L

and was unquestionably introduced to countenance and legalize the adulterous inclinations of that abandoned monarch.

Thus the act of the 25 Henry VIII., c. 22, the first act of parliament, which declared that a marriage with a deceased wife's sister is contrary to God's law, was passed for the principal purpose of legalizing that monarch's divorce with Catherine of Arragon, his late brother, Prince Arthur's widow, and of illegitimatizing his daughter by her the princess Mary.

Within three years from the time when this act of injustice had been agreed to by the legislature, Anne Boleyn, on whose account it was enacted, had perished on the scaffold. On the next day, Henry married the lady Jane Seymour, and in the next month the act 28 Henry VIII., c. 7, was passed; the second and only other act in which the parliament of England has ever declared that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is forbidden by the law of God. This act declares the king's two former marriages to be void, pronounces both Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, and confirms the succession to his heirs by Jane Seymour.

The only other act in this reign upon the subject in question, was the act of 32 Henry VIII., c. 38. It repeals the former act, sets forth in its preamble, the inconveniences which had arisen by reason of other prohibitions than God's law admitteth, invent. ed by the court of Rome for their lucre, and enacts, "That all persons are lawful to marry that be not prohibited by God's law; and that no reservation or prohibition (God's law excepted) shall trouble or impeach any marriage without the Levitical degrees."

The two former acts are repealed. This last was repealed by Philip and Mary, but being revived by Elizabeth, is still in force, and it would, from this, seem that there is not in existence any act of parliament defining the term, " prohibited degrees."

In the year 1563, a table of degrees, within which persons were prohibited to marry, was prepared, called by the name of " Archbishop Parker's Table of Degrees," published by his authority, and ordered to be placed in our churches. This table, which among others prohibits marriage with a deceased wife's sister, is referred to in the ninety-ninth canon of the English church, passed in the year 1603, which declares, "that all marriages made and contracted within the degrees expressed in this table, shall be adjudged incestuous, and consequently shall be dissolved as void from the beginning."

This then is the canon law of England, but Lord Hardwicke, in the year 1736, in a most elaborate argument in the court of king's bench, decided, "that the canons of 1603, having been made since the reformation, and not having been confirmed by parliament, do

not bind the laity in matters merely ecclesitical. And it has been doubted, even in the ecclesiastical courts, whether these canons are binding on laymen.

These references to law are extracted from a pamphlet well worthy an attentive perusal, entitled, Considerations on the state of the Law regarding marriages with a Deceased Wife's Sister, by H. R. Reynolds, jun., M.A., Barrister at law. Longman and Co., 1840.

Thus stood the matter until 1835, and it was common to have such marriages celebrated. They could be disputed by any interested party in the ecclesiastical court, but unless the suit was commenced during the life of both the parties who had so married, it could not be sustained. It is generally known that the reason of introducing the bill in 1835, was, that a prohibited marriage having taken place in a noble family, and proceedings being threatened, which might have disturbed the property, our legislature determined thus to protect the parties who were in danger of ecclesiastical proceedings, and by a law the consistency of which the framers of it must expound, all such marriages having already taken place were declared firm and good, and all such in future taking place, were pronounced null and void.

In the House of Commons there was an intimation that a bill would be introduced to legalize the marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and with one or two others of the prohibited affinities, but although various petitions have been presented, and some of them numerously signed by clergymen, all alteration has been resisted. Scripture our bishops cannot quote, but they are very eloquent on the law and custom of their church. The misery which a law so unjust and unscriptural inflicts, and the immorality to which it leads, need not be described.

