AE aU ed alte 
 api | i Fy ql Ha be r 
 all Ps A | uM 
 
 , | | : | 7 i , | bi ei 7 i i 4 
 
 u Mh ; ull h Ly : ie if I Gi dig 
 
 TN aA m ,! ( i / 4 ~ 
 CVO \, rey, hy f Hy fi | 
 
 ‘( os 
 
 vm i ; | || 4 | q 
 Wy ie | Y i » i i ih P's Ne ys ‘ < . 
 
 = SS 
 
 ( ' Hh i 4 i 
 ESSN ey 
 i 
 > 
 
 Wo) IN, 
 ‘ ly dl < 
 AF is ee 
 TOON 6 gin ” Ny 
 ERS ICY ; SN ca 
 : eee a a py 2 
 
 7 ! \ Ae SINE: yy a a i 
 I Kees ‘ eS , 
 Halal ne : 
 
 i gy ' ip \ i 
 vy % a _ 
 
 i ‘ g 
 Y ie 
 
 nth 
 
 rity Nau 
 WA CAIAAULAAUA A 
 Wi UN i i rh Ml i 
 
 Font 
 
 i) 
 i ' 
 ; | yi! i i 
 Mad wan | i! H \\ 
 i Hit it! Mh, Hi ii i | I 
 H Waly i} Wi \ | 
 | Aha A el ih AA 
 . wth ull I 
 i l eA MIA HT i 
 iH | ml AON AE 
 Hi Nf H ll 
 i | Mie | 
 
 ee 
 ——— 
 
 —— SS 
 
at 
 i 
 
 tad 
 ws 
 : x 
 
 vis gave 
 iis Pete Paes: 
 
gr 
 ize 
 < 
 
 8 
 ae 
 #9 
 
is 
 
 ral 
 » 
 ihe, 
 » 
 
 THE HEBREW WIFE: 
 
 OR 
 # 
 
 THE LAW OF MARRIAGE 
 
 EXAMINED IN RELATION TO 
 
 a 
 > ; 
 
 THE LAWFULNESS OF POLYGAMY 
 
 AND TO THE EXTENT 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 BY S. E. DWIGHT. | 
 
 ~ 
 
 & 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 LEAVITT, LORD & CO., 180, BROADWAY. 
 
 BOSTON :—-CROCKER & BREWSTER. 
 
 ee eee eee eneenes 
 
Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1836, 
 BY LEAVITT, LORD & CO. 
 
 In the Clerk’s Office for the Southern District of New-York. 
 
 See ie Sa eee 
 H. LUDWIG, PRINTER, 
 
 72, Vesey-street, fe 4 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 SomE years since, in consequence of a Complaint, 
 made in due form of law, and substantiated by satisfac- 
 tory evidence, it became the author’s official duty to in- 
 stitute a prosecution for an Incestuous marriage. On 
 examining the Statute-book, however, the degree of 
 Affinity between the parties was discovered to be more 
 remote, than in other cases that had been legalized. 
 This led him to investigate the Scriptural Law of In- 
 cest, with a determination not to proceed in the prose- 
 cution, unless the given marriage was clearly prohibited 
 in that Law. 'The investigation was found to involve 
 questions of a novel complexion, not even stated in 
 books; and proved more difficult and laborious than 
 was anticipated. It was made therefore pen in hand. 
 In the course of it, nothing then within his knowledge, 
 whether commentary or controversy, was overlooked ; 
 and the reasonings of two of the ablest Jurists of the 
 country, thrown directly in his way, and presenting all 
 the arguments for the lawfulness of the marriage in 
 question and of others like it, were necessarily examined. 
 The result of the investigation, as it was then written, 
 with a few corrections and additions, may be seen in the 
 following pages.—T he individual was prosecuted, and 
 
lv ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 the offence proved; but the Court, instead of passing 
 sentence, adjourned the case, that he might petition the 
 Legislature for an alteration of the statute. He did so; 
 the section forbidding the given marriage was repealed ; 
 and the prosecution, of course, fell through.—Those 
 parts of the work, which here and there a reader may 
 possibly regard as scarcely grave enough for the sub- 
 ject, were purposely introduced by the author to relieve 
 the tedium of dry discussion; and he hopes that the 
 clergy, should they honour his lucubrations with a pe- 
 rusal, will kindly remember that they were the “ Hore 
 Biblice of 
 
 A LAWYER. 
 
# 
 
 THE 
 
 HEBREW WIFE: 
 
 OR 
 THE SCRIP*SU RAL LA W's 
 OF 
 
 POLYGAMY AND INCEST. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 No one of the marriages, heretofore regarded as incese 
 tuous, has found so numerous, or so warm advocates, as 
 that with a Wife's sister. 'Those of the Clergy, particu- 
 larly, who have either contracted, or purposed to contract, 
 this marriage, feeling uneasy, until they could satisfy 
 others of its lawfulness, as fully as they hoped they had 
 satisfied themselves, have usually come outin self-defence, 
 before they were attacked. 'The minor positions taken 
 by the combatants, fighting, as they have usually 
 done in this partizan warfare, each one for himself, 
 have indeed been various; but the strong-hold which 
 they have ultimately resorted to, when driven from the 
 outposts, has been in every case, an intrenchment behind 
 that “debatable” Section of the Law of incest, Leviticus 
 xviii. 18, ‘Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to 
 vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other, in 
 her life-time.” Here some of them, satified with feeling 
 themselves secure, have merely stood on the defensive ; 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 while others, indignant at having been attacked, have 
 sallied forth to batter down the whole Law of incest. 
 
 The language of this Section—“ Neither shalt thou 
 take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her na- 
 kedness beside the other, in her life-¢ime”—has received 
 thetwo following constructions : 
 
 1. Neither shalt thou take one wife to another, to vex 
 her, in her life-time : 
 
 2. Neither shalt thou take a second wife, who is the 
 sister of thy first wife to vex her in her life-¢ime ; al- 
 though thou mayest take one who is not her sister, as 
 that will not vex her; and after her death, her sister 
 also. 
 
 As these two constructions are directly contradictory : 
 the first involving an express prohibition of Polygamy ; 
 and the second containing an express permission of it, 
 as well as of the marriage with the sister of a deceased 
 wife: it is obvious, if Polygamy was lawful, under the 
 Old Dispensation, that the First construction is unsound ; 
 and, if it was not lawful, that the Second construction 
 must be given up. Hence, in order to decide which of 
 the two is the correct construction, we must first deter- 
 mine, whether Polygamy under the Old Dispensation was 
 lawful or not. In this way the Lawfulness of Polygamy 
 becomes necessarily connected with an investigation of 
 the Law of incest; and, to prevent it from rising up in 
 the shape of an objection hereafter, it should be previ- 
 ously examined. If, as the result of such an examina- 
 tion, it shall appear that Polygamy was not lawful ; it 
 will not be difficult to ascertain the exact limits of the 
 Scriptural Law of incest. 
 
 & 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 Potyeamyis That state, in which a Man has two or 
 more wives, or a Woman has two or more husbands, at 
 the same time. The question to be answered is this, 
 
 Was Polygamy lawful under the Old Dispensation ? 
 As the Old Dispensation embraced two periods—the Pa- 
 triarchal, and the Levitical—this inquiry naturally re- 
 solves itself into two others: 1. Was Polygamy law- 
 ful to the Patriarchs? 2. Was Polygamy lawful 
 under the Levitical Code? Each of these questions 
 claims, and shall receive, a distinct answer. 
 
 I. Was Polygamy lawful to the Patriarchs ? 
 
 It will be conceded by all, that, under the Patriarchal 
 Dispensation, there is no express permission of Poly- 
 gamy, on record. Previous to the promulgation of the 
 Levitical Code, there is no law or dictum relating even 
 remotely to the subject, except the GREAT ORIGINAL 
 LAW OF MARRIAGE, found in Genesis, ii. 24, “ There- 
 fore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall 
 cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” ‘The 
 import of this J.aw will be sought hereafter. It is suffi- 
 cient to remark, here, that it certainly does not contain 
 a permission of Polygamy. 
 
 If, then, it can be shown that Polygamy was law- 
 ful to the Patriarchs, the evidence must be derived from 
 their Practice. In examining this point, however, we 
 must distinctly remember, that the question before us is 
 not, Whether Polygamy was permitied, by the customs 
 or laws of the tribes, among whom the Patriarchs 
 
 lived? but, Whether Polygamy was permitted by the 
 
 at 
 
4 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 Law of God 2—The best human laws authorize, and 
 the best men sanction, conduct, which is directly pro- 
 hibited by the Divine law. 'To argue what the Law of 
 God is, from the Practice of men, even of the best men, 
 seems, therefore, a hazardous course, in any case; but 
 especially in the case in question. None of the Patri- 
 archs lived in a regular state of society, governed by es- 
 tablished laws ; but each was the head of his clan—a 
 petty chieftain, acknowledging no superior. ‘The sur- 
 rounding chieftains, also, as well as the tribes whom 
 they governed, all practised Polygamy. With these 
 things in view, let us see what the Practice of the Patri- 
 archs actually was, on this subject, both before and after 
 the Deluge. 
 
 1. Adam was placed in a situation, in which Polyga- 
 my was neither lawful, nor possible. 
 
 2. Noone of the Antediluvian Patriarchs, from Adam 
 to Noah, in the line of Seth, is mentioned as a polyga- 
 mist. 
 
 3. The same is true of Noah and his three sons. 
 
 A. The first polygamist on record was Lamech, the 
 fifth in lineal descent from Cain; and, as the Introduc- 
 tion of Polygamy into this world is an important event, 
 we will examine the account given of itby Moses. The 
 passage containing it is found in Genesis, iv. 19,23 and 
 24. As the Hebrew manuscripts have no Notes of inter- 
 rogation, the original is equally susceptible of the two 
 following translations : 
 
 1st. “ And Lamech took unto him two wives, Adah 
 and Zillah. And Lamech said unto his wives, ‘Adah 
 and Zillah, hear my voice ; ye wives of Lamech, hearken 
 unto my speech: For I have slain aman to my wound- 
 ing, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be 
 avenged seven fold, truly Lamech, seventy and sever 
 fold.” 'This is the common version : 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 5 
 
 2d. “And Lamech took unto him two wives, Adah and 
 Zillah. And Lamech said unto his wives, ‘Adah and 
 Zillah, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken 
 unto my speech. . Have I slain a man to my wounding, 
 or a young man tomy hurt? If Cain shall be avenged 
 seven fold, truly Lamech seventy and seven fold.” 
 
 If we take the former version as the correct one, then 
 the first polygamist was a murderer ; and when his two 
 Wives expressed their apprehensions lest vengeance 
 should fall upon him for his crime, he consoles them with 
 the reflection, that God had threatened seven fold ven- 
 geance on any one who should kill Cain. But this ab- 
 rupt and most incongruous version is obviously errone- 
 ous. Moses does not intimate that Lamech had been 
 guilty of murder, nor that his wives had any apprehen- 
 sion on account of it. Nor, if Lamech had been guilty 
 of murder, would he have had any right to suppose that 
 God would inflict on the man, who should kill him, 
 eleven times as exemplary vengeance, as on the slayer of 
 Cain. 'The only act charged on Lamech by the histo- 
 rian, is his Polygamy; and when his two wives ex 
 pressed their apprehensions, lest, for this, some one 
 _ would kill him, he might well reply, “ Adah and Zillah, 
 hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my 
 speech. Have I slain a man to my wounding, or a 
 young man to my hurt? If God shall avenge Cain 
 seven fold, truly Lamech seventy and seven fold.” His 
 crime then, obviously, was his Polygamy. In either 
 case, however, Polygamy was introduced into the world 
 under very bad auspices. 
 
