Affinity No Bar to Marriage

Front matter

AFFINITY NO BAR TO MARRIAGE,

BY

TROY, N. Y.: William H. Young. 1881.

Part 1

§1§ 1. Marriage with deceased wife's sister, being not only lawful and frequent in this country, but "deemed in a moral, religious and Christian sense, exceedingly praiseworthy" (Story's Conflict of Laws, § 115), Bishop Doane's pamphlet against it is quite startling. ("God's Law of Marriage, by Wm. Croswell Doane, Bishop of Albany." New York, 1880.)

We have known, indeed, that our Civil-Laws, and Protestant public-opinion on this subject, differed from Romish canons and practices, that yet prevail in England. But we have commonly accepted as right, our own inherited Marriage-system; and few of us have seriously considered the subject thus introduced to public attention. And when Bishop Doane comes forward, as the Champion of 24 Protestant Bishops, who carried (against 20) the Romish prohibition, and with confident assurance, presents a "God's law," against such marriage, it may be well to revise the foundations of our faith, and see whether his law be such, or only a medieval Canon.

In pursuing this inquiry, whilst we should give ear to the "watchmen who blow the trumpet" (p. 28) of their Marriage Gospel, and be open to conviction, we should consider that our Modern-Civilization, of which current opinion on this subject forms a part, is incomparably beyond that of earlier ages, to which the Bishop directs us, and yields no light presumption in our favor. Standing then on this vantage-ground of presumptive right, let us meet our assailants, and see whether the weapons they raise against us, are from the armory of the God of Hosts, or only antiquated wooden guns.

In conducting our research, we may fairly assume that the Bishop's pamphlet presents against us the strength of the Ecclesiastical side; and unless it shall sustain its "God's Law" manifesto, we need not believe it a "Sin" that we take our sisters-in-law to wife, instead of subjecting them, as in Papal-States and England, to the servitude of upper-nurses and house-keepers.

Taking then our stand-point in the living and honored Present, let us follow the Bishop back into the dim Past for his antique law.

Our attention is thus first drawn to laws of 25 and 28, Henry VIII (A.D., 1533 & '6), as forbidding such marriages. And as these take us back of the Reformation, and to periods when lay reading of the English Bible, was prohibited alike by State and Church, we are not disposed to reverence the dictation of that age. But being honest inquirers, let us see what comes down to us from these sources:

Henry VIII wanted to wed Catherine of Aragon, who had been betrothed, and by an Ecclesiastical fiction, mar- ried to his late brother Arthur. But the Church's "prohibited degrees" of that period, included such relationship of brother's fictitious widow, and barred the marriage. It however harmonized with the politics of the Papacy, and a Dispensation was granted by Pope Julius II, on the ground that such bar was only Ecclesiastical; and English Clergy cried Amen, and Catherine became their Queen. Later, the King tired of Catherine, and lusted after Anne Boleyn; and seeking a Dispensation to wed her, his pliant Ecclesiastics urged it on the reverse theory, that the marriage with Catherine was void, because the bar against it was Scriptural, and therefore not dispensable. But the Papacy retained its former position, and refused a Dispensation. Thereupon, the King being set in his amour, and his Ecclesiastics and Parliament being supple panderers to it, its English branch rebelled against the Church's doctrine, that such degree was only Ecclesiastical, and set up an unreformed English Church, with the Royal Adulterer at its Head, and its schismatic dogma, of a Scriptural-prohibition of marriage with a deceased brother's Ecclesiastical widow, as its distinctive principle.

Chamberlain. It seems the marriage with his brother's wife Has crept too near his conscience. Suffolk. No, his conscience Has crept too near another lady." >> Henry VIII. Shakespeare.

Then followed the act of 25 Henry VIII divorcing Henry from Catherine, and legalizing his adultery with Anne (Elizabeth was born Sept. 7, 1533) on the then English theory, that marriage with brother's widow was anti-Scriptural. But presently followed that of 28th year, vacating the marriage with Anne, on the opposite theory, that the brother's widow degree was only Ecclesiastical; and during the reign of Mary, her legitimacy, and that theory, prevailed. Then when Elizabeth became Queen (1558), her legitimacy demanded the former theory; and, having made Parker, her mother's chaplain, Archbishop of Canterbury, he made up for her the 1560 Table of Degrees; but they never became authoritative, for want of Parliamentary sanction. (Westminster Rev., July, 1880, Art. iv, p. 44.)

