The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-16 00:00:00

our English version is correct. A list of names
appear on the record which may well satisfy the I
most scrupulous, that a language which even so
few educated persons know,is in this case rendered
with the most literal fidelity. If our testimony be
of any worth, we may add that having inquired of
several whom we know to be thorough Hebrew
scholars, we have the same assurance from all of

them.
But we must also take higher ground than this.
Were the interpretation only doubtful, which we
altogether deny, we deny even yet more strongly
the right of any ecclesiastics, or any civil legisla-
tors, to bind men, and to restrict their liberty by
appealing to a doubtful passage of Scripture. We,
indeed, should deny the right of any law-giver to
found enactments for us Gentiles, on the Levitical
laws given to the Jews. Let those legislators who
would do so, including the advocates of prohibition
amongst the Bishops, approve their own consis-
tency by first themselves submitting to circumci-
sion. But even could they prove their right to put
the yoke of Leviticus on the necks of Christians, it
were an outrage on all rational freedom to require
the sacrifice of the general liberty to the doubtful

interpretations of whimsical men.
The truth is, the prohibition originated in the
more superstitious ages of Christendom (see fact 6)
—not from any regard to the passage in Leviticus,
indeed Leviticus was at that time left to the Jews ;
but from the ascetic and corrupt notions about mar-
riage which ended in the celibacy of the clergy and the
institution of Monkery. Hence sprung the canons,
half of which we now properly laugh at ; but this
one slipped from Popery into our own canons; and
then many of our clergy, the more Romanising
class especially, sought a defence of an absurd
canon in a versicle of the Jewish code. The canon
was not suggested by the Scriptures, but the
Scriptures perverted to justify an ascetic canon.
The present state of the law, let ecclesiastics of the
Exeter and Oxford school say what they please,
is nothing but the foot of the clergy on the necks
of the laity. We resent it as a denial to us of the
right of private judgment on a point on which, of all
others, each has a right to judge. We resent it as
an intermeddling of ecclesiastics where the laymen
are as competent as the former to legislate for
themselves. We resent the compulsion of all Dis-
senters;especially, in this matter. Their ministers
and churches do not interpret the Scriptures by
Popish canon law; and it is intolerable that the
Dissenting half of the churches should be bound
hand and foot by the Established half.
Our readers, however, can look not only at our
arguments, but at a long list of opinions, which
they may reasonably think of more value than ours.
There they will have the judgment of Jews and
Christians ; of Church of England, Roman Catholic,
and Nonconformist divines ; of bishops and arch-
bishops, and doctors of divinity, and of cardinals,
too; of English and American, and Continental
divines ; of the moderns and the ancients ; of
judges, of civil lawyers, and of statesmen—the
opinion of the Royal Commissioners themselves
appointed to inquire into the subject. Indeed, we
should say that this advertisement is conclusive
evidence that the law ought to be altered. On
some subjects we are told that a demand is one
founded on popular clamour merely ; here, such a
list of the educated as few demands could produce
are its apology. What weight can the shameless
abuse of the Times, denominating that incest which
such men are certain is not forbidden by GOD'S law
—what weight can such low vituperation have
against men like those whose names appear in this
list? We understand the narrow majority for
bigotry in the House of Lords last session has
frightened the EXETERS,and OXFORDS, and BERES -
FORD HOPES, and that they will do all they can
with country clergymen and their churchwardens
before next session, but, as we believe, entirely in
vain. Church canons must bend to the Scriptures,
and to the common sense of Englishmen.