 5. The second and only remaining account of Polyga- 
 my before the Deluge is found in Gen. vi. 1—7, “ And it 
 came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of 
 
 the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the 
 te 
 
6 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 soiis of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, 
 and they took them wives of all whom they chose. 
 And the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not always strive 
 with man.’ There were giants in the earth, in those 
 days; and also after that, when the sons of God came 
 in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children 
 unto them, the same became mighty men, which were 
 of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wick- 
 edness of man was great on the earth, and that every 
 imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil 
 continually; and it repented the Lord that he had 
 made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 
 And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have 
 created, from the face of the earth.”—'The fact, that 
 Polygamy became general, or that men took them 
 wives of all whom they chose, is here obviously assigned 
 as the cause of that universal corruption and violence, 
 which occasioned the Deluge. These are the only two 
 examples of Antediluvian Polygamy. 
 
 6. After the Deluge, no mention is made of the prac- 
 tice of Polygamy among the descendents of Ham or 
 Japhet, though their genealogies are given; nor had 
 any of them such a number of children, as to indicate 
 his possession of several wives. 
 
 7. No example of polygamy is mentioned in the ten 
 successive patriarchs in the line of Shem, from Shem to 
 Terah the father of Abraham; nor does the number of 
 their children lead us to suppose that either of them had 
 more than one wife. 7 
 
 8. Nahor, Abraham’s brother had a-concubine ; but 
 we are not told, whether during the life of his wife, or 
 after her death. 
 
 9. Abraham had one wife, Sarah, who had no chil- 
 dren. “And Sarah said unto Abraham, ‘I pray thee 
 
a ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 7 
 
 go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain chil- 
 dren by her’” This connection was no part of Abra- 
 ham’s plan of life. It was occasioned by Sarah’s strong 
 desire to have children, whom she could call her own. 
 It was temporary intercourse with a bondwoman ; and 
 ceased as soon as Hagar had conceived. 'The issue, as 
 Paul tells us, was not legitimate, or entitled to inherit 
 the property of Abraham. That Abraham—himself 
 originally an idolater, and living in the midst of idola- 
 ters, who not only practised polygamy, but every other 
 species of impurity—in despair also of any issue from 
 Sarah, should have had views of marriage so far loose 
 and incorrect, as to yield to such a proposal from his 
 wife, is not surprising ; but it furnishes no evidence of 
 
 the lawfulness of Polygamy. Abraham’s marriage with. 
 
 Keturah did not occur until seven years after the death 
 of Sarah. If this extemporaneous connection of Abra- 
 ham with Hagar proves the lawfulness of any thing, it 
 proves merely that a husband who was childless might 
 lawfully, with the consent of his wife, connect himself 
 temporarily with his female slave; but obviously, this is 
 not Polygamy. 
 
 10. Isaac had but one wife. 
 
 11. Esau, “that profane person,” had three wives. 
 “And Esau said in his heart, ‘The days of mourning 
 for my father are at hand; then will I slay my bro- 
 ther Jacob.’” 
 
 12. Jacob, while in the family of Laban, lived among 
 idolaters, who practised polygamy. Laban and his 
 children were idolaters, yet polygamy was no part of Ja- 
 cob’s plan of life. Leah was put upon him by a fraud, to 
 which he must submit, or hazard the loss of Rachel. 
 He likewise told his father several direct falsehoods, and 
 with extreme cruelty defrauded Esau of his birth- 
 right. 
 
8 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 13. Lot, the twelve sons of Jacob, Amram, Moses, 
 Aaron, Eleazar, Joshua, Caleb, and many others, who 
 lived during the period in question, had each but one 
 wife. On the supposition that polygamy was lawful, 
 this fact cannot be explained. 
 
 We have, then, the practice of the Patriarchs on this 
 subject before the flood, in the example of Lamech, and 
 that of the Apostates who filled the earth with violence ; 
 and in that of Esau, and that of Jacob after the flood: 
 four instances during the first two thousand seven hun- 
 dred years of the world. In this statement of facts we 
 find strong presumptive evidence that the Patriarchs did 
 not regard Polygamy as lawful. Let us now inquire 
 whether it was not expressly forbidden. 
 
 The Great Original Law of Marriage, with the occa- 
 sion of its promulgation, is thus recited im the second 
 chapter of Genesis: ‘“‘ And the Lord God said, ‘It is 
 not good that the man should be alone: I will make an 
 help-meet for him’—And the Lord God brought the 
 woman unto the man, and Adam said, ‘’This is now 
 bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be 
 called Woman, because she was taken out of Man’— 
 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mo- 
 ther, and shall cleave unto his wife ; and they shall 
 be one flesh.” 
 
 The comment of our Saviour on this Law, in the 19th 
 of Matthew, will help us to explain it. The Phari- 
 sees, tempting him, inquired, “Is it lawful for a man 
 to put away his wife, for every cause.”—'T’o this he re- 
 plied, “Have ye not read, that He who made them at 
 the beginning, made them male and female ; and said,— 
 ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, 
 and shall cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be 
 one flesh.— Wherefore they are no more twain, but 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 9 
 
 one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, 
 let not Man put asunder.” 
 
 The following remarks on this Law, may show on 
 what footing Marriage was placed ah the Old Dis- 
 pensation. 
 
 1. The words—“ For this cause shall a man leave 
 his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and 
 they twain shall be one flesh”—were not, as some have 
 supposed, the words of Adam, but were uttered by God. 
 The language of Christ is, “He who made them at the 
 beginning, said, ‘For this cause,” &c. The Maker of 
 of Adam, therefore, and not Adam, said this; and the 
 thing uttered was not a prediction of Adam, but a com- 
 mand of God. 
 
 2. This is the Great Original Law of Marriage binding 
 on the whole human family. It was not a part of any 
 Ceremonial Law, or of the National Law of Israel; but 
 was promulgated at the original institution of marriage, 
 to the first parents of mankind, as the representatives of 
 the whole race. Men and women about to contract 
 marriage were the only beings, and the very beings on 
 whom it was binding. By the terms of it, Adam and 
 Eve were personally exempted from its operation ; since 
 they were already married, and Adam had no father or 
 mother, whom he could leave. It was made, therefore, 
 for their Posterity ; and since, in its binding force on 
 them, there are no restrictions or limitations, it was 
 clearly given to bind the whole human family. On 
 this pvint the comment of Christ is express. The 
 Jews inquired of him,—- Whether it was lawful for a 
 man to put away his wife for every cause ?2—In his 
 reply, he admits that Moses, for the hardness of their 
 hearts, allowed divorces in certain cases; but asserts 
 that in the beginning it was not so, He then declares, 
 
10 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 that, except in the single case of incontinence, it is not 
 lawful for a man to put away his wife, and marry 
 another; and assigns four reasons for it. (1.) The 
 fact, that God originally created but one man and one 
 woman, and joined them in marriage ; and thus ex- 
 pressed his own pleasure that marriage should subsist 
 between one man and one woman. (2.) That at the 
 time when God instituted marriage, he declared “ For this 
 cause shalla man leave his father and mother, and 
 cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh.” 
 (3.) That that is the reason why two married _per- 
 sons are no more twain, but one flesh. (4.) That 
 all who are united in marriage, are joined together 
 by God.—Here, then, is an express recognition of 
 this law, as the Original Law of Marriage ; as in force 
 from the beginning; as in full force under the Levitical 
 Dispensation, amended as it was in a single point— 
 that relating to divorces ; and, in consequence of the ex- 
 press repeal of that amendment by Christ himself, ex- 
 cept for one cause, as in force with that exception, in all 
 its original extent under the Christian Dispensation. 
 
 3. This Law in the very terms of it, as well as ac- 
 cording to the comment of Christ, is an absolute prohi- 
 bition of Polygamy. It is so in the terms of it. It de- 
 clares that lawful marriage, as appointed by God, is the 
 connection for life between éwain or two, one man and 
 one woman, and that when they are married they cease 
 to be twain, and are one flesh. It also declares that 
 the man who is thus united to a woman in iuurriage, 
 shall cleave unto her as his wife. Before, with filial 
 affection, he clave unto his parents as a son, and ac- 
 knowledged them only; and now, with conjugal affec- 
 tion, he is directed as a husband to cleave unto his wife. 
 This language is capable of but one interpretation. If 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 11 
 >. | 
 
 he is connected Sagithfamy. other woman, he ceases Zo 
 cleave to his wife, and makes himself one flesh with a 
 stranger. “ What, know ye not that he which is 
 joined to an harlot, is one body?” 'The same is equally 
 true, if the connection with the stranger were to be pre- 
 ceded by the forms of marriage. Any connection with 
 another woman is leaving his wife, and ceasing ¢o 
 cleave to her, in the very point which the law respects. 
 So obviously is this the only interpretation, that this 
 very language is customarily used in the marriage cere- 
 mony, when a promise is exacted from the parties, that 
 they will be faithful to each other. 
 
 This is equally evident from the comment of Christ. 
 Afier admitting that Moses permitted Divorces, and as- 
 signing the reason for it, he first declares that the Origi- 
 nal Law of Marriage did not permit them ; and then, with 
 a single exception, abrogates the Mosaic permission. ‘Whe 
 Original Law did not allow of divorce in any case. He 
 allows it in one—that of incontinence. With this ex- 
 ception, he places the Law of Marriage on its original 
 footing ; and declares, in language which cannot be 
 misunderstood, its real force and meaning——“ He who 
 putteth away his wife, except for incontinence, and mar- 
 rieth another, committeth adultery.” But in what does 
 the adultery, thus committed by the husband consist ? 
 Not in the mere putting away. That might be cru- 
 elty, but it is not adultery. Not in the mere marriage- 
 contract. If he had stopped at that, there would have 
 been no adultery-—It consisted in the fact, that, having 
 one wife, he marries and has intercourse with another, 
 before the first is dead or lawfully divorced. By the 
 Original Law of Marriage, therefore, as thus explained 
 by Christ, the man, who having a wife, marries another, 
 before the first is lawfully divorced, is guilty of adultery. 
 But every polygamist does this: every polygamist there- 
 
12 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 fore is guilty of adultery. Of course Polygamy, accord- 
 ing to the Original Law of Marriage, is adultery.* 
 
 * The declaration of our Saviour—“ Whosoever shall put away his 
 wife, except it be for incontinence, and marry another, committeth 
 adultery,”—is a sad comment on the laws respecting adultery in some of 
 our Statute-books. According to the laws of some of the States, un- 
 lawful intercourse, between a married woman and a married or single 
 man, is adultery; whereas unlawful intercourse, between a married 
 man and a single woman is merely fornication. In other words, they 
 declare that a married man cannot commit adultery, but with a mar- 
 ried woman. Wet us compare this with the express declaration of 
 Christ, ‘‘ Whosoever putteth away his wife, except for incontinence, 
 and marrieth another, committeth adultery.” In what does the adultery 
 consist? Not, as we have just seen, in the putting away otf the first 
 wife ; nor in the contract with the second. These are unlawful, but 
 they are not adultery. Obviously it consists in the intercourse with the. 
 second. Why is that intercourse adultery? Not because it is pre- 
 ceded by a contract. That contract, Christ pronounces ipso facto 
 void. It consists in the fact, that the man, at the time of that intercourse, 
 is lawfully married toa wife. He, then, who being lawfully married to 
 a wife, has intercourse with another woman, is, according to Christ, 
 guilty of adultery. 
 