The only portion of your queries which remains unanswered, is that which has reference to what, under such a state of the law, a Christian ought to do. The consideration is a very grave one, and which, on other questions beside this, deserves more attention than it has received. It appears very doubtful to say the least whether a Christian ever has a right to break the laws of his country unless those laws require from him some personal religious acts which he cannot conscientiously perform, and as the marriage contemplated cannot come within this definition, it becomes very questionable whether in England a Christian ought to attempt such a union. Where the expense can be met, and the requisite registers obtained, various States, both on the Continent and in America, present an opening for the legal celebration of such marriages, and by adopting such a plan, a Christian saves himself from the very questionable step of breaking the laws of his country. Whether such a marriage would be held valid in this

country, however, remains to be tried, as the case has never yet come into any of our courts, and legal advisers are divided in their opinions on the question.

I remain, yours truly,

E.

ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. MY DEAR SIR,-It will, I doubt not, be freely conceded by many of your intelligent readers, that the present is distinguished above any former period of the church, for a spirit of searching inquiry; and that religious usages, however venerable for their age, and sacred for the undisputed prevalence which they have obtained, will have their claims to our regard closely examined, and if found inconsistent with the scriptures of truth, will be thrown aside without further ceremony, as so much ecclesiastical lumber for which we have no further use.

Permit me, Mr. Editor, through the medium of your valuable pages, to call the attention of the members of our churches, who, from indisposition and other causes, are occasionally deprived of the presence and stated labours of their respective pastors, to the following important questions, viz., Is ordination to the pastoral office a qualification to dispense the Lord's supper? or would it be disorderly in a church to "do this in remembrance of" their crucified Lord, in the absence of a minister,

whether ordained or not?

Having known a church of long standing bring the pastor of another church, fifty miles distant, for the express purpose of administering the Lord's supper, while, at the same time, they had a student occupying their pulpit with efficiency and acceptance, I am led to infer that a superstitious idea of the ceremony of ordination, of too close affinity to the dogma of "apostolical succession," must exist in the minds of some, highly discreditable to us as "protestant dissenters." Is it not, I would ask, high time for us to free ourselves from practices so questionable as these? In conclusion, allow me, in deference to the opinion of your numerous correspondents, to suggest the following plan, which I humbly think might be adopted by a church when destitute of its pastor:-Let the members meet and appoint some experienced and spiritually-minded brother, say a senior deacon (but not because he is a deacon), to officiate till the pastor's return;-such a procedure would, I think, secure a regular attendance upon the ordinance, and at once maintain the harmonious peace and independence of the church.

If you can find room for the above in an early number of your magazine, of which I have long been a reader, and whose circulation I have endeavoured to extend, You will oblige, Yours respectfully, R. CRAGGS.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Ir is not likely that any of our readers will overlook the article in our present number on the Writings of the Early English Baptists; but we may perhaps be permitted to say that it deserves attentive perusal, not only on account of its intrinsic worth, but also because of its bearings on the projected re-publication society. With the author of that paper the proposal originated; he is now acting as the Secretary of the Provisional Committee; and any suggestions respecting the design, especially such as may assist in determining the propriety of the undertaking, he will thankfully receive at Avening House, near Stroud, Gloucestershire. The gentlemen appointed to ascertain the practicability of forming such a society and to prepare a plan of its constitution, to be laid before a meeting held in connexion with the next quarterly meeting of the Baptist Missionary Committee, were Dr. Steane, Dr. Murch, Dr. Davies, Rev. W. Groser, and Mr. Jones. It is thought that by an annual subscription of one pound, securing to each subscriber a return of four octavo volumes, the object may be effected in the course of a few years.

The Treasurer of the Bible Translation Society, J. H. Allen, Esq., being about to remove to Hastings, with a view to the improvement of the health of a part of his family, requests us to say that he begs that, for the present, all communications relating to the Society be addressed to the Secretary, the Rev. Dr. Steane, Camberwell.

Mr. and Mrs. Horne, respected members of the church in Church Street, Blackfriars, who have emigrated to Canada, in the hope of promoting the best interests of some of its inhabitants, arrived safely at Montreal on the fourth of August.

The handsome chapel recently erected at Greenwich by the Rev. Joshua Russell and his friends was opened for divine worship on the 4th of September. In our next we hope to give, with an account of the opening services, a view of its external appearance.