of these remarks. As to the repetitions, we need to know more respecting the actual condition and social usages of the peculiar people before we can pronounce them to be useless. So also as to varying the specifications in the 18th and 20th chapters. We are not competent to say, a priori, what method of laying down these statutes was the most proper; and we are always upon dubious ground in holding it to be rational to expect' that the word of God should be constructed in any different manner from what it is.

trary to the mind of God? Shall God say that two brothers shall not marry the same woman, because it is an unclean and wicked thing for such near kindred as a brother-in law and a sisterin-law to marry; and shall we say this law allows two sisters to marry the same man, although thereby a brotherin-law and sister-in-law intermarry? Are not two sisters as 'near of kin' to each other as two brothers are? And is not a sister-in-law just as near of kin to her brother-in-law in the one case as in the other? And is not nearness of kin the entire ground of all the pro

Besides, the principle that no one is bound by any thing which is not expressly affirmed-that no constructive or inferential duties are taught in the Scriptures-would seem to be one that leads to the most dangerous results. If the principle of inference or impli» cation is not to be employed in the interpretation, then it follows that a man may lawfully marry his own daughter, for this is nowhere expressly forbidden. If inferences are not binding in the interpretation of the divine law, then we would ask for the express command which was violated by Nadab and Abihu in offering strange fire, and which cost them their lives? Any prohibition in set terms on that subject will be sought for in vain. So again, did not our Saviour tell the Sadducees that they ought to have inferred that the doctrine of the resurrection was true, from what God said to Moses at the bush? When it is expressly declared, moreover, that

The fact is, that certain express prohibitions are contained in these chap-hibitions? ters, and the question is, whether, on legitimate principles of interpretation, certain other prohibitions touching degrees of kindred precisely similar are not also involved. As to the marriage with a deceased wife's sister, it is admitted that we do not find it in so many words forbidden. But we find the parallel case of the brother's widow forbidden, and as the relation is the same, it is contended that by parity of reasoning the former also must be understood to be forbidden. The inference is held to be unimpeachable for the reason that the degree of relationship is the very ground of the prohibitions. A man must not marry his half-sister, because she is his sister; a man must not marry his aunt, because she is the near relative of his father or mother; a man must not marry his brother's wife, because she is so nearly related to his brother; a man must not marry the daughter or grand-daughter of his wife, 'because they are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness.' Relationship to his wife is the very ground of the prohibition. The law itself, therefore, both in its general statement, and in its particular specifications, gives the rule of its own interpretation. It is the degree of kindred which the law itself teaches us is to be considered. Shall we say then that a marriage coming within the scope of any of these prohibitions, is not con

whosoever stealeth a man and selleth him shall surely be put to death,' is it an unfair inference that he that stole a woman or a child was to be subjected to the same punishment? On the whole it seems necessary to admit, that as the law makes nearness of kin the sole criterion by which to determine whether a given marriage be lawful or not, there fore if it declares a degree of nearness of kin in any one case so great as to

:

3 b After the doings of the land

of Egypt wherein ye dwelt, shall

ye not do and after the doings of the land of Canaan whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

b Ezek. 20. 7, 9, and 23. 8. c Exod. 23. 24. ch. 20. 23. Deut. 12. 4, 30, 31.

published in the New York Observer of Aug. 6, 1842, the other a series of six letters published in the New England Puritan, in the months of July and August, 1842. The report also of the discussions in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of 1842, contained in the New York Observer of June 11, and in the Princeton Biblical Repertory of July, 1842, embody a large mass of valuable argument on the general subject, the substance of all of which is well worthy of being preserved in more permanent form.

General Preface to the Marriage Laws. 1. Say unto them, I am the Lord your God. These words constitute the grand authoritative sanction of all the ensuing laws, implying that they respect a matter of the utmost importance, one in which the honor and glory of the great God were most deeply involved. Although the God of all, he was in a spe