 This conclusion is so direct, that a plain man might naturally won- 
 der, why our laws should be as they are. The true reason is this: 
 Our legislatures are composed exclusively of Men, and chiefly of mar- 
 ried men, or of men who intend to marry. Of course, in the personal 
 purity of married women, each member feels a lively interest, because 
 he is resolved at all hazards, to guard the purity of his own wife. In- 
 tercourse with a married woman must therefore be punished with a 
 heavy hand. But how many are there, in those august bodies, who 
 feel, each as lively an interest in his own purity, as in that of his wife? 
 “Indeed!” says the law-maker “that alters the case.” Our legisla- 
 tures contain so many members, who are determined atall hazards not 
 to be restrained in their libertinism ; so many others, to whom whole- 
 some laws, relating to licentiousness, might prove occasionally incon- 
 venient ; and so many others who are habitually civil to vice, when it 
 does not “ pick the pocket, nor break the leg;” that we can expect no 
 Jaws on this subject which are not of a Mohammedan character. 
 
 To set this point in its proper light, we will suppose a Legislature 
 of Married Women assembled to make laws for one of the States, and 
 actually enacting that unlawful intercourse, between a married manand 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 13 
 
 A passage froma Mfalitdlgteho ula here be added, as it 
 explains the reason of the scriptural constitution of mar- 
 riage. In Mal. ii. 10—16, the prophet reproves the Is- 
 raelites, with extreme severity, for their numerous di- 
 vorces, and for their infidelity and cruelty to their wives. 
 In verses.14 and 15, he declares, “‘ The Lord hath been 
 witness, between thee and the wife of thy youth, against 
 whom thou hath dealt treacherously ; yet she is thy 
 companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did he 
 not make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit ? 
 And wherefore one? 'That he might seeka godly seed.” 
 In other words, in the original constitution of marriage, 
 God made one woman only, and united her to Adam, 
 and thus appointed Marriage to be the union of one 
 man with one woman. He was able to have made 
 more: why then did he create but onE? Because he 
 foresaw, if more than one woman wete created and giv- 
 en to Adam; in other words, if Polygamy, and not Mar- 
 riage, were established ; that a godly seed would be im- 
 possible. This is a plain declaration therefore that God 
 forbad the Human race to practise Polygamy, because 
 of its immoral tendency. 
 
 The Original Law of Marriage, then, prohibited Polyga- 
 my to mankind; and no repeal of that law, partial or total, 
 is on record, under the Patriarchal Dispensation. Hence, 
 it was then in force; and the fact, that it was violated 
 by Jacob and Esau, by Lamech, and by the Apostates 
 whose crimes provoked the Deluge, has been fully ac- 
 
 a woman whether single or married, should be punished as adultery : 
 but that such intercourse, between a married woman and a single man 
 should be mere fornication. What wordscould express the abhorrence 
 of our existing legislators, at such shameless profligacy. Would they 
 not pronounce such a body of females just fit for the purlieus of a 
 brothel ? 
 
 2 
 
14 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 counted for, without the least necessity of supposing that 
 it had experienced either a temporary suspension, or an 
 abrogation. 
 
 II. Was Polygamy Lawful under the Levitical 
 Code? 
 
 We have seen that the great Original Law of Marriage 
 was binding on the whole human family, and that that 
 law absolutely prohibited Polygamy. The question then 
 arises, was that law repealed, as to its operation on the 
 Israelites, by the Levitical Code ? 
 
 That a single section of it, that which prohibited di- 
 vorces, was repealed, is admitted. The repealing statute, 
 however, acknowledged the general law to be in full 
 force. Those, who contend that Polygamy was lawful 
 to the Israelites, are then fairly called upon to point out 
 the statute in the Levitical Code, which repealed that 
 part of the Original Law of Marriage that forbad Po- 
 lygamy. In reply to this call, three passages, beside 
 Lev. xviii. 18, the one in controversy, have been ad- 
 duced, as containing direct or implied permissions of Po- 
 lygamy: those are Exodus xxi. 7—11; Deut.. xxi. 
 15---17; and 2 Samuel xii. 7,8. Weshall give each 
 a distinct examination. 
 
 The first of these passages is as follows: Ex. xxi. 
 7. “And if aman sell his daughter to be a maid ser- 
 vant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8. If 
 she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to him- 
 self, then shall he let her be redeemed. T'o sell her toa 
 strange nation, he shall have no power; seeing he hath 
 dealt deceitfully with her. 9. And if he hath betrothed 
 her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the man- 
 ner of daughters. 10. If he take him another wife, her 
 food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 15 
 
 diminish. . 11. And if he do not these three unto her, 
 then shall he let her go out without money.” 
 
 The mere English reader would suppose, from this 
 passage, that the Hebrew master was authorized to buy 
 a female servant, to betroth her, to have connection with 
 her, and then refuse to marry her ; that he might then 
 betroth her to his son, if he had one of the proper age ; 
 and that for this treatment he was required, either to 
 send her back to her father without money, or to keep 
 her in his own house, and render her the requisite food, 
 clothing, and sexual intercourse. Before we admit all 
 this, we must give the passage a close examination. 
 
 This version of the passage contains three palpable 
 mistakes. The first is found in the eighth verse, where 
 the English translators, by following the Septuagint 
 rather than the Hebrew, have omitted the small but most 
 significant particle of, and thus totally perverted the 
 meaning of the original. In Hebrew, the word §>;, 
 answering to no/, in English, stands immediately before 
 79", rendered betrothed. 'This reading is supported 
 by all the manuscripts consulted by Kennicott, except 
 one, and by all the manuscripts and editions of the Sa- 
 maritan Pentateuch. It is likewise recognized in the 
 Hebrew-Samaritan, Syriac, and Persian versions, and 
 in that of Arias Montanus. The Arabic version also 
 sanctions it ; rendering the passage, ‘If it displease her 
 master to take her to wife, let him see that she is redeem- 
 ed;” as does the Vulgate also—“If she displease the 
 eyes of her master, to whom she had been entrusted, he 
 shall send her back.” In the same manner, the modern 
 version of Augusti and De Wette—‘ Wenn sie dem 
 Herrn missfallt, dass er sie nicht fiir sich bestimmt ”——“ If 
 she displease her master, so that he does not betroth her 
 to himself.” The true rendering of the 8th yerse there- 
 
16 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 fore is, “If she please not her master, so that he does not 
 betroth her to himself, he shall suffer her to be redeemed. 
 To sell her unto a strange nation he shall not have 
 power, seeing he hath rejected her.” 
 
 The second mistake is in the 10th verse, in the pas- 
 sage, “If he take unto him another wife.” The word 
 wife is italicized in our version, because there is no word 
 corresponding to it inthe Hebrew. It ought not to have 
 been foisted upon the English version, because it makes 
 a false impression; implying that the first woman was also 
 his wife, and therefore that he had two wives at the same 
 time: whereas, the 8th verse expressly declares that he 
 had refused even to betroth her. Had it been rendered, 
 “Tf he marry another,” it would have conveyed the pre- 
 cise meaning of the Hebrew, viz. If he marry another 
 woman instead of her. 
 
 The third mistake is also found in the 10th verse, in 
 the passage—‘ her food, her raiment, and her duty of 
 marriage, shall he not diminish.” The word AO33, 
 here rendered duty of marriage, occurs, in “this 
 form in no other place. Different lexicographers derive it 
 from 349, to dwell, and from 2Y, to toil, to suffer, and 
 in Pihel, to humble. 'The first of these words, 34¥, to 
 dwell, is obsolete as a verb; but, as a noun with a forma- 
 tive 7, Vid, denoting dwelling, habitation, it. occurs 
 frequently. The other word M2¥, denoting in Pihel, ¢o 
 humble, is used eleven times in connection with TBR, 
 a woman, but always as a verb. In seven of these, 
 Gen. xxxiv. 2; Deut. xxii. 24; 2Sam. xiii. 12,14, and 22; 
 and Lam. v. 11, it denotes to humble by ravishing ; 
 and in four, Deut. xxi. 14; Ezek. xiii. 12, 14, 22, it de- 
 notes to humble by illicit intercourse. In no other 
 case, has it any allusion to the commerce of the sexes, 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 17 
 
 and in these eleven instances only to unlawful com- 
 merce. If then we derive it from this word, it is impos- 
 sible to render it duty of marriage. Surely that, which, 
 when doing as a verb, is unlawful intercourse, cannot, 
 when done and turned into a noun, be regarded as law- 
 Sul wedlock. If we derive it from 341Y, to dwell, there 
 is no connection between that word and duty of mar- 
 riage; nor does any derivative from it refer remotely to 
 the commerce of the sexes. ‘I'he only other derivative 
 from that word signifies uniformly dwelling, habitation ; 
 and the word in question occurs only here. 
 
 The weight of authority in the versions, is wholly 
 against this rendering. ‘I'he three words rendered food, 
 raiment, and duty of marriage, are rendered by Wal- 
 ton, in the Polyglott, as follows:—In the Samaritan 
 Text, “alimentum, operimentum, et habitationem,” 
 food, raiment, and habitation :—In the Samaritan ver- 
 sion by a single phrase comprehending these three— 
 “vile ejus necessaria,” her necessaries of life :---In 
 the Syriac version by “ alimentum, indumentum, et 
 accubitum,”*- food, clothing, and lodging :---In the Vul- 
 gate, by “providebit puella@ nuptias, et vestimenta, et 
 pretium pudicitia,” a rendering which precludes the 
 supposition, that she had been married to her master, 
 and at the same time directs him to procure for her mar- 
 riage with another man. The Targum, the Septua- 
 gint, and the Arabic version, agree substantially with 
 the English translation; the Arabic version, however, is 
 little more than a translationof the Septuagint. 
 
 That the word in question ought not to be rendered 
 
 * Accubitus means either Sitting, or reclining, at table, or Lying down 
 for sleep. As food has been already mentioned, it must here mean the 
 latter, 1. e. lodging. ge 
 
18 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 duty of marriage, is therefore obvious for the following 
 reasons. - 
 
 1. As the girl was not married, and the master, be- 
 cause he disliked her, would not even betroth her, the 
 duty of marriage was impossible. Any sexual duty, 
 rendered in those circumstances, must. have been the 
 duty of illicit intercourse. 
 
 2. No derivation of the word, as well as no use of the 
 word, or of any cognate word in any other case, will as- 
 sociate with it the idea of lawful intercourse by mar- 
 riage: it having no refererence to any commerce of the 
 sexes, but what is unlawful. 
 
 3. The weight of authorities is wholly against the 
 rendering. 
 
 4. 'The other rendering, viz. habitation, lodging, is 
 the natural rendering of a noun derived from the verb 
 21¥, to dwell, and the actual rendering of another noun 
 derived from the same verb; has the weight of authori- 
 ties in its favour ; and is consistent with the declaration 
 in the eighth verse, that the girl was not betrothed, as 
 well as with common decency. 
 
 The whole passage, thus corrected, will read as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid- 
 servant, she shall not go out as the men-servantsdo. 8. 
 If she please not her master, so that he does not betroth 
 her to himself, then he shall suffer her to be redeemed : 
 (i. e. when the opportunity of establishing her in mar- 
 riage has arrived :) to sell her unto a strange nation, he 
 shall have no power; seeing he hath rejected her him- 
 self. 9. And if he betroth her to his son, he shall deal 
 with her after the manner of daughters.. 10. If he 
 marry another person, he shall furnish her with food, 
 clothing, and lodging, (or the necessaries of life.) 11. 
 
 a 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 19 
 
 And if he do not furnish those three, he oo. let her go 
 out free, without money. 
 
 The verb’, in the seventh verse, rendered sell, ac- 
 cording to Gesenius, usually denotes to receive a mar- 
 riage portion for. 'The master by paying it to the 
 father, had a right to the services of the daughter as a 
 maid-servant, and if he were a single man, to marry her: 
 the right of choice on the part of females not being 
 known in the East. If the master was married, or chose 
 not to marry her himself, he had a right, if she was of 
 the proper age, to betroth her to his son, without paying 
 an additional portion. If neither of these were done, 
 her friends, by paying back the portion received, had a 
 right to redeem her, and to marry her to another man. 
 If she was not redeemed, and her master chose not to 
 marry her, and married another woman, he was bound 
 to furnish her with the customary food, clothing, and 
 lodging ; and, on failure of these, she was at liberty to go 
 back to her friends unredeemed. 
 
