The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-26 00:00:00

LONDON,

' the Most High, and not to be suffered in a people which
he had chosen for His own, chosen to preacree Ilis name
and the knowledge of His laws in the wo:11, until that
fuller revelation of His will which was hereafter to b
made at the appointed time. "Ye shall do my judg-
ments and walk after my ordinances; for I am the Lord."
After this solemn beginning, the well-known prohibitions
were enumerated. The principle was first stated, " None
of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him."
Specific cases followed, which would violate the prin-
ciple; cases, first of consangunity, nearness of blood,
members of the same family. " Thou shalt not approach
thy father's sister, thy mother's sister; thy father's
brother's wife; they are thy parents, near kinswomen."
Though there was no nearness of blood, there was that
nearness of kin, that (as was known to infinite wisdom)
would render such alliances, if permitted, injurious to
the welfare of families, and of the community. Then
followed verse 16th, which settled the present question
—" Thou shalt not approach thy brother's wife." Be-
tween the sister of the wife and the brother's husband
the analogy was so clear and plain, that what was for•
bidden in the one case must clearly be f wbidden in the
other. No possible reason could be assigned why the
brother should not marry the brother's widow which did
not equally forbid the sister from allying herself with
the sister's widower.—(Hear, hear.) If they waited till
the instances were specifically named to which the
prohibition was to extend, they would find no exact
prohibition of connexions which were most revolting
to all our feelings. The father was not expressly for•
bidden to approach his daughter. Out of the thirty
prohibited degrees, fourteen were specified in terms, and
sixteen are left to implication and analogy.—(Hear.)
It was argued, however, that the effect of the 16th verse
was neutralized by the sentence which followed:—
" Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to vex her in
her lifetime ;" as if the prohibition ceased with the life
of the sister. But he need not tell their Lordships that
the interpretation of this passage was b 0 uncertain that
no argument could bo based upon it. In the text of our
own version the words were as he had stated them. But
in the margin of our Bible, which was of nearly equal
authority with the received text, the words were :
" Thou shalt not take one wife to another." In the
opinion of the best critics, there was as mach au-
thority for one interpretation as for the other.
And it seemed to be a case where the ju-
dicious rule of Paley might be properly applied, who
warned them not to suffer what they did know to be dis-
turbed by what they did not know. They did know the
meaning of the 16th verse—" Thou shalt not approach thy
brother's wife." It could not be disputed. They did
not know the accurate meaning of the verse that fol-
lowed. In the Court of Queen's Bench, when a cause
connected with this subject was tried, six different inter-
pretations of the passage were alleged. Therefore what
was plain must not be disturbed by a sentence of which
they only knew that it was of uncertain and disputed sig-
nification, especially, where the interpretation of the law
which he maintained was defended by the opinion of the
Christ:tin Church from the earliest times. He did not,
indeed, profess to treat that judgment as infallible, or to
assert that it precluded their taking the subject into
consideration. The Church, though consisting of a con-
gregation of faithful men, was still a congregation of
fallible men, among whom error might possibly be per-
mitted to prevail. But the concurrent opinions of
religious persons and collected churches in different
ages died countries would never be lightly disregarded
or set aside without cogent reasons, more particu-
larly when their decision was not in accordance with the
natural bias and inclination, which would be rather to
relax than to tighten the prohibition.—(dear, hear.)
This appeared from the practice of some Protestant
states of Europe in modern times, and from what had
taken place in the Roman Catholic Church. The mar-
riages in question had never been heard of in that church
until the fifteenth century. In that period of corruption
the Pope, in the plenitude of his power as the vice-
regent of the Most High, took upon himself to grant a
dispensation to Emmanuel of Portugal, who m laud his
sister-in-law, and afterwards to Ferdinand of Sicily for
an alliance with his aunt. He maintained the principle,
but in practice allowed it to be infringed, yet in terms
which contained their own confutation—Si urgens ncces-
sitas vel evidens utilitas postularit. Their Lordships would
judge of the validity of such a dispensation. And with
whom did it originate? Not with one who was an
ornament to the communion to which he belonged—as
there had been many such ornaments—but of one who
was a disgrace to any church; the very last example
which a pure church or a moral nation would desire to
fullow.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that it would not be
followed by their Lordships, and that they would concur
with him in rejecting thy proposed Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
They were toad much of the inconvenience and the many
mischiefs which attended the law as it now stood; and
no doubt it was mnch to be lamented that this or any
other law, Divine or human, should be transgressed.
But the part of the Legislature must be not to lower the
law to the standard of the practice, but to elevate the
practice to the standard of the law.—(Hear, hear.)
Very grievous mischief arose from all unlawful
connexions, from the practice of concubinage, for
instance; but we did not, for that reason, dis-
pense with the obligation of marriage, or legitimize
the guiltless progeny of a guilty connexion. He did
not deny that there were cases in legistation when con-
venience or expediency must be considered; and when
they might justly weigh the evils on one side with the
evils on the other, and decide between them as best they
might, whether " to bear the ills we had, or run the risk
of others that we knew not of." But reference to expe-
diency an pposed the absence of acknowledged principle
oc nettled law. When Trtecipte began the provision of
expediency was at an end; and he held that, in the pre-
sent cae, they were bound by a settled principle and
Devine law, and cou'd allow of no other consideration.
—(Hear, hear.) On these grounds he trusted that
their Lordships would hand down to their children the
law of marriage in the same parity and hitegrity as
they had received it from their ances:ors. Ile should
not trespass longer on their attenden, but sit down with
moving, as an amendment, that the further con ide-
ration of this Biii should be postponed to that day sic
mouths.—(Llear. hear.)
The Bishop of EXE PER seconded the amendment.
He agreed with the Most Rev. Prelate who had just sat
down, that the subject had been introduced by the Noble
Earl with great ability and moderation. The Noble
Earl had referred to a phrase which he had yesterday
made use of in presenting petitions against these " in-
cestuous." marriages. In using tho phrase '• incestuous.'
in reference to thse marriages, he was simply doing his
duty as a bishop of the Church of England. That these
marriages were incestuous—that they were forbidden by
the law of God—was the express dsclaration of that
Church of which he was a bishop; and he should be
, ashamed of himself if he were to deny his adherence to
the doctrine of the Church on that point. The Right Rev.
Prelate then referred to the Act of 1835, and rematked
that he might be asked who he had supported that Act if
he deemed such marriages incestuous. His answer was,
that he bad consented to that Act, not because
he considered the marriages not incestuous, but
because he wished to protect the interests of
the children. It ought also to be recollected
that parties who had contracted these marriages
were not exempted by the statute from penalties, and
might be proceeded against for incest. The Noble Earl
who introduced the subject had quoted the authority of
Bishop Jeremy Taylor in support of the Bill. Ho also
would refer to Jeremy Taylor, and would recommend to
the Noble Earl's attention to a passage in the " Law of
Conscience," book iti., chapter ii., rule 3, in the argu-
ment with reference to the marriage of first cousins, in
which ho would find it stated—" What better determi-
nation can there be or the identical words • near of kin,'
than the express piarticulars made by God himself in
that very place, Leviticus xviii." He needed not to tell
their Lordships that the Mosaic law was admirably
and properly divided into three parts—the ceremonial,
the civil, and the moral law. Now, whatever might
have been said with regard to the c Jremonial and civil
laws of the Jews, no one had ever denied that the
Church held the moral law to be obligatory. The
Israelites Wefe called on in the most solemn manner to
observe the commands of Ged:—" After the doings
of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not
do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither
I bring ye, shall ye not do." That commandment they
were required to obey, " that the land spew not you out
also when she defile it, as it spewed out the nations that
were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of
these abominations shall be cut off from among their
people." Now among the abominations thus referred to
were marriages such toe those which the Noble Earl now
asked them to sanction and legalise. The Most Rev.
Prelate who last spoke had reminded the Noble Earl
that his observations did not meet the case of marriages
with a wife's sister. The word of God expressly recog-
nised the connexion of affinity to be the same as that of
consanguinity. The phrase " uncover the nakedness,"
was never applied in the Mosaic law except to inces-
tuous connexions. In the 17th verse of the 18th Levi-
ticus it was expressly declared that a man should not
take his wile's son's daughter, or her daughter's daugh-
ter, because " they are her near kinswomen." Such
marriages would be incestuous and wicked.