As the ensuing notes will resume the consideration of various details con nected with the subject, it will be unnecessary to prolong our introductory remarks. To those who would extend their inquiries more minutely into the essential merits of the question, the following authorities may be indicated as covering very nearly the whole ground. Selden de Uxore Hebraica.The Cases of Marriages between Near Kindred, particularly considered with respect to the Doctrine of Scripture, the Law of Nature, and the Laws of England. By John Fry. Lond. 1756 (a work of rare occurrence).-Pres. Edward's (the Younger) Works, vol. 2. Serm. 7.-Rev. Dr. B. Trumbull's Appeal to the Public relative to the Unlawfulness of Marrying a Wife's Sister. -Rev. Dr. J. H. Livingston's Disserta-cial and emphatic sense the God of the tion on the Marriage of a Man with his Sister-in-law. Christian Magazine, vol. 4. p. 80, &c. A Brief Inquiry into the Lawfulness of Marrying a deceased Wife's Sister.-Rev. S. E. Dwight's Hebrew Wife; or the Law of Marriage examined in relation to the Lawfulness of Polygamy, and to the Extent of the Law of Incest.—Marshall's Review of the preceding work of Dwight.-Rev. C. M'Ivers's Essay concerning the Un-to the doing or practising. Gr. Kata Ta lawfulness of a Man's Marriage with his Sister by Affinity. To the above we may add two very able discussions of the subject in a more ephemeral form, both advocating the lawfulness of the marriage in question, the one

nation of Israel, with whom they were in covenant, whom they professed to serve, and to whom they were under the greatest obligations imaginable. The phrase occurs six times in the present chapter, and still oftener in the next.

3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do. Heb. kemaäsëh, according

emirndevuara, according to the customs, usages, institutes. To what extent the crimes here forbidden prevailed among these heathen nations, may be learned from various intimations scattered here and there through the Scriptures, and

shish lo ארט ארש לא תקרבו .sible that the word may have respect to | Heb

positive enactments; yet whatever they tikrebu, man, man, ye shall not apmay have been, the purport of the pre- proach; i. e. none of you. The phrase

to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

7 g The nakedness of thy father,

g ch. 20. 11.

or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

is taken in a wide sense by the Tal- ishah, woman, or used absolutely, mudists, as equivalent to neither Jew is the appropriate term for to marry a nor Gentile; for all mankind, they wife.- -¶ To any that is near of kin affirm, are comprehended under these to him. Heb. 1 el kol laws of incest. Indeed the Karaite sheër besaro, to all (any) remainder of Jews, the most strenuous advocates for his flesh, implying that in the relations a strict interpetation, and the most about to be specified the parties were, decided opponents to Talmudical com- in the economy of heaven's institution, ments, insist upon this as the true so intimately united or rather identified, sense. The original term is 'approach,' that the one was, as as it were, the remainfrequently used by way of euphemism, der of the other. In this case, thereto convey the idea of sexual intercourse, fore, the Most High lays down this as in Gen. 20. 4, 'Abimelech had not nearness of kin as the foundation of all come near lo karab) unto her.' the following prohibitions, and then ls. 8. 3, ' And I went in unto (np proceeds to state and determine, by his ekrab) the prophetess, and she con- own sovereign authority, between whom ceived,' &c. Comp. Ezek. 18. 6. In that nearness of kin subsists. In the the particular precepts following in this interpretation of what follows it is imchapter and in the twentieth chapter, portant to bear in mind, that although this prohibited intercourse is pointed these prohibitions are principally adout by the phrases to uncover the na- dressed to the man, yet they are equally kedness,' 'to take,' and 'to lie with.' binding upon the woman, who stands in The first phrase therefore has the same the same degree of relationship. meaning with each of the other three; and they of course with each other. In Incest forbidden with one's own Mother. Lev. 18. 14, the phrase 'to uncover the 7. The nakedness of thy father, or nakedness' is explained by the phrase the nakedness of thy mother. Heb. 'to approach to ;' in Lev. 20. 11, by the ervah, from ârâh, to be made phrase to lie with,' and in Lev. 20. 21, naked. Gr. aoxnpoovvn, shame, uncomeby the phrase to take.' These four liness. The particle or in this verse phrases then, as used in this law, have should undoubtedly be rendered ' even,' precisely the same meaning. And if it as these words are designed to express be asked how far that meaning extends, a principle which lies at the foundation we answer, to every kind of sexual in- of this whole system of marriage laws: tercourse, but especially that of mar- viz., that husband and wife are put for riage. There is nothing in either of one and the same thing, are completely the above phrases which limits its ap-identified; they being no more twain plication to fornication and adultery but one flesh.' This is clear from what rather than to marriage; and the general usage, as to the above phrases in the Scriptures abundantly confirms this position. To uncover the nakedness' is used in several instances (Lev. 18. 18, 1 Sam. 20. 30, Is. 57. 8), to denote conjugal intercourse, and the Heb. 3 lûka'h, to take, when connected with

follows, she is thy mother;' showing that the mother's nakedness only is meant, though it is called the father's, as in Deut. 27. 20, Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt,' i. e. his mother's. The nakedness of the one therefore is the nakedness of the other;

8 h The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is h Gen. 49. 4. ch. 20. 11. Deut. 22. 30, thy father's nakedness.