 This passage, therefore, contains no sanction of Poly- 
 gamy, and no permission of the gross immorality and 
 cruelty apparently authorized by the English translation. 
 
 The second passage, which has been supposed to au- 
 thorize Polygamy, is found in Deuteronomy xxi. 15—17. 
 
 15. “If a man have two wives, one beloved and the 
 other hated, and they have borne him children, both the . 
 beloved and the hated; and the first-born be hers that 
 was hated. 16. Then it shall be, when he maketh his 
 sons to inherit that which he hath, he may not make 
 the son of the beloved first-born, before the; son of the 
 hated, which is indeed the first-born. 17. But he shall 
 acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by 
 giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he 
 
20 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 is the beginning of his strength: the right of the first- 
 born is his.” 
 
 The argument here used is this :—Moses here legis- 
 lates on the case of a man who has two wives at the 
 same time: But he could not lawfully legislate upon 
 that wibich might not lawfully exist: To have two wives 
 es same time, was therefore lawful.—Or, to state it 
 the I Latin of the schoolmen, “ Qui disponit de conse- 
 que: i e. de jure inter liberos polygamorum, ille 
 
 etiam vult antecedens, i. e. polygamiam.” 
 
 For a moment we will admit, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, the major of the syllogism, viz. that Moses here 
 legislates upon the case of a man who has two wives at 
 the same time. Let us then test the minor by a paral- 
 lel case. In Deut. xxiii. 18, it is said, “ Thou shalt not 
 bring the. hire of a harlot into the house of the Lord 
 thy God, for any vow.” ‘Taught then by the school- 
 men, we thus argue— Moses here legislates upon the 
 wages of a harlot, and therefore supposes that harlots 
 will receive the wages of prostitution: But he could not 
 legislate upon that which might not lawfully exist: To 
 be a harlot and earn the wages of prostitution, were 
 therefore lawful. This conclusion sounds oddly, when 
 we read the remainder of the verse, “For this is an 
 abomination unto the Lord;” or the preceding verse, 
 
 -“'There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel.” 
 
 Let us test this principle by another case. By the 
 common law of England, if an illegitimate son is born, 
 and the parents subsequently marry, and have a legiti- 
 mate son ; the latter, who is called mulier-puisné, has 
 a right to the inheritance. But if, after the father’s 
 death, the older son, who is styled bastard-eigné, ente 
 on the estate, and enjoys it till his death, and dies sei 
 thereof leaving issue male, that issue shall inherit the ve 
 
 Me SS es 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 21 
 
 estate ; and the legitimate son and his heirs are forever 
 barred of their right to it. The reasoning of the school- 
 men, an to this case, would be as follows: “Qui 
 disponit de consequenti, i. e. de jure inter liberos scor- 
 torum, ille etiam vult antecedens, i. e. scortationem.” 
 This conclusion would light up a smile, even on ihe face 
 of a logician. 
 
 But the question now presents itself, does Mc e; 
 legislate upon the case of a man who has two ves: at 
 the same time? ‘That our translators themselves thought 
 otherwise, and that they actually wrote “Ifa man have 
 had,” and not, “If a man have,” and that the word 
 had was omitted by some mistake, is highly probable 
 from the fact, that they say in the same verse,—-“ and 
 the first-born be hers that was hated,” not, “ hers that 7s 
 hated :” evidently intimating that she (the first wife) 
 was dead, at the time referred to. 
 
 To put this question at rest, however, I will cite the 
 various versions of the Polyglott. 
 
 Septuagint. "Env dt yevavras (not yhyavres)——noer Tenwoey 
 maidas (not rixraciv) x. 7. a Ifthere have been toaman 
 two wives, and they have borne him sons, &e. 
 
 Vulgate. Si habuwerit homo uxores duas, et peper- 
 erint ei filios? If a man have had two wives, and they 
 have borne, &c. 
 
 Arias, Montanus. Cum fuerint viro due uxores, et 
 pepererint filios : When aman has had two wives, and 
 they have borne, &c. 
 
 Samaritan Text, Cum fuerint viro due uxores, 
 genuerintque filios. 
 
 Samaritan Version. Cum fuerint viro due uxores, 
 uerintque filios. 
 argum. Si fuerint viro due uxores, et pepere- 
 
 a int éi filios. 
 
 ...* 
 
22 * ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 _ Syriac Version. Cumque fuerint alicui due uxores, 
 et pepererint, &c. ‘ 
 Arabic. Ett cum fueriné viro due uxores, et ambe 
 genuerint filios. , . 
 
 I will only add, that the words rendered have had, 
 and have borne, both in the original and in all the trans- 
 lations, are in the same tense, and refer to events that 
 have already taken place. Moses, therefore, does not 
 here legislate upon the case of a man, who has two 
 wives at the same time, but upon the case of a man 
 who hus had two wives in succession, the second after 
 the decease of the first. And there was an obvious ne- 
 cessity of his legislating upon this precise case ; for the 
 first wife, who was hated, was dead, and the second wife, 
 the favourite, was alive, and, with the feelings of a step- 
 mother, would urge her husband to make her own son 
 the heir, ‘This passage, then, furnishes no evidence that 
 Polygamy was lawful, under the Levitical code. 
 
 The third passage which has been supposed to sanction 
 Polygamy, is a part of the message from God, delivered 
 by Nathan to David, after his conduct to Uriah, in 2 
 Sam. xii. 7, 8: “I anointed thee King over Israel, and 
 
 ‘I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; I gave thee 
 thy master’s house and thy master’s wives into thy 
 bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah ; 
 and if that had been too little, I would moreover have 
 given unto thee such and such things.” That this 
 message furnishes no such sanction, will be obvious, I 
 think, from the following considerations. 
 
 1. The only wives which Saul is said to have had, 
 were Ahinoam, the mother of Michal David’s wife, 
 and Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, who was his con- 
 cubine. According to this supposition, God authorized 
 David to marry his wife’s mother, a species of incest ex- 
 
 P ' 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. " 23 
 
 pressly threatened by the Levitical Law with burning 
 alive. David also married Michal, the daughter of Ahi- 
 noam, when he was quite young. Her very age, there- 
 fore, precludes the supposition that he afterwards mar- 
 ried the mother. 
 
 2. 'Though.David’s wives are repeatedly enumerated, 
 after the death of Saul, yet. there is no intimation that 
 the wives of Saul were among them, or that he had mar- 
 ried them. 
 
 3. David delivered the two sons of Rizpah to the 
 Gibeonites, to be hung up at Gibeah, an event not very 
 likely to have taken place, if he had made her his wife. 
 
 4. The phraseology, “I gave thee thy master’s house 
 (family) and thy master’s wives into thy bosom,” obvi- 
 ously means nothing more than that God, in his provi- 
 dence, gave David, as King of Israel, the possession of 
 every thing that was Saul’s,—his wives and all that he 
 had : a fact, which gave edge to the reproof, “ wherefore, 
 then, hast thou killed Uriah, the Hittite, and taken his 
 wife to be thy wife 2” 
 
 5. Had Absalom, who actually connected himself with 
 ten of his father’s concubines, ultimately succeeded in 
 his treason; and, after the firm establishment of his: 
 throne, had he provoked, by a crime similar to that of 
 David in the case of Uriah, a similar reproof; it might 
 have been said to him as truly as to David, (even if we 
 admit that David married the wives of his father-in law,) 
 “T anointed thee King over Israel, and delivered thee 
 out of the hand of David; and I gave thee thy father’s 
 house, and thy father’s wives into thy bosom :” for God 
 expressly foretold to David, that Absalom would thus con- 
 nect himself with his wives : (2 Sam. xii. 11:) yet who, 
 from this fact, would have supposed that Absalom’s inces- 
 tuous Polygamy with his father’s wives was lawful ?” 
 
 + 
 
 i a. 
 
24 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 This passage, then, furnishes no evidence of the lawful- 
 ness of Polygamy. The history itself furnishes conclu- 
 sive evidence that David never was actually married to 
 the wives of Saul. If, however, in spite of that evi- 
 dence, it be contended that he was, still it was a case of 
 incest expressly prohibited, under the penalty of being 
 burned alive; and if this be an allusion toit, it is an al- 
 lusion to it baihiy as an event of providence. 
 
 The Levitical code, therefore contained no express re- 
 peal of that part of the Great Original Law of Marriage, 
 which prohibited Polygamy, unless it is contained in the 
 disputed passage of Leviticus xvii. 18. That passage 
 will be examined on its own merits hereafter. 
 
 We shall now inquire, whether the Practice of the 
 Israelites proves that Polygamy was permitted by the 
 Levitical Code; or, in other words, that the Original 
 Law of Marriage had been repealed. | 
 
 As the conduct of the best men falls far below the per- 
 fect standard of the Divine Law; it is obvious that 
 it must be an unsafe criterion, from which to deter- 
 mine what the Law of Godis. Especially unsafe must 
 it be, to determine this from the conduct of licentious and 
 profligate men; much more, if these men, live in an ir- 
 regular, unsettled state of society, and are amenable to no 
 human laws; still more, if they are possessed of abso- 
 lute power; and most unsafe of all must it be, to areue 
 from the conduct of such men, in such circumstances,— 
 not what the Law of God is, in a case otherwise un- 
 known, but—that an Express and Universal law, stand- 
 ing on the pages of the Divine statute-book, to bind 
 the Human Race, has been repealed. With these things 
 in view, we will examine the actual Practice of the Is- 
 raelites. 
 
 Gideon, the third Judge of Israel, and a military 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 55 
 
 chieftain, had many wives, and one concubine, and sev- 
 enty-one sons. Weare also told, that he set up an im-+ 
 age in Ophrah his city; that all Israel went thither a 
 whoring after it; that it became a snare to Gideon and his 
 family ; and that Abimelech, the son of his concubine, 
 assassinated all but one of the children of his wives. 
 
 Jair, the fifth Judge of Israel, had thirty children. 
 This is not conclusive evidence that he had more than 
 one wife; and much less that he had more than one at 
 atime. A citizen of North Carolina, a few years since, 
 petitioned the Legislature of that state for exemption 
 from taxes, because his wife, then living, had borne him 
 twenty-nine children, most of whom he had educated. 
 One other case has been reported to me in this country, 
 in which the same married pair had thirty children. 
 That Jair should have had as many, by two successive 
 wives, would have been in no rire surprising. 
 
 Ibzan, the seventh of the Judges, had thirty sons and 
 thirty daughters. This was unquestionably a case of 
 
 polygamy. 
 Abdon, the ninth Judge of Israel, had forty sons, and 
 was doubtless a polygamist. te 
 
 Samson, the tenth Judge of Israel, after his lawful 
 wife at Timnath had been given to another, associated 
 with a harlot at Gaza, and afterwards with another in 
 the valley of Sorek. But this was not polygamy. 
 
 Elkanah, a man in private life, and a good man, had 
 two wives. Weare told however that he lived “in those 
 days when there was no king in Israel, and every man 
 did that which was right in his own eyes.” His history, 
 also, is chiefly made up of the distress, brought upon his 
 family, by his polygamy. 
 
 It is said of the children or descendents af Uzzi, the 
 grandson of Issachar, fev they practised polygamy. 
 
 ~ ‘ 
 3 : 
 
26 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 They also lived, when “ every man did that which was 
 right in his own eyes.” Their polygamy is assigned as 
 the reason, why they were numerous, compared with the 
 other. families of the tribe. It was of course singular, 
 and did not prevail generally, either in Issachar, or in 
 Israel. 
 