That the King's adultery, and the corruption of his Priesthood and Parliament, opened a way to later good, is gladly recognized. But no respect is due, to either of the opposite teachings of the Henry VIIIth Church on this subject; nor can the Parker table command any respect. But instead, these events teach that at least in that age, Prohibited Degrees were but Ecclesiastical contrivances, with which State and Church "played fast and loose" as interest and policy dictated.

It is also a significant fact, that modern England is strongly arrayed against its sister-in-law restriction. Seven times its House of Commons have passed a repeal; with little more than the help of a pervading moral conviction, that marriage with sister-in-law is appropriate and right, petitions for such repeal go up from vast numbers; in 1880 Lord Houghton presented one of 42,500 women of Leeds alone; in answer to a late call by post, 1,820 electors of Mid-lothian thus petitioned. out-numbering the votes ever cast for any Parliamentary candidate for Edingburg-shire; the House of Commons last year had over 400 members in favor of the repeal, but a few bitter opponents were able, by a trick, to postpone its business order beyond its being reached; and in the Upper House the Bench of Bishops are continuing the wrong only by diminishing majorities. Last year, the majority in the House of Lords, against the second reading of Lord Houghton's bill, was only 11; and may be said to have been made up of Bishops, for 11 voted against it—being all the voting Bishops, except the Bishop of Ripon.

The same West. Rev. says of these Bishops: "In every division, they are found largely to turn the scale against the Bill. Chargeable as they are with the infinite mischiefs of the act of 1835, they yet refuse to lend any aid in correcting them; they are resolute in the face of the House of Commons and of the country, in their attitude of defiance. Verily, they justify their antecedents. For what measure of reform and justice, have they not resisted? That Slavery has been abolished—that the People have obtained Reform—that the Corn-laws were repealed—that an alien Church in Ireland was disestablished.—that the Roman-catholics and the Jews have acquired the rights of citizens—so far from being due to their votes and influence, are results achieved against all their exertions. Which of the Reformers have they not persecuted? Which of the Reforms have they not opposed?" (The Art. then excepts the Bishops of Worcester and Ripon.)

Can it be that our 24 Bishops are only serving their English brethren? It would seem so; for they can scarcely hope, that the House of Deputies will unite in the child's play of making paper Canons, to war with Civil Laws, and a contemptuous Public-opinion. And if so, the rewards which such a service may yield them abroad, are a sorry equivalent for the harm they do at home.

But Bishop Doane leads us further back, and invites attention to his voluminous evidences, that the marriage in question was (1st) within the "prohibited degrees" of Canon-Law, from perhaps the 6th century; and (2nd) was forbidden in some places in the 4th century.

Glancing at such evidences, it fills us with alarm to find, that "up to the 13th century, inter-marriage was forbidden between (relatives) by affinity, to the seventh degree" (p. 21.): For, if the revered Ecclesiastics of those earlier centuries were right, there is a fearful amount of the Bishop's "incest" going on in Church circles, in these "licentious" times, so far removed from those advanced periods. And then, as we go back of the Bishop's evidences, to more primitive centuries, we even reach a period, when all second marriages were prohibited; and the case grows worse.

Noticing these things, and considering how decisive early authority is, to all whose ideal is in the past, we cannot but appreciate the leniency of the House of Bishops, in starting with the modest beginning of the Henry VIIIth Church, and working back slowly to the earlier Fathers. And as we are not of those who face to the dark ages, it is a relief to learn, that starting thence and coming toward the light, "prohibited degrees" continuously diminished as general intelligence increased; for it is inferable, that they had but an uncertain foundation, and with the associated dispensations for violating them, were only corrupt devices for strengthening Ecclesiastical Power, and lining the Church's coffers.

Note.—At one period the Dispensation rates were—for marriage with deceased wife's sister, about $5,000, and between first cousins, about $833. (Code Matrim., t. 1, p. 37.)

Of course, our opponents, despite their devotion to authority, ask our respect only for the retained degrees of the 16th century, and scorn that authority, as to scores of dropped degrees, whose absurdity they are pleased to recognize. But this puts them in the awk ward fix, of asking respect for an Authority, which has confessedly been persistently wrong, on the general question of degrees. And we must be quite safe, in according without stint, to the instruction of Fathers and Councils on this subject, that scorn of which their best friends yield them such large measure.

