de-'
claration iu the " Confession of Faith, and the Parliamen-
Y s •
tar ratification of that confession, though binding on the
Prebyterion
Church, and though, perhaps, binding on the.
state of a Presbyterian country to civil effects, is not binding
as a legislative construction of the prohibition of the Divine
• law to the effect of creating a capital crime. The question,
What says the statuter -throws us back on the other ques-
4.ione s What is expressly prohibited'• in the 18th chapter of
.Leviticus ? Nothing less than an express prohibition can be
sufficient; 'lf there is no express prohibition, it is not within
the statute. On this point the Lord Ordinary would wil-
lingly defer to the authority of the Confession of Faith,' but
in this Protestant country, which refuses to be ecclesiastical
authority the right to create or declare a crime, it is impoi-
sible to escape from the responsibility. of forming and inde-
pendent 'opinion. With great diffidence, therefore, and with
unfeigned respect for the many learned and excellent persons
who have arrived at an opposite conclusion, the Lord Ordi-
nary ventures to express his opinion that there is in the Di-
vine law, and More especially in the 18th chapter of Leviti-
cus, no such express prohibition' of this marriage as to make
it incestuous under the statute."
These marriages were permitted in every country of Europe;
even in Russia, in some cases. In France, which was a Ro-
man Catholic country—not recognising, however, the Council
of Trent—and where marriage was .a civil contract, permis-
sion to celebrate them was.granted as a matter of course by
the Minister of Justice. He would now refer to a country more
resembling England in language and laws—the United States
of America. There it was not only the opinion of the heads
of the law, among whom were Chancellor Kent and Mr. Jus-
tice Story, but also of the bishops of the Episcopal Church,

that these marriages were neither inconsistent with Scripture
nor with the well-being of society, and that they were lawful
marriages, and the best which under some peculiar cireum-
stanees,could be -contracted. The Americans wero_not an
irreligious or an -immoral people ; . and- _would their lo,rdships
pretend to set vain apprehensions against their practical ex..
perignee ? 011 what ground, therefore, would the house be :
justified 'in refusing to agree to the-present bill Be. might
be told that there was something_ peculiar in the -position of - ;
but Would not the.ame observation apply
to any other female friend of the husband ?. And; was it not
Calumnious to the character of:the parties to say that during the
life of a'man's wife,: feelings might grow up, if the marriages
he now advocated Were lawful,_ between the. husband- and
his sister.inelaw which.did not grow up:between him end any.
other-female friend! :Some of,thismost able -writers lead held
that these mistriages were; desirablstri. and that, ntrlOnO would
make So kind a mother-in-law as,,the kistee--of, the-deceased
wife. But he did not rest his _Support of.the blib.ou that .
.ground, but he maintained. that those_niarriages ought not to
.:.be prohibited- unless there were some- pareunonnt.religiouS
objection to thon, or .unless some overwhelming social evil,
could boshown as_likely to flow from them,.. The petitioners:
in favour of the bill had __petitioned 'RI, 11
•-• i 4 ;the most
respectful terms; bad:invited .discussion on the subject, and
bad exeited a considerable -feeling in their favOur throughout
the thinking,and TtioderatetlasseC'.c,HP had already_ alluded,
to the .showing the growing .ses.aitavnt iim favourAof thew,
marriages-, that the on the subject was rejeoted in, the
House of Commons in 1842, and sent upto their lordshipsin
1649. It was said: by. by some tleat :it was not worth while to •
legislate for so small a number of persons, but he assured their
lordshipsthat the _number was not so small ; but in the exist-
ing state of the law many persons ,were reluctant :to make.,
known that they had contracted these-euarriageal and keY,Or
ral of ,these marriages likewise: were. centracted.by,perSous
in
humble cirennastauees,;and :were -not, therefore,-easily as.cOr•
Labial le. Nevertheless, it was known that it vast number of, ,
these marriages had taken place, mid the number was inereas-
ing;und, cousoquently,.by refusing, to sanction there the Le•
gislature. was laying up a large stook of -future misery and li-
tigation. Though there.might be some -doubt-as to .thelega-
lity of these marriages_ __Contmeted by persons going abroad .
for the purpose, he was told that in the case of a Zona .
domicile • e.broad,.Sir F. Kelly and other lawyers had held
that there could be xto ,doubt, ;to-: the legality. of the mar-,
riages. - lie would next-call. the attention of their lordships
to the observations of Sir W..1-13laekstono with regard -to the:
necessity of obeying the law • • ,

4 Itie held', itr ittrue,,and verY.juOtly; -by the principal ef
oat-ethical- Writeta that 7human laws. arc binding on men's •
colikieneoS; lout-'-if -that were the Only ,or most fOreible.
obligation, the good onlroonld regard the laws,.and thebad
would set them a deliatee. And; true as this principle is,
it mast still-be understOod with's-time; restriction: It holds,
I apprehend, as to rights, and that When the law has deter-.