 Saul, the first king of Israel, had a wife and a concu- 
 bine. He was judicially cut off for his wickedness. 
 
 David, the second king of Israel, had eight wives and 
 numerous concubines. In this conduct he transgressed 
 an express law, which forbad the king of Israel, to 
 multiply wives unto himself. He was a good man, 
 yet his life was deformed by various crimes of a very 
 gross character. It is said, however, that he is styled the 
 man after God’s own heart, and that his conduct is 
 declared to have been acceptable to God, except in the 
 case of Uriah. This language, however, must be 
 interpreted with many qualifications ; for he was guilty 
 of gross ingratitude and falsehood to Achish and of 
 falsehood to Ahimelech; and was sorely punished for 
 the direct violation of an express law in numbering 
 Israel. 
 
 Solomon, the third king of Israel, had seven hundred 
 wives and three hundred concubines. ‘This was an 
 outrageous violation of the same express law against 
 the multiplication of wives. “ And it came to pass, 
 when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his 
 heart ofter other gods, and his heart was not perfect with 
 the Lord his God.” 'These two cases no more prove the 
 law against polygamy to have been repealed, than they 
 prove the law against the king’s multiplying wives unto 
 himself to have been repealed. 
 
 Rehoboam, the fourth king of Israel and the first 
 king of Judah, had eighteen wives and sixty concu- 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. oF 
 
 bines ; “and he forsook the law of the Lord, and all 
 Israel with him.” 
 
 Abijah, the second king of Judah, had fourteen 
 wives; “and he walked in all the sins of his father, 
 which he had done before him.” 
 
 Ahab, the eleventh king of Israel, had numerous wives, 
 and seventy sons: “And Ahab did evil, in the sight of 
 the Lord, above all that were before him in Israel.” 
 
 Jehoram, the fifth king of Judah, and the son-in-law 
 of Ahab, had several wives; “ And he walked in the 
 way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of 
 Ahab, and he wrought evil in the eyes of the Lord. 
 And he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit 
 fornication, and he compelled Judah thereto.” 
 
 It is alleged that Joash, the seventh king of Judah, 
 and the grand-son of Athaliah, had two wives at the 
 same time; and that the account given of this fact in 
 2 Chron. xxiv. 2, 3, furnishes a strong presumption in 
 favour of the practice—“ And Joash did that which was 
 right in the sight of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada 
 the priest. And Jehoiada took for him (75,) two wives; 
 and he begat sons and daughters.” 'The following re- 
 marks may, serve to explain this passage. The He- 
 brew word sb rendered for him, means alike either for 
 him, or for himself. 'The Rabbins render the passage, 
 “ And Jehoiada took unto himself (i.e. married) two 
 wives, and begat sons and daughters ;” and they insist 
 that he married them in succession. This, if the pas- 
 sage refers to Jehoiada, is probable; for the language 
 implies nothing more, than that he had two wives, 
 without specifying when ; and there is no instance on 
 record of polygamy in a priest. If we suppose that Je- 
 hoiada took two wives for Joash, and both at the same 
 
28 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 time ; still the language here used will not prove poly- 
 gamy to have been sanctioned by the law of God. It 
 does not follow from the declaration, that “ Joash did 
 that which was right in the sight of the Lord, all the 
 days of Jehoiada ;” for, in the parallel passage in 
 Kings, we are told, that Joash refused to abolish idola- 
 try, during the days of Jehoiada. It is also said of Da- 
 vid, that he did that which was right in the sight of 
 the Lord, except in the matter of Uriah; yet by this 
 language, apparently so universal, as we have just seen, 
 it was not intended to justify his falsehoods to Ahimelech 
 and Achish, or his disobedience to an express statute in 
 numbering Israel. Of the better class of the kings of 
 Judah, it is also said, that they did that which was 
 right in the sight of the Lord, during their reigns; 
 and yet the prophets have recorded their numerous sins. 
 The phrase, therefore, neans only, that their conduct 
 was generally acceptable to God; but furnishes no evi- 
 dence of the lawfulness of any one specific act. The 
 fact too that Jehoiada took two wives for Joash, if it 
 was a fact, does not prove this pot. Athaliah and her 
 son Amaziah had introduced a universal corruption of 
 morals into Judah, and had made idolatry the religion 
 of the court and of the nation. Jehoiada endeavoured 
 to restore the worship of the true God; yet during the 
 king’s minority, he did not take away the high places, 
 nor put down idolatry except at Jerusalem. That, in 
 such a state of things, he should have yielded, in this 
 point, to the king’s wishes, when he was forced to yield 
 in points of so much more consequence, will excite na 
 surprise, and can furnish no evidence that polygamy 
 had been sanctioned by the law of God.. 
 
 Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, had several wives. 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 29 
 
 “ Neither did Zedekiah hearken unto the words of the 
 Lord.” | He was dethroned for his disobedience. 
 
 These, if I mistake not, are all the instances of poly- 
 gamy on record among the Israelites. They amount, 
 if we include Joash, to only thirteen single instances, 
 beside that of the children Uzzi, in a period of more 
 than twelve hundred years. That these cases prove 
 that the law of God permitted polygamy, is argued 
 on four different grounds, which we will now ex- 
 amine. 
 
 1. From the number of those who practised polyga- 
 my. 'The actual number on record, we have seen, is 
 thirteen single instances, beside that of the children of 
 Uzzi, in a period of more than twelve hundred years. 
 But it cannot surprise any one that in a period of that 
 length, and in a nation so corrupt, thirteen instances of 
 polygamy should have occurred ; when, during that pe- 
 riod, many more instances of murder, adultery, and’ 
 idolatry, are on record: or that, of these thirteeen in- 
 stances, twelve should have been of persons possessed 
 of absolute power; when Gideon, and Solomon, and 
 nineteen of the kings of Israel, and twelve of the kings 
 of Judah, in all thirty-three persons possessed of abso- 
 lute power, were publicly and habitually idolaters: or 
 that Elkanah and the children of Uzzi, private indi- 
 viduals, are recorded as polygamists; when not only 
 Micah, and his mother, and the Levite his priest, were 
 idolaters, but the children of Dan publicly established 
 idolatry and an idolatrous priesthood, from the days of 
 Micah until the captivity; when sacrifices to idols in 
 groves and high places continued in Israel, from the 
 days of Jeroboam until the captivity of the ten tribes ; 
 and in Judah from the time of Solomon, with scarcely 
 an exception, until the seprane into Babylon. 
 
30 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 ‘Were the reasoning, thus applied to the Hebrew his- 
 tory, to be adopted in any other case, it would lead to 
 singular results. The nations of Europe, during the 
 last twelve hundred years and upwards, have professed 
 to be Christians, and to respect the Laws of God. Yet, 
 were a prophet of God to write the history of any one 
 of them during that period, not excepting that of Rome 
 itself, of its popes, cardinals, and bishops, he would detail 
 —not thirteen, but—thirteen hundred instances of open, 
 acknowledged, long-continued, multifarious, and yet 
 unpunished adultery. Yet this does not prove, that the 
 Law of God forbidding adultery has been repealed, nor 
 even that it is authorized by the laws of those countries. 
 Were a Mohammedan to visit Italy, and to find the sys- 
 tems of cicisbeism and nepotism pervading its gentle 
 and noble families, and even the court and palace of His 
 Holiness, and the former system regularly recognized in 
 marriage contracts; were he to visit Austria, and to 
 find- numbers of her princes and nobles maintaining 
 each his eastern haram, and her Prime Minister for 
 the last. twenty-five years bestowing office as the price 
 of beauty ; and were he to discover that the crime, for 
 which the Cities of the Plain were destroyed by a storm 
 of fire, was most notoriously and impudently prevalent 
 throughout Austria, Italy, and France; he might be 
 ready to exclaim, “ Why the Bible is no better than the 
 Koran !” yet, while we could not deny his facts, we 
 should all be ready to question his logic. Nay, were a 
 prophet. honestly to detail the occurrences of the last 
 thirty winters at our own capital, i. e. for the fortieth 
 part of twelve hundred years, if we did not find in the 
 record more than thirteen instances of known unpun- 
 ished adultery, as well as of bribery, his book would 
 greatly raise the reputation of our native land. 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 81 
 
 2. From the Character of those who practised polyga- 
 my.. It will hardly be insisted that Saul, Rehoboam, Abi- 
 jah, Ahab, Jehoram, Joash, and Zedekiah had sufficient 
 weight of character, to prove all that they did to be jus- 
 tifiable. Gideon’s setting up and maintaining an idol 
 at Ophrah, and seducing the Israelites to Idolatry, is at 
 least.a suspicious circumstance in his case. The fact, 
 that Solomon’s wives turned his heart from God, and 
 led him to erect high places to idols, is no very strong 
 circumstance in his favour, or in favour of polygamy. 
 We know of Ibzan and of Abdon, only that they were 
 Judges possessed of absolute power, and that they prac- 
 tised polygamy. We know also of the children of Uzzi 
 merely that they practised polygamy, just as we know 
 of the children of Dan merely that they practised idola- 
 try. The character of David did not justify his con- 
 duct with Ahimelech or Achish, with Bathsheba or 
 Uriah. Elkanah was a good man, yet not a better 
 man than Abraham. Yet the character of Abraham 
 does not prove his falsehoods to Abimelech and Pharaoh 
 to be in accordance with the Law of God; neither, 
 therefore, does the character of Kikanal» prove his poly- 
 gamy to be in accordance with that Law. 
 
 3. From the fact that no Punishment was inflicted 
 on polygamists by the Government. 
 
 Nine of the thirteen single instances were instances of 
 Absolute Monarchs, whom no earthly tribunal could 
 call to an account, or punish, for their conduct; and 
 three of the remaining fowr were those of Judges, or 
 Military Chieftains—men equally absolute with the 
 Monarchs of Israel. That of Elkanah, and those of 
 the children of Uzzi, occurred, as we have seen, in times 
 when “every man did that which was right in his 
 own eyes,” or, in-other words, had no one to call him. 
 
32 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 to an account. In each of.the instances, therefore, 
 punishment was wholly out of the question. 
 
 Other crimes, however, not less heinous than this, 
 and expressly forbidden, also escaped punishment. 
 Though Abimelech, Saul, Doeg, David, Joab in re- 
 peated instances, Ahab, Zimri, Athaliah, Joash, and 
 many others, were guilty of murder; Gilead, Samson, 
 the wife of the Levite, Hophni, Phineas, David, and 
 Absalom, of adultery ; Amnon of rape; Gideon, Micah, 
 his mother, the Levite who* lived with him, and the 
 Danites who robbed him, and their descendents for suc- 
 cessive generations, Solomon, Jeroboam and his eighteen 
 successors on the throne of Israel, as well as Rehoboam 
 and eleven more of the kings of Judah, were guilty of 
 idolatry ; and the body of the two nations in numberless 
 instances apostatized, and worshipped the gods of the 
 surrounding countries ; yet, in no one of these instances, 
 was the sentence of the law inflicted by the government, 
 on any individual. Yet surely this fact furnishes no 
 evidence that murder, adultery, rape, and idolatry, were 
 permitted, either by the laws of Israel, or the law of 
 God. 
 
