Paley's terse and striking observations in his Natural Theology, chap. xxvi., including his few remarks upon death. With especial recommendation I also point out a small volume, full of truth and wisdom, published in 1842, Moral Agency, and Man as a Moral Agent; by Mr. William Mac Combie. The second part contains much that casts light upon the present inquiry, particularly Section II. on the Original Condition and Powers of Man; and Section III. respecting the Uses of Suffering. I submit to you one brief extract:

"The sufferings of the lower animals have been very generally regarded as occasioned chiefly or solely by the sin of man; but such a conclusion seems discredited by the recent disclosures of geological research. These astonishing disclosures open up to us an entirely new view of the constitution of the universe; and, in casting about for a solution of the (as it seems to our notions) awful and anomalous fact of the universal prevalence of suffering and death, the idea presents itself that trial and pain may be indispensable to the development of mind, as we have every reason to believe they are in every system of moral agency. It has been generally assumed, but unphilosophically we think, and certainly without any authority from Scripture, that the original state of man must have been one of unmingled enjoyment; and preachers and poets have strained their imaginations, and exhausted nature, for images to picture its felicity. Now, if the principles we have been endeavouring to establish be correct, a being gliding on the stream of undisturbed enjoyment, nothing desirable denied him, and nothing to regulate or restrain, could not be a moral being. As to the moral use of suffering, then, we conceive that something of that nature is inseparable from a state of moral probation.-Trial is essential to moral agency. But, what is trial? Can there be any trial but what involves something desirable which we have to refrain from; or something difficult to perform; or something painful to submit to ?"

In this relation a paper well deserves to be studied, presented lately to the Ashmolean Society at Oxford, and printed in the last number of Professor Jameson's Edinburgh Philosophical Journal (Oct. 1847); On the Beneficent Distribution of the Sense of Pain, by Mr. G. Á. Rowell.

II. I may now proceed to the second of my friend's questions; and I trust that brevity will be permitted.

i. Speculations as to what would or might have been the condition of things, arising out of the complicated movements of free intellect and agency, upon suppositions which were never to be realized, should be indulged with great caution, and a modest jealousy over ourselves. We are sure that the Infinite Mind, which infallibly foresaw the sin and ruin of human nature, could not fail to predetermine and adjust all physical events according to what would be their relation to man in his fallen state. If we could know no more than this, surely it would be sufficient to us for every purpose of religious obedience, in humility and piety.

ii. We cannot doubt but that the physical conformation of our first parents was perfect, and completely adapted to every purpose of duty and probation.

iii. It was necessary, and eminently suited to their happy yet probationary condition, that they should acquire a knowledge of many physical evils; by which I mean inconvenient effects produced by the atmosphere, the variations of temperature, the creeping of insects, and many other natural causes. The experience of such discomforts would furnish valuable warnings against really serious causes of pain.

iv. That Adam and Eve might understand the nature of the penalty denounced in case of disobeying the positive precept (Gen. iii. 3), which was the most proper kind of test; it seems reasonable to suppose that they were, to some extent, acquainted with the suffering threatened, and that such acquaintance had arisen from their observation of death in animals.

v. If our first parents had continued in the state of innocence, faithfully observing the wisely appointed test of obedience, and persevering for an assigned period in love and loyalty to their Divine Sovereign, humbly venture to suppose that they would not have passed through any gate of death, but would, in the maturity of their faculties, have been translated to some higher state of holiness, activity, and happiness. And, upon that supposition, their posterity might, perhaps, have been placed in similar circumstances of probation, each personally, and with the prospect of a similar result.

But let us beware of unhallowed conjectures, unprofitable and vain. Enough is made known to us for every desirable purpose of faith, duty, devotion, and happiness, so long as we continue in this mortal

state.

Homerton College, Nov. 15, 1847.

J. PYE SMITH.

NOTICES

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister not forbidden by the Law of Nature; not Dissuaded by Expediency; not Prohibited by the Scriptures including an Examination of Professor Bush's Notes on Leviticus. By the Rev. J. F. DENHAM, M.A. F.R.S. 8vo. pp. 60. Simpkin and Marshall, London, 1847.

Report of the Arguments of Counsel, and of the Judgments of Lord Denman and the other Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of the Queen v. Chadwick (in error), in Michaelmas Term, 1847. By JAMES COCK EVANS, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law. 8vo. pp. 30. Benning, London.

THESE publications bear on a question of great interest, not only with regard to social policy, but with reference to Scriptural interpretations. Great and increasing as is the interest connected with the question in this country-as may be judged from the fact mentioned by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, that the legality of probably 5000 marriages depended upon the recent decision in the Court of Queen's Benchthe attention which it has excited in the United States is still greater, as evinced by the large space given to the discussion of the question in nearly all the religious journals, and even in the newspapers. The interest felt in the subject there has received an impulse from the celebrated M'Queen case, which has been agitated with great zeal by a people signally disposed to regulate all such matters according to the enactments of the Mosaical law, and who have therefore felt that to ascertain the true meaning of that law was to settle the question. The case to which we refer is that of the Rev. Archibald M'Queen, who, having married his deceased wife's sister, was for that offence suspended by the Fayetteville presbytery from the communion of the church, and from the exercise of the office of the ministry. This sentence was subsequently confirmed by the General Assembly.