Indeed, as we analyze Church-Authority concerning Prohibited Degrees, its teaching is not that of any one period, for all its various other teachings are against each one; nor is it of a degree that is common to all, for that rule would equally have prevented each successive diminution. (Ex. gr. In 16th Century, that Authority was oppressive, against dropping the degree of first cousins.) But that teaching is the Church's Law of relaxing its Degrees, with advancing intelligence. And if our Bishops had heeded this, and considered the advance since 25 Henry VIII, they would have seen that the time has fully come, for yielding all degrees of mere affinity.

But all such authority, at its best, yields only Human law, and not the Bishop's God's law.

Note.—The "Apostolical Canons" (so called) forbade only clergymen from marrying deceased wife's sister. Canon 19 was, "Qui duas sorores duxit, aut consobrinam, clericus non potest." Thence, as church power increased, that Canon was enlarged, and marriage restrictions multiplied, until marriage was prohibited if any relationship by blood or marriage was traceable. Later, with the dawn of the Reformation, the policy of reducing Degrees was adopted; and one degree after another was dropped down to Henry VIIIth's time.

The Bishop claims, however, for his "catena of authorities" much more than that the sister-in-law case was within the "prohibited degrees." What he does, is to go back to Lev. xviii for his "God's law"; and not content with its poor help, he tenders his Catena as proof, that his interpretation of the chapter—as prohibiting marriage with sister-in-law—has prevailed "in all ages, and in all portions of the Christian Church," (p. 9) and "is so ancient, and so universal, as to come almost, if not quite, within the Vincentian Rule" (p. 8). And we shall assume, for the present, that his Catena dates his interpretation back to St. Basil, his earliest authority. (4th Century.)

Now an operative Mosaic-law, and such an interpretation of it, is a very serious affair; and if the Bishop is right, a question arises whether any whom such law condemns, should not adopt its accompanying expedient, of writing Bills of Divorcement to their wives, and bidding them say an affectionate Farewell. But we must not be alarmed too soon, into that low-lived practice, that belonged to the Mosaic marriage-system, (which our opponents affect so much,) of buying wives like cattle, keeping them as mere slaves to passion, and only during pleasure, and that recognized woman as devoid of any right (even of virtue) which lustful men were required to respect (Exod. xx: 7-11; Deut. xxiv: 1; Lev. xix: 20; Deut. xxii: 22-29, etc., etc.); And so, in the interest of Love, and Virtue, and advanced Morals, and Christian Monogamy (instead of Jewish Polygamy) let us see, if we may not live on with them, until parted by death.

Starting then, with the supposed interpretation against us, "so ancient and so universal," we next examine the Vincentian Rule (Quod semper. quod ubique. quod ab omnibus) and we see at once, that it demands an early, as well as continuous and universal interpretation. And lo! we breathe freely again, as the period which Bishop Doane boldly minimizes to "almost, if not quite," nothing at all, reveals itself as a yawning gulf of 1800 years.

Indeed, as we inform ourselves about the intervening Jewish interpretation, of the law given to that nation, and which the Bishop proclaims, we become quite jubilant, on seeing that his Vincentian Rule is a petard, which shivers his Catena to atoms. For on inquiry into Jewish history and lore, we find that from the days of Moses down through the 18 centuries, which had elapsed when (as supposed), St. Basil initiated a contrary reading of Lev. xviii, the Jewish nation, Rabbis and People, had continuously interpreted and practiced it, with universal sanction, as permitting marriage with deceased wife's sister. Ergo: The Vincentian Rule (its principle) commanded acceptance of such Jewish interpretation, by Christian Fathers and Councils; and it equally excludes an adherence to the reverse one, by Bishop Doane, and his little coterie. The case is as if the Mormons, after a like lapse of 18 centuries, should initiate a new reading of Christ's teachings, as enjoining polygamy.

Note.—A like interpretation, permitting marriage with brother's widow, also prevailed: and such marriages were freely made, down to the seventh century, A.D., when civil-law interrupted them in Europe.

But it may be asked, does Bishop Doane state the controlling fact of such Jewish interpretation? Oh! no: it was not for a partisan advocate to give any such admission. But when we find his guide (Dr. Pusey), on the witness-stand before a Commission of Enquiry into the sister-in-law restriction, the fact is drawn out. (Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, by Dr, E. B. Pusey and E. Badeley, Esq. Ans. 440–2; Preface, p. li.)

