for any errors of law on my part, yet it is a satisfaction to me to know that I assert no legal propositions, but those which I can venture to submit even to their scrutiny. I have, however, divided the substance of my argument into two letters, because I wish carefully to separate the ordinary, though cogent, moral and social reasons for objecting to an alteration of the law, from those that are founded on a belief in Revelation. I shall in this my first letter address myself to those who either altogether reject Scriptural authority on the subject, or deny that it can be cited in opposition to the marriage in question. If the Bible had never existed, the arguments contained in this letter would lose no weight. In my second letter I shall give my reasons for believing that the Word of God has spoken authoritatively on the subject.
Some of the supporters of the proposed change have, with an unfairness which always implies conscious weakness in the advocate, adopted the vulgar course of nicknaming their opponents. "The opposition to the 'Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill' (it has been said) is a High Church, or Puseyite opposition." This assertion is simply ridiculous in face of the facts. Neither the Archbishop of Canterbury amongst our prelates, nor the Earl of Shaftesbury amongst our distinguished religious laity, nor the "Record" amongst religious journals, nor the established Kirk in Scotland, has ever been suspected of ultra High Church tendencies, yet all support the