The—Earl of ST. GERMANS—They are her de-
scendants.

The. Bishop of EXETER—True, they were of the
deceased line, but the Noble Earl was mistaken if he
supposed that the prohibition did not extend to the col-
lateral live. Two steps in tae deceased line was a
more remote connexion than one in a collateral line. The
Noble Earl had given them a very able comment on the
18th verse of the 18th Leviticus, but the view which he
had taken of it was not that which had been taken of it
by many able and learned men, and among others by the
late Chief Justice Vaughan, and by the present Hebrew
Professor of Cambridge, who had favoured him (the
Bishop of Exeter) with what he conceived to be the pro-
per construction of it. The words " in her lifetime," was
a strong expression used in Scripture to show that the
thing should never be done. The Noble Earl had said that
there was no prohibition of these marriages in the New
Testament. He differed from the Noble Earl on that point.
There was more than ono important instance to show that
such marriages were forbidden. John the Baptist de-
nounced Herod for living in incestuous union with Hero-
dias, his brother Philip's wife. He knew the Church of
Rome held that that connexion was merely en adulterous
one; but it was remarkable that St. Mark should have
used the words, "tor he had married her." Herod
was, therefore, denounced by John, not merely for living
with another man's wife, but for haring married his de-
ceased brother's widow. It was raid' there marriages
took place in ail the continental states; but Russia was
ignored. As the example of Prussia was specially recom-
mended to this country, ho would ievire what was done
were these marriages allowed, but also
sand nieces. The commissioners ought,
at those
o there.se o n
least, No
tt
o cht
only weresw noticed this in their report; for, surely,
they would !c
not recommend such a monstrous law for
this country. Tho law of divorce in Rues* whose
population was a little less than that of England and
Wales, was so lax that 7,000 or 8,000 divorces took
place in three years, or upwards of 2,000 annually.
Their Lordships must remember that they could. nut