Note.—The writer has a letter from a Jewish rabbi, of wide reputation for learning, saying "In Jewish law, it is not prohibited to marry a deceased wife's sister; hence nothing was written about it. In history, we find that this was frequently done in Israel, without any protest from any body."

Clearly this dilemma, between sister-in-law servitude and the Vincentian Rule, is a sorry one for our opponents. But though the Jewish interpretation puts us at ease, we must not flatter ourselves, that artful Ecclesiastics can be paled on the horns of a dilemma. And let us see, for the nonce, how an adroit partisan, like Dr. Pusey, met this difficulty: And we at once find, that as 1800 years are, in Bishop Doane's sight, only as one day, so the feat of getting rid of the Vincentian Rule, when it worked against him, was just as easy to Dr. Pusey as A B C. All that he found needful for a favorable and Christian audience, was an off-hand slur at the Jews, ex. gr. "As for the traditions of the Jewish Church, they must, any how, it seems, be adverse to Christianity." (Ibid., Preface li.) Capital: is it not? And how telling an appeal to Christian prejudice! And what a fine rap at the Jews! And how depreciatory of their interpretation of their Pentateuch! Only think of it, what wonderful prescience those ante-christian Jews had, of the future coming of St. Basil and Henry VIIIth's supple Ecclesiastics, et hoc genus omne; and with what artifice, they occupied themselves from the Mosaic era to the arrival of St. Basil, in marrying their sisters-in-law, and reading Lev. xviii as permitting it, just to upset St. Basil's teachings, and the Henry VIIIth Gospel of Divorce.

Or, if that way of dodging the Vincentian Rule affords no escape, and the alternative be adopted, that the Jews unfortunately did not understand Hebrew, and were misled by an awkwardness of the law, this would charge God with a serious mistake, in giving them an unintelligible Hebrew law—a law that was not one to those to whom it was one. And in such case, how strange that God let them go on, in ignorant disobedience of the actual law, for 15 centuries, and until after that Dispensation had closed! And how marvellous that He did not earlier send Dr. Pusey, or Bishop Doane, to translate to the Hebrews, His blind law into intelligible English.

We have thus far assumed that such Catena substantiates the claim for it, of proving an interpretation of Lev. xviii, as forbidding the marriage in question, back to St. Basil (4th Century, A.D.). And if we should accept as proof the Bishop's confident assurances to above effect, it would be overwhelming.

Note.—His Catena forms the second division of his argument; is offered as evidence that his reading of vv. 6, 16 (p. 9–18) "has been understood to be the meaning and intent of Holy Scripture in all ages, and in all portions, of the Christian Church" (p. 9),—such reading being of v. 6, as including not only remote kin, but also relatives by affinity, and alleged parallels to the specified ones, and then of v. 16, as prohibiting "one wife to another," and so polygamy (p. 9–18); is introduced with "What is the authority for this interpretation of Scripture?" (p. 18), and extends to p. 27; quoting St. Basil, and with evident reference to such interpretations, he says "it is the witness of the primitive Church, in the purest ages, to this interpretation of Holy Scripture" (p. 23); and then concludes his Catena with "they make a chain of consentaneous witnesses from the very first" (p. 25), "only the Author of a law can dispense or abrogate it. And this is neither State law, nor Church law, but the law of God." (sic, p. 26.)

But the best men are sometimes carried away by zeal, and err; and let us now examine this matter.

Taking up his liberal quotations of the vulgarities of St. Basil, who is the Bishop's favorite authority, that acrimonious Father reveals himself, on inspection, as resting his indecent hostility to marriage with sister-in-law, on "Custom," "Rules" (p. 21) and "Nature" (p. 22); and therefore he appears, as not an authority on the point to which he is cited, but as imputing such marriages to foul motives, and thus doing a defamatory service. Warned thus, and resorting to The Speaker's Commentary (by Bishops and other Clergy of the Anglican Church), we learn (vol. 1, p. 601) that St. Basil "declared that the Mosaic law of Prohibited-Degrees does not bind Christians, more than the law of Circumcision." Thus, that coarse Saint must be dropped from the Bishop's Catena, and stand good only for his Ribaldry, and against the Bishop, as to the permanency of Lev. xviii.

Note.—We judge of St. Basil by the Bishop's exhibition of him.