 4. From the fact, that no Censure is pronounced on 
 those who practised Polygamy by the scriptural writers. 
 We have already seen that the Original Law of Mar- 
 riage universally forbad it; that Malachi severely cen- 
 sures the conduct, and declares that God forbad it to 
 Man because of its demoralizing efficacy, and that 
 Christ pronounces every one, who practises it, an adul- 
 terer.. We have also seen that Polygamy is assigned 
 as the cause of that general corruption and violence, 
 which occasioned the Deluge ; and that either Lamech, 
 the first. polygamist was a murderer, or that his poly- 
 gamy, the first transgression of the Law of Marriage, 
 
ESSAY. ON POLYGAMY. 33 
 
 Was the reason why his wives apprehended, that he 
 would be put to death. In the instances of Jacob and 
 Elkanah, it is exhibited as one of the principal causes 
 of the misfortunes of their lives. In that of Jacob also, 
 Reuben his eldest son defiled Bilhah one of his father’s 
 concubines ; and what Jacob’s feelings were on the 
 occasion wks may learn from his dying address to Reuben 
 more than forty years afterwards: “Reuben, thou art 
 my first-born: unstable as water, thou shalt not excel, 
 because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed ; then de- 
 filedst thou it: he went up to my couch.” In the case 
 of Gideon we are told, that Abimelech, the son of his 
 concubine, assassinated sixty-nine out of seventy of the 
 children of his wives. In the case of David, Amnon, 
 the son of one of his wives, committed a rape on Thamar, 
 the daughter of another ; while Absalom, the brother of 
 Thamar, killed Amnon, and then expelled David from 
 his throne, and violated his father’s concubines in the 
 sight of all Israel. Of the wives and concubines of 
 Sclomon, it is expressly said, that they turned his heart 
 away from God. And in the cases of Saul, Reho- 
 boain, Abijah, and Ahab, the general character of each 
 is described as dreadfully wicked, and their polygamy 
 is mentioned as one of the incidents of their lives. 
 
 The supposition, that those, who practised polygamy, 
 are not censured for it, in the Scriptures, is therefore an 
 entire mistake. Yet it is true, that various instances 
 are recorded, in which the individuals mentioned are 
 not censured at the time. If, then, there be any force 
 in this argument, it grows out of the truth of the general 
 principle, that whatever actions are recorded in the Scrip- 
 tures, without any direct censure at the time, are law- 
 ful. So far, however, is this principle from being true, 
 that, with the single exception of the crime of idolatry —~ 
 
34 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 an exception growing out of the peculiar enormity of 
 the crime, which was direct High-treason against Jeho- 
 vah, as the acting Governor of Israel,—it is the cus- 
 tomary mode of the scriptural writers, in recording 
 crimes, simply to mention them as actions or events 
 which occurred, without expressing an opinion as to the 
 character of these actions. 'This is the natural method{of 
 recording such actions in a book like the Bible ; in which 
 the great general principles, which stamp the character 
 of actions, are previously and distinctly established, and 
 ~ therefore considered as known. This is often true in- 
 deed, even in the case of idolatry. The idolatry of 
 Terah, that of Laban and. Rachel, that of Gideon, and 
 that of Micah, of his mother, and of the Levite his 
 priest, are simply mentioned as facts, without a com- 
 ment. As to the idolatry of the Danites, which con- 
 tinued to the time of the captivity, all that is said is, that 
 “the children of Dan set up the graven image of Micah, 
 in the city of Dan; and Jonathan the son of Gershom, 
 the son of Manasseh, he and his sons, were priests to 
 the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of the 
 land ; and they set up Micah’s graven image, all the 
 time the house of God was in Shiloh.” When the 
 sacred historians inform us that Noah was guilty of in- 
 temperance; that Abraham uttered a known direct 
 falsehood to Abimelech, and another to Pharaoh, both, 
 at the imminent hazard of his wife’s purity ; that Isaac, 
 under similar circumstances,.did the same to Pharaoh ; 
 that Lot offered his two daughters to the men who sur- 
 rounded his house; that he was twice guilty of drunken- 
 ness; that his two daughters successively made him 
 drunk, and were then guilty of incest with their father ; 
 that Jacob, at the instigation of Rebekah his mother, 
 told repeated falsehoods to Isaac, and that he defrauded 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 35 
 
 Esau of his birthright and his blessing; that Laban 
 deceived and defrauded Jacob, by substituting Leah for 
 Rachel ; and that Jacob in his turn defrauded Laban, 
 in his management with regard to the cattle; that 
 Rachel stole her father’s idols, and then told him a direct 
 falsehood to escape detection ; that Esau collected an 
 armed force, to take away Jacob’s life ; that the sons of 
 Jacob sold Joseph into Egypt, and then told a wilful 
 falsehood to their father, under circumstances of the 
 most aggravated filial impiety ; that Judah was guilty of 
 lewdness with Thamar, not knowing her, and Thamar 
 of known incest with her father-in-law ; that Reuben 
 committed adultery and incest with Bilhah his father’s 
 concubine ; that Gilead was guilty of lewdness with a 
 harlot ; that Samson was guilty of repeated adulteries ; 
 
 that Joab killed his brother Asahel; and that David 
 told a direct falsehood to Ahimelech, and another to 
 Achish ;—these various events, as well as many of a 
 similar nature in subsequent parts of the Scriptures, are 
 recorded simply as events, without any comment at the 
 time; and almost all of them, without any comment 
 afterwards. But does this fact prove that intemperance, 
 lying, incest, fraud, prostitution, idolatry, adultery and 
 murder, were lawful ?—If not, neither does the fact, that 
 Polygamy is not in every case censured at the time, 
 prove that Polygamy was lawful. . 
 
 It may not be improper to mention, in this place, a 
 remarkable example of this nature. In Ley. xxxiii. 
 33, 34, the Israelites were commanded to dwell in 
 booths seven days every year at the feast of tabernacles, 
 throughout their generations for ever. Yet we are told 
 by Nehemiah that, from the days of Joshua (B. C. 1446) 
 to his days, (B. C. 444,) or 1002 years, it was wholly 
 neglected. Yet not a word of censure, for this neglect, 
 
> 
 
 : fag ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 ‘iss escaped those, who wrote the’ iain of that long 
 ~ interval. 
 
 From these auncharealtta it is wehbe if I mistake 
 not, that no solid argument, in favour of the lawfulness 
 of Polygamy to the Israelites, can be derived, either from 
 the Number, or the Character, of those who practised _ 
 it, or from the fact that they. escaped Punishment from 
 the government, or Censure from the scriptural writers. 
 Were the principle, indeed, once settled, that it is lawful 
 to determine what the law of Ged is, from the conduct 
 of any class of men whatever, and from the fact that 
 
 _that conduct is recorded without censure by the scriptural 
 writers; when we remember the falsehoods of Abraham 
 to Abimelech and Pharaoh, of Isaac to Pharaoh, of Re- 
 bekah and Jacob to Isaac, of Laban to Jacob, of Rachel 
 to Laban, of the eleven patriarchs to Jacob, of Ehud to 
 Eelon, of Jael to Sisera, and the manner in whieh her © 
 conduct is spoken of by Deborah, of David to Achish 
 and Ahimelech, and of Elisha to the host of Benhadad, 
 (2 Kings vi. 19.) at the very time when he beheld the 
 mountain full of horses and. chariots of fire, and had 
 just wrought a miracle in smiting the whole Syrian 
 army with blindness; and reflect that these various 
 instances of known direct falsehood are all recorded 
 without censure by the sacred writers ;—--we should have 
 far stronger evidence, that the Law forbidding wilful 
 falsehood was repealed under the Patriarchal and Levi- 
 tical Dispensations, than we can find of the repeal of 
 the Law of Marriage, in the account which they give 
 of the practice of polygamy. 
 
 The result of our inquiry then is this, that Polygamy 
 was universally forbidden to mankind by the Great 
 Original Law of Marriage; that no evidence of any 
 repeal of that law, so far as it prohibited Polygamy, is 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 33 
 ae 
 
 found in the scriptures ; and of course that Polygam 
 was unlawful both to the Patriarchs, and to the Israelites, 
 I will now subjoin a few considerations, confirming these 
 conclusions.. 
 1. 'The fact, that the Other Species of Polygamy— 
 that in which one woman has two or more husbands— 
 was unlawful in Israel, proves that the Original Law 
 of Marriage, forbidding Polygamy, was in full force 
 under the Levitical Code. That that peculiar species 
 of Polygamy was unlawful in Israel, will doubtless be 
 admitted ; yet, should it be denied, the proof is at hand. 
 In Deut. xxiv. 1—4, it is said, that a wife, after she has. 
 received a bill of divorcement from her husband, “ may 
 go and be another man’s wife.” Of course, previous to 
 her receiving such a bill, it was unlawful for her to go 
 and be another man’s wife, i. e. 40 have two husbands 
 at thesametime. But, if it was unlawful for a woman 
 in Israel to have two husbands at the same time, some 
 law had forbidden it. I then ask, What was that law 2 
 —The Levitical Code contains a law, forbidding a mar- 
 ried woman to have aduléerous intercourse with another 
 man ; but it contains no law, prohibiting conjugal inter- 
 course or connexion by marriage—-that is, no law, of 
 which those whom I oppose can: here avail themselves. 
 The prohibition, in Levit. xviii. 18, “ Neither shalt thou 
 take a wife to her sister in her life-time, to vex her”— 
 according to the construction of it, for which I propose 
 to contend, in the ensuing Essay—Neither shalt thou 
 take one wife to another, in her life-time, to vex her— 
 does, indeed, expressly forbid a man to have two wives ; 
 and therefore may be regarded as, by implication, for- 
 bidding a woman to have two husbands. But this 
 obviously cannot be alleged by those, who deny this 
 construction. I callon Eye then, to point out the law, 
 
38 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. | 
 
 which rendered the latter species of polygamy unlaw- 
 ful; but this they cannot do, for no such law exists, 
 except the Original Law of Marriage. That law, there- 
 fore, was in force under the Levitical Code. But if that 
 law forbad a woman to have two husbands ; with still 
 greater certainty did it forbid aman to have two wives ; 
 because its prohibitory clause affects men, expressly ; 
 while it affects women only by implication. 'That 
 clause is—not, “Therefore shall @ woman leave her 
 father and mother and cleave unto her husband ;’* but— 
 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and 
 cleave unto his wife.” And, as we have seen that it 
 forbids a woman to have two husbands, at once; a for- 
 tiori therefore, does it forbid a man to have two wives at 
 once. This fact then proves that the Original Law of 
 Marriage, so far as it forbad polygamy, was in force in 
 all its length and breadth under the Levitical Code. 
 
 2. The same thing is evident from the fact, that Po- 
 lygamy was expressly prohibited, by Moses, to the future 
 kings of Israel. Deut. xvii. 17, “ Neither shall he (the 
 future king) multiply wives unto himself; that his heart 
 turn not away.” 
 
 It has been publicly suggested by an individual not now 
 in the desk, that the word mudl¢iply, has as extensive a 
 meaning in this passage, as it has in the preceding verse— 
 “But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause 
 the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should 
 multiply horses ”—It is said that, as the future monarch 
 is not, by this verse, restricted to one horse ; so he is not, 
 by the next, to one wife; and that he is clearly allowed 
 to keep at least as many wives as horses. My only 
 reply to this suggestion shall be this—The mind, which 
 
 * If it had been, who would have questioned that it forbad a wo- 
 man to have two husbands at once. 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 39 
 
 could first engender such a.sentiment, and then charge it 
 to the Spirit of God, shall receive it back again, untouched, 
 into the pollution from which it came forth. 
 
 The prohibition, given to the monarch to multiply 
 wives, either had a definite meaning, and restricted him 
 within given limits; or it had no meaning at all. If 
 the Original Law of Marriage was in force in Israel, 
 this prohibition had a definite meaning. If it were a 
 fundamental. law of England, where polygamy is un- 
 lawful ;—“'The king shall not multiply wives: unto 
 himself ;”—it would clearly prohibit the king from mar- 
 rying more than one wife ; for any increase above the 
 authorized number, is multiplication ; and the same, 
 on this supposition, was true in Israel. But if that law 
 was not in force in Israel, I ask, What law limited the 
 number of wives, which might be lawfully taken, either 
 by king or subject. 
 
