Calvary, where it appears, as a forgiven sinner, beholding the Lamb of God!

I might easily, with the reader's pardon, multiply extracts from the work; but I design not to supersede the reading of the book, but to invite to it. And as I trust I have said enough to convince the reader that it is no ordinary production, nor one which an intelligent man can neglect without injustice to himself, I close with the sincere prayer that it may be the means of guiding many thousands of minds, which have been poisoned and perverted by the plausible cavils of skepticism, as the author's once was, to the knowledge and joyous obedience of the truth.

ARTICLE VII.

THE LEVITICAL LAW OF INCEST.

By Rev. J. M. Sturtevant, Prof. of Math. and Nat. Phil. Illinois College.

EDITORIAL REMARKS.

THE subsequent article will evince, that the recent deci. sion of the General Assembly (Old School) of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, in the McQueen case, has awakened attention to the Scriptural Law of Incest, throughout the length and breadth of the land. And we shall not be surprised to find the attention of Biblical scholars in other countries, renewedly directed to the subject by the expositions now being published in our own. The article before us comes from the "far west," and, we think, surpasses any view we have seen of the controverted question, in its analytical force and just sequences.

It was transmitted early in July, and of course written before the publication of the "Biblical Argument" of" Omicron," in the New York Observer. Considerable similarity will be apparent between the two articles in the process of argument and in the conclusions; and whilst "Omicron" possesses more power, as we presume also more knowledge, in the grammatical argument, Prof. Sturtevant presents the subject in a more popular and equally convincing form.

We think, however, that the Professor will see cause to change his opinion of "the acute and unanswerable philo. logical argument by which Dr. Sereno E. Dwight has proved, that to take a wife to her sister, means to take one wife to another," and that, had he read the argument of "Omicron," he would have thought and written differently. It seems to us that the idiom has been misunderstood in its application to this case. And we doubt not, the writer of the following logical article, on a review of the case, will be satisfied that both Dr. Dwight and himself are mistaken in referring Lev. 18: 18, to polygamy. Mr. S., in order to be relieved from the difficulty arising from this passage, lays the emphasis on the phrase "to vex her," and adopts the opinion, that polygamy in general is not here prohibited-in which he is probably right-but only a particular case.

Had Mr. S. made as careful and independent an investigation of this idiom, as he has of the other features of the subject, he would probably have arrived at the same result with Omicron," and then would have found strong confirmation of his view in Lev. 18: 18, instead of feeling himself obliged to meet it as an obstacle in the way of his argument.

Let "Omicron's" view of this passage be substituted in Prof. Sturtevant's article, for that which he has adopted from Dr. Dwight, and, it seems to us, it will then present a remarkably clear, correct and satisfactory view of the Levitical Law of Incest.

Is it not apparent that this law, as expressed in the xviiith chapter of Leviticus, was a law for the Jewish people, found. ed on the peculiar relations of society existing among them, and especially those of the two sexes? Do not those peculiar civil and social relations meet us at every step of the specifications, satisfactorily accounting for some singular distinctions, otherwise inexplicable? We freely confess that, although once of a different opinion, we cannot but believe now, that there is no divine prohibition of the marriage of a deceas ed wife's sister. The expediency of such a prohibition in the present state of society must be left for civil and ecclesiastical legislators to determine.

We trust this point will be calmly, dispassionately and can didly reviewed by those judicatories, whose books of discipline lay a penalty on the man who marries his deceased wife's sister; and, if it be found that the Bible does not pro. hibit such a relation, and it be nevertheless thought inexpedient, let it be so represented in the book, and no more.-ED.