Proceeding with his Catena, we further find that, with a single exception, all the Bishop's authorities concerning earlier periods than Henry VIIIth's Divorce law, utterly fail to show, or intimate, that the degree in question, or any Prohibited-Degree, was based on Lev. xviii, or was other than simply Ecclesiastical. That exception is a citation (p. 24) from Dr. Pusey concerning the Easternchurch, whose Degrees differed widely from the Westernchurch, and whose authority on the subject is insignificant.

Thus seeing the deplorable poverty of the "Catena," as evidence that the degree in question was based on an interpretation of Lev. xviii against us, we turn again to The Speaker's Com. (V. 1, p. 601) and see that "the Fathers in general, most of the Schoolmen, and the medieval Church," did not regard the Levitical Degrees as in current force;—and it thence follows that they did not repose their Prohibited Degrees thereon.

It is not therefore surprising, that Bishop Doane's Catena so miserably fails to sustain his position; and our only surprise is, that he ventured such groundless claims for it.

To the foregoing, may be added these considerations, against a repose of the degree in question on Lev. xviii, before Henry VIIIth's Church resorted there, for defending his adultery with Anne Boleyn.

It is generally conceded, and very clear, that v. 18 implies the lawfulness of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, unless our translation "a wife to her sister" be changed to "one wife to another," or the like. But the Hebrew was similarly translated (as in Eng. Bible) in the Septuagint (B.C.) the Targums of Onkelos and of Ben Uziel, the Mishna, the Vulgate, etc.; and such translation was unchallenged from the 3rd century B.C., to 1575 A.D., when Junius and Tremellius initiated a new version (Ibid., p. 602). But despite the imperative need of a radical change, for basing a restriction against sister-in-law on Lev. xviii, the old and natural translation was adhered to by the King James' translators, in 1611.

In introducing this subject to public attention, it would seem that Justice and Truth demanded of Bishop Doane a judicial rather than a partisan statement of the case; and that he should at least have stated that his version of v. 18 was a novel one, and was repudiated by The Speaker's Commentary.

The continued polygamy of Israel, and of its best men, verifies the regular translation; for such change would convert v. 18 into an improbable law against polygamy. (See Part II.) The far-reaching Prohibited Degrees, from the 6th to the 14th century, preclude their having been based on Lev. xviii.Note.—Says Jeremy Taylor, "The reasons given by the projectors of this Canon law were as fit a cover for the dish as could be imagined. There are four humours in the body of a man, they say, to which because the four degrees of consanguinity do answer, it is proportionable to nature, to forbid the marriage of cousins to the fourth degree." Ecclesiastical power rendered such repose needless. Dogmatism ruled, and the people lacked both Bibles and learning. The doctrine of the Western Church, (including its English branch,) as to the Degree of brother's widow, when Henry VIIIth married Catherine, was adverse to such basis.

And thus we fairly reach the conclusion,—that the repose on Lev. xviii of the degree in question was only as a parallel to that of brother's widow; and that such repose of the latter originated in 1533, as a distinctive dogma of the English Church, propounded in defence of Henry VIIIth's adulterous union with Anne Boleyn. And it is also reasonably inferable, that the uniform Principle of the very varying "Prohibited degrees" from the 3rd to the 16th century, was not a currently corresponding exegesis of Lev. xviii, but an adoption of blood-degrees of various remoteness, and an extension of those degrees to marriage-relatives—probably, on the fiction of a Marriage-Fleshship.

Therefore, it very certainly follows from the foregoing, that Authority, which our Bishops are reasonably supposed to respect very highly, is most oppressive against them; and that their Champion's strong assertions to the contrary, are wofully opposed to Fact.

In making the long leap back to Moses, we cannot fail to notice that Bishop Doane jumps an era, which Christendom regards of no mean importance as shaping its Civilization, and yielding its Moral and Social laws. Nor can we be indifferent to the startling fact, that he wholly ignores certain Gospels and Epistles, which we are prone to value somewhat higher, than any obscene Diatribe of St. Basil, or the Polygamous Code that intervened the primitive days when Jacob worked 14 years for only two wives, (and the best one of those a sister-in-law) and the more affluent period when Solomon reigned in glory, and had a bountiful harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines. (I Kings, xi: 3.)