 ‘The Rabbinists indeed allege, that David had 14 wives 
 and 18 concubines; and insist, because he was a good 
 man, thatthis was thewltimatum, beyond which the mo- _ 
 narch might not lawfully go. No one, however, at the 
 present day, will pretend, that, by any enactment, the 
 lawful number of the monarch’s wives is limited to two, 
 or three, or to the Mohammedan number four, orto siz or 
 eight, to ten or twenty. But if the lawful number was 
 not definitely settled, the king might well ask the 
 prophet, who suffered him to take twenty, and who came 
 to reprove him because he was about to take the twenty- 
 first,—“ What! is it multiplying wives to take twenty-one, 
 when it is not multiplying them totake twenty! Ifthen 
 this prohibition was not absolutely nugatory, and in ef- 
 fect prohibited nothing ; the Original Law of Marriage 
 was in force in ional; 
 
 - If Polygamy was unlawful to the nation at large ; 
 
40 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 still there were the best reasons in the world, for recording 
 a particular express prohibition of it to the future mo- 
 narch. ‘The surrounding nations all practised polyga- 
 my. Their kings had, each his haram; and each 
 prided himself in the number of his wives-and concu- 
 pines. The monarch of Israel was absolute, independ- 
 ent of the nation whom he governed, and amenable only 
 to God. Though the people at large had been forbidden 
 to. practise polygamy, still, from the example of sur- 
 rounding kings, from the power and wealth of the mo- 
 narch, and the passions of the human breast, there was 
 the strongest reason to fear that, notwithstanding the 
 general law, he would “multiply wives unto himself,” 
 and thus corrupt himself and the nation. In this point 
 of view, the command appears most merciful; and the 
 histories of Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah 
 and Ahab, prove, that it was most necessary ; for even this: 
 additional and express command did not secure their obe- 
 dience. 
 
 This restriction on the king was certainly intended to 
 have force and efficacy ; because it was a law of God. 
 But we have seen, that, if it did not limit the king to 
 one wife, it did not limit him a¢ all ; and of course had 
 no binding force. ‘The king, then, was forbidden to 
 practise polygamy, if the people were not. If then we 
 suppose polygamy to have been lawful to the nation at 
 large ; where was the propriety of forbidding it to the 
 king? It did not lie in the fact that it was unlawful 
 in itself ; for in itself it was as lawful to the monarch 
 as to his subjects. The monarch was certainly as able, 
 as his subjects, tomaintain numerous wives, and provide 
 for them as he ought. The heart of the monarch was 
 no more liable to be turned away, by the practice of po- 
 lygamy, than the heart of a subject. I agree, “it hath 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 41 
 
 cast down many wounded, yea many strong men have 
 been slain by it ;” but, while this is the. best of all rea- 
 sons for prohibiting it universally, it isa very bad one 
 for confining the prohibition to kings. To prohibit the 
 king from an innocent, and, if we may judge from the 
 history of Saul, David, Solomon, and several. of their 
 successors, a favouriée practice; when not only the neigh- 
 bouring monarchs, but his own subjects were allowed to 
 indulge in it; would have been to create an unnecessary 
 and odious distinction. It was exhibiting him, in point 
 both of actual privilege, and of claims to personal con- 
 fidence, as below the level of the people at Jarge. It was 
 in effect to say—“ Neither shall the king practise po- 
 lygamy, because it will turn away his heart ; but all his 
 subjects may practise it, because it will not turn away 
 their hearts!” The fact, that he saw his princes, his 
 nobles, and even his peasants, lawfully possessing all that 
 heart could wish, while himself was limited to a single 
 object ; would of course have prompted him, if not re- 
 strained by religious principle, to the indulgence of wild 
 and roving passion. Such a restriction, therefore, could 
 not have been laid on the monarchs of Israel, without 
 being also laid upon their subjects. 
 
 3. If Polygamy was not forbidden by the Original 
 Law of Marriage, to the Patriarchs and Israelites ; nei- 
 ther is it forbidden under the Christian Dispensation. 
 Polygamy has been supposed to be forbidden, in the New 
 Testament, in the six following passages—Mat. v. 31, 
 32; Mat. xix. 3—9; Mark x. 2—12; Luke xvi. 18; 
 Ephesians v. 31; and Cor. vii. 1,2. The first five of 
 these passages are all alike. ‘They are all founded on, 
 and appeal to, the Original Law of Marriage, and merely 
 explain the binding force of that law upon mankind: 
 they forbid what that s/s and allow what that al- 
 
42 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 lowed ; and if that did not forbid Polygamy, neither do 
 they. As to the passage in Corinthians, “ Now con- 
 cerning the things ye wrote unto me,—It is good for a 
 man not to touch a woman : Nevertheless, to avoid incon- 
 tinence, let every man have his own wife, and let every 
 woman have her own husband ;” I-remark, 1. That 
 every man has his own wife, and every woman her own 
 husband, as truly in polygamy as in marriage ; and 
 2. That the Apostle expressly declares, that he speaks 
 the paragraph of which this is a part, by permission, 
 and not by commandment, and that it is himself that 
 speaks it, and not the Lord. Ofcourse it is merely advi- 
 sory ; and cannot be regarded as a Jaw restraining the 
 rights of mankind in the article of marriage, within nar- 
 rower limits than had previously existed for four thou- 
 sand years, and binding by its authority the whole hu- 
 man race. No alteration of a General Law of God was 
 ever introduced by a passage in a writer, declared by 
 himself to be mere private advice. The only remain- 
 ing passages in the New Testament, alluding to this 
 subject—L Tim. in. 2, “ A bishop must be the husband 
 of one wife;” and 1 Tim. iii. 12, “Let the deacons be 
 the husbands of one wife ;’—so far as they have any 
 bearing upon it, seem to imply, that all except bishops 
 and deacons may be the husbands of more than one 
 wife ; and so direct did this implication seem to the dig- 
 nitaries of the Greek Church, that, in order to rebut it, 
 they enacted, that neither bishop nor deacon, if he had 
 the misfortune to lose his wife, should ever be permitted 
 tomarry asecond. ‘They allude, however, doubtless, to 
 the fact, that some of the converted Heathens: had seve- 
 ral wives; and enjoin that no one, who had more than 
 one, should fill the office of bishop or deacon. If then 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 43 
 
 polygamy was lawful, under the Patriarchal and Leviti- 
 cal dispensations, it is equally so under the Christian. 
 
 A. Wherever marriage is spoken of in the scriptures as 
 a state, it is always spoken of as the union of one man 
 with one woman; and in language utterly inconsistent 
 with the supposition, that more than one of either sex 
 could be lawfully united with one of the other. This is 
 true, alike, of both Testaments.. A few examples will 
 show the common current language of the whole Bible. 
 
 Gen xxiv. 3, 4, “ And I will make thee swear unto 
 me, by the LORD, the God of Heaven and the God of 
 Karth, that thou shalt not take a wife to my son, of the 
 daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell; but 
 thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and 
 take a wife unto my son Isaac.” Abrahaim’s design, in 
 thus adjuring Eleazer, was to prevent Isaac from marry- 
 ing a Canaanitish woman. ‘The fact that Isaac should 
 marry a woman of Padan-Aram, he evidently regards 
 as complete security, against the dreaded connection. 
 But if Polygamy had been lawful, it would have been no 
 security whatever. Isaac was heir to princely posses- 
 sions, and could easily have maintained many. wives. 
 In these circumstances, had Polygamy been lawful, his 
 father, in order to prevent all hazard of connection with 
 the women of Canaan, would have directed Eleazer to 
 bring —not a wife, but—as many wives as Isaac would 
 probably wish to include in his family establishmsnt. 
 From the fact, that he regarded Isaac’s marriage with 
 one wife of Padan-Aram as effectual security against 
 future marriages with women of Canaan, it is evident, 
 that Polygamy was not then regarded as lawful. 
 
 Deut. xxviii. 54, 58, “His eye shall be evil towards 
 the wife of his bosom.”—“ Her eye shall be evil towards 
 the husband of her bosom.” 'These are a part of the 
 
44 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 curses, denounced against the Israelites as a nation, 
 to take effect. upon them, during the long progress of 
 their history, whenever they should become disobedient 
 and rebellious. ‘The husband and wife here mentioned 
 are any husband and wife, who should thus disobey. 
 The language is accommodated to the actual laws and 
 state of society in Israel, not only as they were in the 
 age of Moses, but as they were to be in every succeed- 
 ing age. It describes marriage, as it actually finds it, 
 and finds it universally prevalent—as the union of one 
 husband with one wife—as a union, in which the hus- 
 band has the wife of his bosom; and the wife, the hus- 
 band of her bosom. In a country, where a man may 
 marry but one wife, this language has meaning ; but 
 suppose that a Turk were threatened, that on the com- 
 mission of a given offence, he should lose the wife of his 
 bosom ; would he not instinctively ask, “which of them 
 will you take ?—I have four!” Must not the law, in 
 order to have point and exactness, threaten him with 
 the loss—either of one of his wives, or—of the women 
 of his haram 2? Here then Moses, or rather God him- 
 self, when making laws relative to marriage, as it then 
 existed, and as it would lawfully exist in Israel in 
 successive generations, not only represents each hus- 
 band as having one wife, and each wife as having one 
 husband ; but uses language, which could have no 
 meaning, in a country where Polygamy was general or 
 lawful. 
 
 Psalm exxvili. 3,“ Thy wife shall be as a fruitful 
 vine, by the side of thy house: thy children, like olive- 
 plants round about thy table.” The Israelites, probably 
 more than any other people, regarded numerous children 
 as ablessing. Thus, in the preceding Psalm, it is said— 
 «Lo, children are an heritage from the Lord, as arrows 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. ; 45 
 
 in the hands of amighty man. Happy is the man, that 
 hath his quiver full of them.” _Thisidea is fully recog- 
 nized, in the passage quoted above, in which the Psalm- 
 ist is describing the happiness of the man, who-feareth 
 the Lord. But, if. writing for a country, in which Polyg- 
 amy was customary, instead of saying, “ Thy wife shall 
 be a fruitful vine,’ he would have said, “Thy wives 
 shall be as fruitful vines.” It would present no very 
 flattering prospect toa good man, who had twenty wives, 
 to tell him, that, as the reward of his fearing the Lord, 
 one of them should be fruitful. “ What !”—he would 
 instinctively rejoin, and with no little meaning,—“ and 
 shall the other nineteen be barren ” 
 
 Prov. v. 15, 18, 19 “ Drink waters out of thine own 
 cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Let 
 thy fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of thy 
 youth. Let her be as the loving hind, and the pleas- 
 ant roe; let Her breasts satisfy thee af all times, and 
 be thou always ravished with her love.” Solomon tells 
 us, that these are part of the instructions, which David 
 his father gave him, when he was young, to regulate his 
 conduct.* I admit, that David had numerous wives and 
 concubines ; yet, as one of the inspired penmen, he has 
 taught nothing but pure morality and exalted piety. 
 I ask then every one, who has read the preceding direc- 
 tions, whether they could have sense or meaning, if ad- 
 
 * The address of David to Solomon begins Prov. iv. 4, in the middle 
 of the verse, and is carried on in one continuous discourse, through 
 that and the five following chapters: ending with the close of Chapter 
 ix. This fact, I believe, has escaped the notice of Commentators. It 
 is worthy of observation, as it refutes an argument, which has been 
 derived from the abrupt commencement of Chapter x., to prove that 
 Solomon did not write much of the latter part of the book. That 
 abrupt commencement is owing to the fact, that the discourse of Seles 
 
 mon is there resumed, 
 
wis > 
 
 46 ” ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 dressed to a man, living where Polygamy was lawful 
 and customary? Had they been actually addressed to 
 an Israelitish nobleman, who, by divine permission, had 
 married a haram of twenty wives; with what force - 
 would he have replied in David’s own language-— 
 “ Which of my cisterns or which of my wells, which of 
 my fountains or which of my wives; with Adah or 
 Zillah, with Abigail or Rachel, with Haggith or 
 Maachah, with Hannah or Rebekah, with Achsah or 
 Deborah, with Sarah or Bathsheba, with Milcah or 
 Michal, with Anah or Delilah, with Mary or Ruth, or 
 which? In short, could these directions be possibly 
 obeyed by the man, who had so many other wives, 
 beside the wife of his youth. Could her breasts satisfy 
 him at al/ times, when, during most of his time, he was 
 lawfully and necessarily devoting himself to the other 
 women of his haram? Could he be always ravished 
 with her love, when usually she was supplanted by her 
 rivals? Would not obedience to these directions have 
 been a gross abuse and injury to his other lawful wives ? 
 