A recent grave decision of a great ecclesiastical tribunal has invested the subject named at the head of this article with an extraordinary interest at the present time; and the discussions and resolutions of other ecclesiastical bodies have served not a little to increase and extend that interest. It is simply in the hope of contributing his mite to render this excitement of interest in the question subservient to the cause of truth, and to lead the public mind to a view of the subject in which it may rest, free from the danger of being again and again excited about it, without coming to any satisfactory conclusion, that the writer has been induced to give to the public the results of an investigation, which was made some time ago. And in this point of light it is certainly a question of no inconsiderable moment. While opinion continues, as now, unsettled and wavering, individuals will be found whose convictions will favor, and whose circumstances will seem to them to require the formation of matrimonial connexions, deemed by others forbidden and incestuous. The discipline of the church may then be expected to be called into requisition, the happiness of multitudes in the sacred circle of home to be interrupted, the peace of society disturbed-perhaps the standing and usefulness of pious and good men in the church ruined for life; and (if those whose consciences are offended by these marriages are right in their opinions,) the morals of the church and the nation are corrupted, and God is offended. If then, God has legislated on this subject at all, it is a matter of great importance to individuals, to families, to the church, and to the nation at large, that His legislation should be clearly understood, and its limits accurately and precisely drawn.

A full discussion of the question involves two leading points of inquiry, viz., First,-To what extent is the Levitical law binding on the conscience of Christians? And,

Second,-What is the true limitation and definition of the crime of incest in the Levitical law?

The first of these points of inquiry will be waived entirely in the present article, except so far as it may be found to be involved in a full discussion of the second. It cannot be fairly and fully discussed without giving to his inquiries a wider range, than comports with the present design of the writer; and he fears that by entering upon it he might be found rather to have excited fresh controversies, than made any pro

gress towards settling that which exists. He believes that such a discussion is by no means necessary in order to settle the question which has recently agitated the public, to the complete satisfaction of every candid mind. It will therefore, for the sake of the argument, be admitted, that the Levitical law of incest is of perpetual obligation; not that we are by any means convinced that this is true, but because it is foreign to the present purpose to prove it false, since the argument about to be presented would be none the less conclusive, if it were true. The attention of the reader will therefore be exclusively directed to the following inquiry, viz. :

What is the true limitation of the crime of incest in the Levitical law?

It will be perceived, that the bare statement of the question in this form, cuts us off on both sides, from all general reasonings about expediency, convenience and comfort of parties concerned in any given case; or indeed about general morality in the application of our doctrines to society. There is reason to apprehend that a failure to notice this obvious consideration, has often led inquirers entirely astray in the investigation of this question. They have come to the examination of the Mosaic law, assuming, that as it is the only legislation we find in God's word, on the subject of incest, it must of course be the only safeguard of modern society, against a general prevalence of that crime. Hence they have felt themselves under a sort of virtuous necessity, of so interpreting that law, that it shall meet the necessities and suit the circumstances of modern Christian society. This view of the subject is certainly inadmissable. The question is not what the Levitical law ought to be in order to answer the ends of modern society; but what is the Levitical law? The interpreter has no right to assume that it was designed to be of perpetual obligation, and then to reject all interpretations, which in his judgment would militate against its fitness as a universal rule of morals. He should rigidly confine himself to the terms of the law, and to what he knows of the circumstances, habits and manners of those to whom it was given, as illustrating the intent of the law-giver.

The law of incest is recorded entire in Leviticus, 18th chapter, 6-18 verses, where the first mention is made of the subject in the word of God, and is in the following words:

6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. 7. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8. The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover it is thy father's nakedness. 9. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 10. The nakedness of thy son's daughter; or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; for theirs is thine own nakedness. 11. The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, (she is thy sister,) thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. 13. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. 14. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife she is thine aunt. 15. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness. 17. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. 18. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time.

The subject is several times mentioned afterwards, in the writings of Moses, but no where is any thing added to the specifications of the passage cited above.

The first inquiry which seems to present itself is: does this law refer to marriage? Of this there is no room for reasonable doubt. The terms of it certainly include marriage, whatever else they may include; and that they refer mainly if not exclusively to marriage, is evident from the consideration, that if marriage is not the thing intended, then there could be no propriety in these specific enactments; for the things forbidden are included in more general prohibitions. It will therefore be assumed and conceded, that the thing forbidden in this law is, marriage with one who is near of kin,