an American, in his able work, "The Hebrew Wife." Mr Dwight unfolds and explains the principles that he believes lie at the root of the Mosaic Law in the matter of Incest. Referring to the passages I have just quoted, he says :— "First, The intercourse here prohibited is sexual inter

course.

"This will doubtless be admitted. If not, the phrases used in the law to explain it,-to approach to, to uncover the nakedness, to take, and to lie with-place this point beyond controversy.

"Secondly, The four phrases used to denote this intercourse have one and the same meaning. This, too, will probably be conceded; but if not, the proof is at hand. The first three of the phrases occur in Lev. xviii.; the last three in Lev. xx.; the second and third in Deut. xxii.; the second and fourth in Deut. xxvii.

"In Lev. xviii. 6, which is the general summary of all the particular prohibitions, the prohibited intercourse is pointed out by the phrase-to approach to. In the particular prohibitions following, all included in the general summary, this prohibited intercourse is pointed out by the phrasesto uncover the nakedness, to take, and to lie with. The first phrase, therefore, has the same meaning with each of the other three, and they of course with each other. Again, in Lev. xviii. 14, the phrase-to uncover the nakedness, is explained by the phrase, to approach to; in Lev. xx. 11, by the phrase to lie with; and in Lev. xx. 21, by the phrase to take. These four phrases, then, as used in this law, have the same identical meaning.

66

Thirdly, The sexual intercourse here prohibited is every kind of sexual intercourse, but especially that of marriage. "This will be evident from the following considerations:

"1. From the direct meaning of the phrases employed to describe it. There is obviously nothing in either which limits its application to fornication and adultery, rather than to marriage. Thus the man who has conjugal intercourse with his sister, or his brother's wife, as fully and inevitably

approaches to her, takes her, uncovers her nakedness, and lies with her, as the man who commits fornication or

adultery with her. The very terms of the prohibition, therefore, include every species of sexual intercourse.

"2. From the use of these phrases in the Scriptures at large.

"(1.) To approach to, occurs nowhere but in Lev. xviii. 6 and 14; both of which are now under discussion.

66

(2.) To uncover the nakedness, is used in three instances to denote conjugal intercourse, Lev. xviii. 18; 1 Sam. xx. 30; and Isaiah lvii. 8. In two instances, it refers to unlawful intercourse, Ezek. xvi. 36, and xxiii. 18. The phrase is therefore general.

"(3.) To take, in Hebrew, when connected with a woman, is the appropriate Hebrew phrase for to marry a wife. To take, used absolutely, denotes the same thing: Gen. xxxiv. 9, 16, And take our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us.' Deut. xx. 7, Hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her.' 1. Chron. xxii. 22, ' And their brethren the sons of Kish took them.' The instances of this kind are numberless. The only apparent exception to this use is in Ezek. xvi. 32, ‘But as a wife that committeth adultery, that taketh strangers instead of her husband.' Here, however, to take, is used with reference to its connection with her husband (that taketh not her husband, but strangers), and not independently of its reference to marriage. The phrase to take, therefore, is in all instances used with reference to marriage, and in all but one denotes to marry.

66

(4.) To lie with, denotes every species of sexual inter

course:

"[1.] Marriage, Gen. xxx, 15, 16; Num. v. 20; 2 Sam.

xi. 11.

20.

"[2.] Fornication, Exod. xxii. 16; Deut. xxii. 23, 28.

66

[3.] Adultery, Gen. xxxix. 7; Lev. xviii. 20; Num. v.

"[4.] Rape, Deut. xxii. 25; 2 Sam. xiii. 14. "[5.] Incest, Gen. xix. 32, 34.

"[6.] Sodomy, Lev. xviii. 22; xx. 15.

"[7.] Bestiality, Lev. xviii. 23; xx. 15.

"[8.] Intercourse, generally, Lev. xv., passim; Judges xx. 11.

"When used without any thing, in the phraseology or the story, to qualify or limit its meaning, this phrase is always general; denoting any and every species of sexual

intercourse.