mined the field to belOng. to Tertius it is matter of - con-
:science no :longer to withhold or tio invade it. So, also, hi
regard to natoral duties, and such offences as arc male in
Here we are bound in conscience,* because we are bound by
superior laws, before-those lautiati laws were in being, to
perform the one and abstain from the other. But in relation
to those laws which enjoin only positive: duties and forbid
only such -things as are not male in sc,:lnit male proltibita ,
merely Annexing-a penalty to non-compliance,. here,' I appre-
hend, conscience is no further concerned than by directing a
submission to the penalty in case of our breach of those laws,
for otherwise the multitude of penal laws in a State would not
only-be looked on as an impolitic, but would also be a very
wickedthing, if every- such law were a snare for the consci-
ence of the subject. Bet in these eases the alternative is of-
fered to every man, either abstain from this or submit to
'sue.liat:petratty;_and his conscience will be elem.,
.;whighever
side of the 'alternative he thinks proper to embrace. Thus,
by.the Statutelfer =preserving game a penalty; is denounced
against every unqualified person that kills a hare. Now, this
prohibitory law does not make the transgression a moral of-
fence ; Alm...only obligation in conscience is to submit to the
penalty if levied,"
He had no* folfilled a task which lie had undertaken much
against his will. He bail no personal interest in the ques-
tion.; he had no friend_who was interested in it ; and when
his right hon. friend the. Recorder of London, a few years
ago, asked him to take charge of the bill which passed through
the other house, he had declined,• Bat since that time, hay-
ing.given greater consideration Ito the subject, ho had seen
the necessity of a revision of the present' law, and had-con-
sented to take change of this measure.. • The-noble earl eon-
eluded by moving that the bill be read a second time.
The Bishop of OXFORD would endeavour to prevail upon
the heuse to-vote by a large-majority thatthe.bill Of his-noble
friend should not get a second reading then ; but that it
should be read a second time that day six months. Feeling as
he did that they were bound to maintain those great safe-
iiiards todoioestic purity which had been. handed-to them -by
those who had goae before them, and which they in turn
Ought to transmit ',to those who should come after them—
(hear, and cheers)o-in his opinion, a preliminary objection
to the bill of his noble friend_ was, that it either went too
far Or did not go far. enough, and that, if passed, its effect
Would be to put the law in opposition , tboitself.:: the
Act of IJniforiuitY the Legislature took itp' the Rubric of
the Established Church, - and Ecclesiastical statutes were
still held bindhig -by the courts,; therpeiginal attempt
to deal with the_ matter now -before the house, it was pro-
, pos2d to make the olergy,of the Established Church do what
the-ecedesiastitod -law rendered itimpossibleier.them,to.
namely, perform :kith nowriages. when applied to, just as
they would any marriage' Which- was cow permitted by law.
However,.tt tol-been found imposSible to maintain such a
propesition ao:_that.in the face of ParliamODt, laegimo:ou the
one hand- tiro' ,tltOgyman would have_ beeistouldested to
penalties if ho performed ~anch -a warxinge:;: and on the
other, he would be subjected-to penalties if ho refused.
(Hear, Then•foliowed the_Anstatesinau-liko proposi-
thin of his.noble Mold to leave it optional .witit the clergy-
man whether he would perform the marriage. The absurdity
of such legislatiou as that had been exposed to their lord-
ships. (Hear, ..hear.).. :By the bill noWlk.fexe::‘, the house his
noble friend proposed to lease the clergy of the Established
Church of England and the clergy ssf the Established Church
of :Seotland under the ecclesiastical law to which they were
now subject. Now, the ecclesiastical law declared that those
unions which the noble earl sought to legalise were contrary
to the law of God-it declared that they were net „marriages
at all ; it declared that they were incestuous concubinage.
(Hear, beao He was not at present . saying whether that
was a right or a wrong view ; but he was recording that
which was the present view of the Established Church of
Engl.tnii. Ho believed it was the view of, the Established
Church of Scotland also ; but beyond all doubt the Established
Church of England declared that those particular unions were
contrary to the law of God—(hear, hear)-and the service of
the Church of England declared that any union wliath was
contrary to the law of God was no union whatever. • His noble
friend would not dispute that in the ecclesiastical courts of
thiii country. there would be no difference, of opinion on that
matter ; nor. wouldthe noble earl maintain that the: children
of such a marriage would be legitimate. (Hear,, hear.)..- Yet -
what did his noble friend propose to do ? He would have re-
course to a new Statute, declaring these marriages lawful, but
he would leave:those statutes, which enforced the ecclesiastical
law unrepealed, and, consequently, leave the clergy unshel-
tered from the consequences of -all the ecclesiastical laws—
canons,
rubric, and serviee—which -declared those marriages
to be contrary to. the law of Go and to be incestuous coneu-
binage. (Hear.)- How was the Church to treat the clergy who
would perform, .theta marriages I Was it to treat them as
living in unity with the Church ? Was it to administer to
them the different rites of the Church I Again, in a suit for
the restoration of conjugal rights, :would the ecclesiastical
court recoLnise such a marriage ? (Hear.) The clergyman
celebrating olio of these marriages wattid,..under a law which
his noble friend proposed to leave unrepealed, be subject
to the severest censures of the Church ; but if this bill passed
a clergyman could himself go before a civil magistrate and
contract such a marriage without being liable to any penalty
whatever. -(Hear.) Were their, lordships prepared to put
the clergy in such a false position I Such a bill at best would
put the-clergy under one legislative regulation and the laity
under another. . (Hear) On this ground alone he would
ask their lordships to throw out the-bill by a large majority.