Mr. M'Queen submitted to the sentence for three years, and then applied to be reinstated. The presbytery decided not to restore him. Of this decision he complained to the General Assembly of 1845, and at the same time memorialised that body, praying them to decree his restoration. After the case had been fully heard by the Assembly, it came to the resolution, That the prayer of the memorialist be granted, so far as that the General Assembly recommend the presbytery of Fayetteville to reconsider their decision in the case of the Rev. Archibald M'Queen; and if in their judgment it should appear conducive to the peace of the church, and the promotion of religion in the region around them, to restore Mr. M'Queen to the communion of the church, and to the exercise of the functions of the gospel ministry, on the ground that in

his case the ends of discipline are attained by the operation of the sentence under which Mr. M'Queen has been lying for the space of three years.' The presbytery of Fayetteville, however, suspended its action in the matter, and referred it to the General Assembly of 1846. That body, however, quietly adhered to its former recommendation, by a vote of indefinite postponement. The presbytery then at length did proceed to action, and restored Mr. M'Queen; but of this decision several ministers complained, and appealed to the synod of North Carolina. The synod, however, sustained the action of the presbytery, and the protestors then carried the question once more to the General Assembly of 1847. That body at last resolved to take the matter up in earnest. The affair was fully and ably discussed, though many questions of church rights, and of the power of one Assembly to rescind the acts of another, came under warm discussion-and at this later stage considerably overlaid the substantial question. The conclusion at length was, by a majority of 95 to 53, that the complaint against the synod of North Carolina, for sustaining the presbytery of Fayetteville, in accordance with the decision of the Assembly of 1845, cannot be entertained by this house, and is hereby dismissed.' Fearful of being misunderstood, the Assembly however adds, "In making this disposition of the above-mentioned complaint, this General Assembly wishes it to be distinctly understood that they do not mean to retract or modify any judgment hitherto expressed by any Assembly respecting the offence for which Mr. M'Queen was suspended from the exercise of the gospel ministry; they simply declare that his case cannot be regularly brought before them by this complaint.' The result therefore is, that the restoration of Mr. M'Queen by his presbytery, in accordance with the recommendation of the General Assembly, was a final act which could not be disturbed. The marriage seems to have been regarded as such a breach of ecclesiastical decorum as might have been sufficiently punished by three years' suspension, but not such an offence against the law of God as precluded his being restored without separating from his wife, who, it seems, was all along retained. And we can collect that even this punishment would not have been inflicted were it not that the Confession of Faith, which forms the law of the Presbyterian church, bears so unfavourably on such marriages as to render some action in the matter necessary where a clergyman is concerned. In fact, it was moved by Dr. Patterson, and seconded by Dr. Hoyt, that the Assembly should propose to the presbyteries the question, whether the passage in question should not be expunged from the Confession of Faith, on the ground that the law as it now stands is inconsistent with the practice of the church.' This proposal was negatived by 89 to 57. But a still greater majority, without division, rejected a proposal to reprove those presbyteries and church sessions which allow the formation of this marriage relation.'

6

This case is well worthy of attention, because the settlement and discussion of it lay in the hands of men whose peculiar study was in the law of God, and who necessarily argued it on scriptural grounds; whereas in this country it has been argued more on its legal merits,

by

by men knowing little of Scripture, except in so far as they may have looked into the matter for the nonce. Such marriages were common in the United States, and were not supposed to be in any way improper, till this M'Queen case, and the discussions growing out of it, alarmed many pious minds, and produced much unhappiness. It is there purely a church question; as the public law has nothing to say against such marriages, and does not pronounce them less lawful than any other.

It is instructive to compare the church decision-for such it virtually is-in America, with the legal decision here in the Court of Queen's Bench. The decision in the former case is not so easy to collect, not being formally given on the main question; but practically, and in true significance, it amounts to this, that the marriage with a wife's sister is not contrary to the law of God, and therefore is not such as to be in itself null, or that requires to be dissolved; but that still, with regard to that Confession of Faith which forms the law of the particular church, such marriage becomes an ecclesiastical offence, open to some punishment if formally brought under the notice of the ruling bodies."

The case that comes before our court of law is that of a man tried for bigamy, who by his counsel pleads that, of the two living women with whom he had intermarried, the last only was his wife, seeing that the first was the sister of a wife previously deceased, which rendered her not his wife at all in the eye of the law. The judge sanctioned this plea, and the jury returned their verdict accordingly. The case was then taken by writ of error to the Queen's Bench, and was most elaborately and ably argued before four judges, who in the end concurred in establishing the decision of the court below. The ground on which the decision runs is this-collected from their different judgments, as reported in the publication named at the head of this notice: We are not here to determine the meaning of the law of God. It is clear to us that the law of England regards the law of God as prohibiting such marriages; and although it may be (and Mr. Justice Coleridge, at least, seems to think that it is) wrong in this conclusion, yet this is the interpretation which the law of England puts upon the law of God, and which is therefore binding upon all the subjects of the realm. Such marriages are consequently invalid.' No one of the judges says this in so many words; but this is the collective meaning of what they do say; and, apart from the particular question, this remarkable doctrine of Scriptural interpretation is well worth the consideration of our readers. The following words of Mr. Justice Coleridge claim par

ticular notice :

The attention of the court had been called to the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. If that was necessary, he (Mr. Justice Coleridge) felt that it was painful and inconvenient. He felt very incompetent to enter into it, and there was too much of sacredness in them (the Scriptures) to be made the matter of wrangling in a court of justice. The attention of the court had been called to the authorised version of the Bible, but that was not in existence when that law [of 32 Hen. VIII. c. 38] was passed. The Act was not passed on the footing of that translation, or, in all probability, of any translation in the English language. The court was not examining what God's law was, nor what the Levitical degrees were, but it was

examining