The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA : FRIDAY, OCT. 5, 1877.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 169, 5 October 1877, Page 5

The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA : FRIDAY, OCT. 5, 1877.

The Upper House bas thrown out the Bill by which it was sought to legalise marriage with a deceased wife's sister. This is as we expected, and cannot but be gratifying-* to all who recognise the authority of Scripture. That is an; authority which in these degenerate days has not the respect shown to it, , on the part of many, which, from the very nature of things, it ought to receive from -aU who acknowledge the Soripture to be the Word of God. With many, such as our last week's correspondent, , " A nt-i- Humbug, 1 ' the opinion of a Tait, a Gladstone, a Bright, or a Tyndall, has mora weight than the expressed mind of the Infinitely Wise. Throughout' the somewhat fiippant communication of "An ti- Humbug*,"" there was not the : slightest attempt either to show that God has not legislated for His own established ordinancfi of marriage as He might have . been expected to do, or to ; make it appear that we have wrongly j interpreted what wp believe to be the 1 Divine legislation on the matter of marriage. To do either was open to him, and from Tiis attempting to -do neither, -only one conclusion is deducible. Satisfied that we have tiie very highest authority for the position we hold on this -subject, we do not care to make -our standard the lesser opinion of men who -set up their own notions, and perhaps •it may be their own wishes, or the desire to relieve some of their friends from the false position in which they have placed themselves, in the room of the plain desire of Him who is the Great Author of the marriage relation, <( AntiHumbug " would have proved his title tp his norn de plume if he had shown that the position we hold in opposing the marriage he /avours was not -sustained by the Divine law of marriage. Until he does so, we must tell bim that he would more rightly designate himself by leaving out the preface of his cognomen, or by assuming that of AntiScripture,

Our correspondent is in error in supposing that at any time such marriage was legal in England. Many years ago not a few such marriages had taken place, chiefly in the aristocratic circles of England, resulting 'in considerable confusion in the matter of inheritance and disposal of property. Lord Lyndhurst introduced a Bill, whioh was passed into law, legalising the marriages contracted up to the date of the Act being passed. But that Act declared all such marriages that should -be contracted in future to be illegal. And that Act is the law of England still, and for the sake of maintaining aright the

family relationships with their hallowed and hallowing influences, it is to be hoped that it will continue to be the law of England still. These relationships must be sadly marred and jumbled were it* to become lawful for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, and still more so if this breach of th*» Divine law be followed, as on the Continent of Europe, by permitting* marriage between other forbidden degrees. It is a good rule in this as in other matters, obsta principii — especially where the Divine authority is involved, and a Divine law tampered with.