"From the scriptural use of these four phrases, therefore, it is evident that these prohibitions are not limited to incestuous fornication or adultery, but include marriage also; and from the use of the phrase to take,' it is clear that incestuous marriage is the intercourse especially prohibited; the declared unlawfulness of that, involving, of course, and a fortiori, the unlawfulness of incestuous fornication and adultery.

"3. From the meaning of those phrases in the law itself.

"Lev. xviii. 18. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other, in her lifetime. 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.'

6

"Lev. xx. 14. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness.'

"The first of these passages has received two different interpretations: both agreeing that the prohibited intercourse is marriage: but the one regarding the passage as prohibiting polygamy, and the other incest. The first of these interpretations is :-If thou hast a wife, thou shalt not marry another wife until after her death, but then thou mayest. The second interpretation is: If thou hast a wife, thou shalt not marry her sister until after her death; for it will vex her; although thou mayest marry another woman, and after her death her sister also. Now, if the intercourse here forbidden is not marriage, but fornication

or adultery, then the prohibition, according to the first interpretation, will read thus:-If thou hast committed fornication or adultery with one woman, thou shalt not afterwards commit fornication or adultery with another woman, during her lifetime, for it will vex her; but after her death thou mayest. According to the second interpretation, it will read thus:-If thou hast committed fornication or adultery with one woman, thou shalt not commit fornication or adultery with her sister, until after her death, for it will vex her; although thou mayest commit fornication or adultery with a woman who is not her sister; and after her death with her sister also.

"The second of these passages, on the supposition that marriage is not here prohibited, will read thus :-If thou hast committed fornication or adultery with a woman, thou shalt not afterwards commit either with her daughter, or her grand-daughter; for they are her near kinswomen.

"The third of these passages, on the same supposition, will read thus:-And if a man shall commit fornication or adultery with a woman and her mother, it is wickedness.

"A construction involving these consequences will not be seriously contended for as a valid construction of the law of God.

"4. From the language of one section of the law, compared with the language of a subsequent statute, partially or conditionally repealing it.

"The section of the law here referred to is Lev. xx. 21. 'And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing.' The partially and conditionally repealing statute is in Deut. xxv. 5, 10. It was made with a special reference to the Levitical law of genealogies and descents. It directs a man, in the given circumstances, to go in unto the wife of his deceased brother, and take her to him to wife;' and then says 'If he like not to take his brother's wife,' etc. To take, and to take to wife, in the repealing statute, then have one meaning; and no one will deny that to take has the same meaning, both in the enacting and repealing statutes. It means, therefore, to take to wife, in both.

66

"5. From the interpretation always put upon these phrases by the Israelites. Throughout the whole of their history, so far as that history is recorded, the Israelites uniformly regarded the prohibition as a prohibition of marriage. They were certainly not inclined to works of supererogation, and doubtless may be regarded as best acquainted with the drift of their own laws, and as the best interpreters of their langauge.

"6. From the interpretation always put upon these phrases by Christian churches and governments. They have uniformly regarded this prohibition as a prohibition of marriage. We have thus a uniform construction of the law for more than three thousand years.

"7. If this prohibition be not a prohibition of incestuous marriage, no marriages are incestuous; because none are prohibited, except by this law. Of course, it is lawful to marry a mother or daughter, a sister or grand-daughter. And as polygamy was, in the view of those whom I oppose, lawful in Israel, an Israelite might lawfully have had his grandmothers, and mother, and daughters, and sisters, and grand-daughters, as his wives, at the same time.

"8. If marriage between persons within the specified degrees is not unlawful, then fornication between persons within those degrees is not more unlawful than between strangers. By the Levitical law, the man guilty of fornication with a woman, not near of kin to him, was compelled to marry her, provided her father wished it; but if not, he was obliged to pay to the father a sum of money, equal to what her marriage-portion would by law have been. By the law of incest, fornication with one near of kin, for example with a sister, was punished with death. I then ask, why is fornication with a sister more criminal than with a stranger, if marriage with a sister is as lawful as with a stranger? It is not owing to difference of propinquity; for it is identically the same in marriage as in fornication. It is not owing to the fact that there is sexual intercourse between a brother and sister, for that