(Cheers.), As regareled the Scriptural vestion,
_he thought
his noble friend had been rather inconsistent; for he had
first urge' that the Levitical law was not binding oa Chris-
tians at all, and then proceeded to show that those mar-
riages were not forbidden by the Levitical law. (Hear.) He
..(the Bishop of Oxford) was quite ready, tn adinit,.*o'far. the
Levitical law was a municipal or ceremonial law it was bind-
ing only oa the people for whom it wasmades-the Jews; but
that was the only sense in which he could admit that the
Levitical law was not binding on us- as Christians. Where-
ever it was capable. of proof that • the law spoken by God
to the. Jews was not a municipal or ceremonial law, but
au exposition of God's. will for man, there that 'exposition
of •Iliawill for man was just as binding on us as it was on
She JewiS4 people. Now, he would direct the attention of
the house to words in the 18th chapter of Deviticas—the
chapter so often referred to—which were words of awful
caution to the children of Israel, and referred to crimes
which bad been committed by those who had inhabited the
land in which they (the Israelites) then were before they had
been put in possession of it. The words were, " All these
abominations have the men of the land done who were before
you, and the laud is defiled." Now, the caution given in the
chapter to which ho referred had no applbattion till it was
connected with the.people:who had been in the land before the
Jews; while if the caution were -merely municipal, it could
have no application to those former inhabitants. Those acts,
revealed
law,
wete
when done by a people not having any
said to defile the land, and he believed they would betorch.
ing one of the great rules which God had laid down for his
creatures, and not as a-mere munieipal law for the guidance of
cfaietnitat ;rrehaetaouritheburtaitlyscohfoSlairr
the. Jews, if they DOW ,sauctioned:the change with respect to
Marriage proposed by bis.enSbtole,
Whaajenillyesrbefaedrrbeedenter 61V-onion which in the sight of God was
incestuous concubinage no It hely marriage.
But he (the
Bishop of Oxford) would appeal to.the consistent-judgment of
the Church of Christ in all its purest- ages. His noble friend
had said that they ought not to use the principle of analogy.
But unless they adopted that principle they could not say that
a father should not mea7y. his owu daughter. The chapter in
Levitieus contained no prohibition against an uncle marrying
his own niece in blood. The • nit'taken
.pio ions were all from
the side of the man. There was a prohibition against the son
marrying his Mother, and conversely a mother was prohibited
from marrying her son. The nephew-might not marry his
aunt, and conversely the aunt ought not to marry her
nephew. It was the same with respect to the particular
relationship included in the noble earl's measure. So far as
the letter of the New Testament went, there were two pas-
sages which bore on the subject. There was- first, that re-
lating to Herod's marrying hiebrother's wife. She had left her
husband in his life-time, but there was no proof to show that
he was living when she married his brother. The other in-
stance was that mentioned in the first of the Corinthians,
where a man was ordered by the apostle to be cast out be-
cause he had married his father's wife. That was a case of
affinity, not of consa.uguinity. It might be that the father was
alive at the time, but where was the proof ? He, on the other
hand, found that there was a strong probability that the
father was not alive at the time. It would seem that the
. Christians at that early period were puffed up by having, as
they conCeived, the liberty of breaking through the Mosaic
claw, and the apostle said that they must not glory in an lin..
TH a ..ttliepv‘isedsatgheast
ith et correct
rNr eecwt
minify which was their shame.
conclusion to be drawn, from those
Testament was:, that;these marriages were .equally forbidden
. between parties connected by *Minty as well as by consan-
guinity. it was distasteful to him to argso the question on
• particular, texts of Scripture, as if they furnished the Chris-
tian man's sole rule of conduct. Ilebelieved that the instructed
eye, looking at God's dealings with his ancient people, would
. see 'that the Jews had been raised from a horde of slaVes to the
dignity of freemen by subjecting them to certain restrictions.
If those restrictions could be traced up tO the spirit of God's
law; that to be repr.ded as choice and signal blessins.
He said God laid restrained his ancient people from prac-
tices which they had been accustomed to witness in Egypt
and amongst the heathen people around them. Those re-
strictions had been the means of raising them to a higher
state of civilisation; 'and he said that the Church of Christ in
all interpreted the will of God in this respect.
Looking bgantd trulythemysterious attractions which existed between
the two sexes, the law of God, from the very beginning of
Our race, had added restraints upon the licence of union. The
change now proposed would amount to the removal of a most
blessed, sistern, which had given happiness and purity to