Pausing thus at the wall across the ages, which divides the Old centuries from the New, the Mosaic from the Gospel period, and the age of Lines and Precepts from that of Faith, Hope and Love, we might well rest there, instead of following the Bishop, in an archæological search, amongst the ruins of Judaism, for some mutilated fragment, which he can transform into a hostile missile. But let us follow him on.

Concerning the Mosaic-code, as such, we suppose that the House of Bishops have about the same idea as the rest of the Christian world. They would not dispute that it has, in general, been superseded by the Gospel Dispensation, and become obsolete; nor would they criticise the general completeness of the New Testament. In fact, it is unlikely, that in the whole range of life and duty, there is another instance, in which they find the New Testament deficient, and are thus driven to the Old, for their authority. Thus, it is but a wee bit they want to add to the New Testament—only a little supplement borrowed from Marriage-laws of that obsolete Code—and then it will be all right in their eyes, and Christianity become a well rounded and Perfect System.

But Christian Consistency fairly requires our Bishops to submit to the silence of the New Testament on this subject, and to Civil-Laws and Public-Opinion, that are in full harmony with its Teachings. At least, instead of resorting to a defunct polygamous-system for a marriage-law, they may well continue the Good-policy of Silence. For the spirit of the age has put marriage on a broader basis than their narrow authority, and on a higher plane than their Flesh one: And if they could carry the House of Deputies with them, their best success would be a brutum fulmen.

Presuming thus to add somewhat from such Code to the Gospel, we wonder by what Authority the Church can issue an Eclectic Edition of that Code, and incorporate it into the New Testament. Surely, there should be ample authority for such high-handed work; and it would not, by any means answer, to commit it to bunglers. And let us see, what authority Bishop Doane appends to his edition, of Mosaic Laws Binding on Christians; and as the Volume is small, we give it in full, with the text revised to suit his fancy "A man shall not marry any flesh of his flesh, or his brother's widow,"—extended by parallelism to deceased wife's sister. His authority is this (we quote in full) "It is plainly part of the Moral law, and therefore unrepealed by God, and unalterable by man." (p. 9.)

But we cannot see that the supposed law against marrying brother's widow, is any more moral than the opposite one (Deut. xxv: 5), requiring marriage with her, if the brothers were neighbors and she were childless; nor can we see the supposed parallelism, or that either law stands on any different footing from scores of other Mosaic-laws, which our Bishops unite with Christendom in rejecting as obsolete.

Indeed, in every such case, whether one or another law commends itself as moral, or seems exceptional, is largely a matter of varying judgment, depending upon education and circumstances. Thus, many Englishmen, who have been accustomed to laws and social life, that favor the domestication of sisters-in-law, as a useful class of upper-servants, may deem it so conveniently natural to use them in that way, that they have come to regard their humble situation as a sort of Divine Institution. And it is fair to suppose, that Bishop Doane affects this English notion, and so, regards marriage with a sister-in-law as quite unnatural, and therefore immoral. But any such idea, is certainly exceptional in this country amongst Protestants; for here the voices of nature and morality dictate that "sweetest and most natural thing" of making wives, not servants, of sisters-in-law who please us; and Protestant judgment sanctions Nature's law of marriage, rather than the Bishop's law against marriage with brother's widow, which he constructs from God's law against illicit intercourse with a brother's wife. Thus habits, and modes of thought, affect our judgment on such questions; and it is very unsafe to issue an Eclectic Edition of God's laws (choosing one and rejecting another) upon distinctions of individual taste; and no one can impose any such edition upon others.

But perhaps we have misunderstood the Bishop, as to what it is that he asserts is part of the Moral-law; and that he refers not to this or that provision which suits his fancy, but to the subject of Marriage as a Moral one, and to Mosaic laws on that subject, as Moral-laws, which therefore abide.

If such be his meaning, the citations in 2d paragraph of § 4 (ante) abundantly discredit the Mosaic Marriage-system as a moral one; but we yield space to a few other objections.

The theory that Marriage formed the subject of Lev. xviii: 6–17 is not at present called in question.

1st. That system was one of temporary expedients, adapted only to a low stage of polygamous life; and that Protestant Bishops should resort to such a system for marriage-laws, shocks moral-sentiment. Even Dr. Pusey admits that "Marriage is altogether in a degraded state, when parties on mutual consent can have the marriage vow dissolved"; and it was in a worse state under Mosaic-law, for the husband alone could dissolve it at will.

2d. The penalties of such laws (commonly death) were part of them; and the laws fell, with the power to enforce them.