 Jer. v. 8, “ They were as fed horses, in the morning : 
 every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” The 
 prophet is here describing in glowing terms, the general 
 lewdness of the Israelites, and their multiplied adulteries. 
 No illustration of the subject could have been more forci- 
 ble, than the image which. he actually presents; and 
 Jeremiah can rarely be accused of letting his representa- 
 tions lag behind the reality. Surely, then, if Polygamy 
 had been customary, he would have said, “Every one 
 neighed ”—not “after his neighbour’s wife,”---but “ after 
 his neighbour’s wives,” or “his neighbour’s haram.” In 
 a town, where each householder had as many wives as he 
 could maintain, it would be no very striking proof of 
 universal profligacy, that all the wives but one, in each 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. . 47 
 
 family were not only unpolluted, but wn-neighed- 
 after. 
 
 Jer. vi. 11, “T will pour the fury of the Lord upon the 
 _ children abromls and. upon the assembly of young men 
 together; for even the husband with the wife shall be 
 taken ; the aged with him that ‘is full of days.” As the 
 prophet intends by this language. to denote the compre- 
 
 hensive extent of the divine fury, had Polygamy been . 
 
 lawful, he must have said,---“the husband with his wives.” 
 He could not have intended to intimate that, under a 
 most sweeping desolation, all he wives but one, in each 
 family, should escape. 
 
 Mal. ii. 14, “The Lord hath been witness between 
 thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou 
 hast dealt treacherously ; yet is she thy companion, and 
 the wife of thy covenant. 'Therefore take heed to 
 your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the 
 wife of his youth !”—In this chapter Malachi obvi- 
 ously intends to reprove the Israelites for their general 
 infidelity to the marriage vow ; yet I appeal to the com- 
 mon sense of every reader, that his language would 
 have neither force nor meaning, if addressed to a nation 
 of polygamists. Ifa Mohammedan priest were to read 
 this reproof, in a Turkish mosque, it would not be in- 
 telligible ; and were the book of Malachi to be read by 
 a Turk, he would at once conclude, that, among the 
 Jews, it was not lawful to have more than one wife. 
 
 Math. xix. 29, “ And every one, that hath forsaken 
 houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or 
 wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall 
 receive an hundred fold and shall inherit everlasting 
 
 life.” 
 Luke xiv. 26. “If any man come to me, and hate 
 
48 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and 
 brethren and sisters, he cannot be my disciple.” 
 
 These two passages were addressed to the Jews, as 
 our Saviour found them, living under the laws of 
 Moses. The conduct, to which this high reward is 
 promised, is the cheerful surrendry of every thing dear 
 and valuable, for the sake of. the Saviour. The word, 
 used in each case, denotes the entireity of the sacrifice. 
 
 Thus, brethren, and sisters, and children, and houses, 
 and lands denote all one’s brethren, and sisters, and 
 children; all one’s houses and lands ; since the sur- 
 rendry of a part of any one kind would have been una- 
 vailing, without a surrendry of the residue. Each word 
 here used is intended, therefore, to express as many 
 things of the given kind, as the persons addressed could 
 be supposed to possess. Where they could have several, 
 the plural is used; where only one, the singular. As 
 they could have but one father, but one mother, and 
 but one wife, each of these is in the singular ; as they 
 could have more than one of each of the other things 
 - mentioned—brethren, sisters, children, houses, lands, 
 —they are all in the plural. Had Christ said, “If you 
 forsake not your brother, and sister, and child, and 
 house, and land,” the language would obviously have 
 been defective ; for it would have implied that forsaking 
 one brother, or sister, or child, or house, or one piece of land, 
 was enough, and that.the remainder of each might be pre- 
 ferredto Christ. Butwhen hesays, “Ifyou forsake not your 
 Sather, and mother, and wife,” there is no such. defect ; 
 because each word, though in the singular, is all of 
 the kind, that any individual could possess or forsake. 
 Surely a Jew could have no merit in preferring the 
 Saviour to one wife, if he loved his other wives more 
 than the Saviour. It is plainly impossible, therefore, 
 
ESSAY ON POLYGAMY, 49 
 
 that Christ should have used this language, had he 
 been surrounded by an assembly of polygamists. 
 
 These passages area few, taken from a great’ num- 
 ber found in every part of the Bible. They show the 
 customary phraseology of the scriptural writers, and are 
 susceptible of but one construction. They exhibit an 
 account of lawful wedlock, as it actually existed in every 
 period of biblical history, among the Patriarchs, the 
 Israelites, and the Jews. The writer or speaker, in 
 every instance, takes his countrymen and their mar- 
 riages as he found them. Every reader will at once 
 say, that such an account of the subject could not possi- 
 bly have been written respecting a state of society, in 
 which Marriage was Polygamy. It presupposes, that 
 Marriage is in itself, and was, as it actually existed, the 
 union of one man with one woman. It never explains 
 the duties of a state of polygamy, nor supposes it to ex- 
 ist. It is an account of Marriage, just as it exists in 
 Christian countries, and utterly irreconcileable with 
 such a state of Marriage, as exists in Turkey, and in 
 Southern Asia. 
 
 At the same time, the Bible does not contain a soli- 
 tary example of an opposite use of language. The few 
 instances of Polygamy, on record, are simply mentioned 
 as evenis that occurred, and are recorded in precisely 
 the same manner, as the sacred writers customarily re- 
 cord other transgressions of law. 'Yo a fair unbiassed 
 mind, this fact of itself will, I think, appear absolutely 
 conclusive. 
 
 We thus find, as the result of our inquiries, that the 
 Original Law of Marriage forbad Polygamy to man- 
 kind; that no repeal of that law is found in the Scrip- 
 tures ; and that Polygamy was not lawful, either among 
 
 the Patriarchs, or under the Levitical Code. 
 5 
 
: |} 
 50 «ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 There is, however, as we contend, one passage more 
 relating to the subject, which we have not yet examined, 
 —Lev. xviii. 18, “ Neither shalt thou take a wife to her 
 sister, to vex er, to uncover her nakedness beside the 
 other, in her life-time.”—This passage, it will be recol- 
 lected, is regularly resorted to, to prove marriage with 
 the sister of a deceased wife to be lawful. And when, 
 in opposition to that construction, we contend that this 
 passage is simply a prohibition of Polygamy, and is pre- 
 cisely equivalent to-—Neither shalt thou take one wife 
 to another in her life-time, to ver her--we are regu- 
 larly met with the Objection, that Polygamy was actu- 
 ally lawful among the Israelites, and of course that this 
 construction is erroneous. ‘The other construction of 
 the passage,—Neither shalt thou take a second wife, 
 who is the sister of thy first wife, to vex her, to uncover 
 her nakedness beside the other, in her life-time ; al- 
 though thou mayest take one, who is not her sister, 
 as that will not vex her; and her sister also, after 
 her death—is, if correct, a full and: explicit permission 
 of polygamy. 'This passage will be minutely examined, 
 in the progress of the subsequent Essay ;.and when we 
 come to the examination, I hope it will be distinctly re- 
 membered, that the Scriptures (this one passage out of 
 the question) furnish decisive evidence that Polygamy 
 was unlawful; and that if the lawfulness of Polyga- 
 my is to be proved, the evidence must be derived from 
 this one passage alone. ‘Thus, we shall be able to ex- 
 amine this much controverted text, on its own merits, 
 and to investigate the Law of Incest, without entangling 
 it with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Polygamy. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 Tue Law of Incest was long supposed to be defini- 
 tively settled. Under the care of the Israelitish Church, 
 it remained unaltered for fifteen centuries, and under 
 that of the Christian, for more than seventeen. ‘'T'o 
 our American Legislatures belongs the honour of the 
 discovery, that these Churches, doubtless from the love 
 of supererogatory obedience so natural to man, sub- 
 mitted, for more than three thousand years, to various 
 restraints on their marriages, which were wholly unen- 
 joined by the Law of God. Since this discovery, they 
 have, to say the least, deserved no censure for not remov- 
 ing these restraints, as soon as they could make them out 
 to be supererogatory. 
 
 The curious reader, in examining some of our Statute- 
 books, will be struck with sundry nice distinctions, 
 made between lawful and unlawful marriages. In va- 
 rious instances, he will find, that a Mam is allowed to 
 marry his wife’s sister, or niece, while a Woman is for- 
 bidden to marry her husband’s brother, or nephew. In 
 endeavouring to account for these distinctions, he may 
 perhaps imagine, that the law-makers were guided by a 
 Modern Notion—that a woman is more nearly re- 
 lated to her husband than a man to his wife. 'This, 
 however, could not have occasioned them, for the statutes, 
 in which they are found, were made before the publi- 
 cation of the Pamphlet, in which this notion was first 
 promulgated. Their real origin is to be traced to the 
 
witty 
 
 52 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 following facts; The Law-makers were exclusively 
 Men :-—Men. usually wish to marry women who are 
 younger than themselves:—Men commonly prefer 
 maids to widows. A brother’s wife and an uncle's 
 wife, to be marriageable, must of course be widows ; 
 and the latter is usually older than her correlative, 
 husband’s nephew ; but this is not the case with a wife's 
 sister or a wife’s niece. Had the Law-makers been 
 Women ;—as ladies are willing to marry men older 
 than themselves, and do not refuse widowers when they 
 cannot get bachelors ;—the popular feeling in the legis- 
 latures would probably have been in favour of all four 
 of the exemptions, and would doubtless have required a 
 brother's wife and an uncle’s wife to be placed on as 
 high ground as a wife’s sister and a wife’s niece. 'This 
 operation of female views and sympathies on our mar- 
 riage-acts, would have brushed-away several odious dis- 
 tinctions-without-a-difference, would have made the stat- 
 ute-books consistent with themselves, and would have 
 put widows and widowers ona level. 
 
 Since these innovations on the Law of incest, various 
 marriages, long regarded as incestuous, have become 
 common. ‘The instinctive horror, which the bare 
 thought of such connections once excited, has too exten- 
 sively given way to the sanction of law, and the tur- 
 bulence of passion. 'Those whose only standard of 
 action is the law of the land, and who regard every 
 thing as right which is safe,—a description, which in- 
 cludes the vast majority of every community,—have of 
 course contracted them without a scruple. 'To such 
 men, the marriage of a wife’s sister, if the wife have a 
 younger sister; or, if not, of a wife’s niece, is the most 
 convenient imaginable. A wife’s sister comes under 
 the roof, and the parties are of course intimately ac- 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 53 
 
 quainted, and often together. A present affection is al- 
 ready their duty; anda future connection, under a change 
 of circumstances, has become lawful. Conscience has 
 been laid by the statute, and no longer “ holds the heart 
 in chains against the seduction of beauty.” Perhaps no 
 situation can be imagined, where, ceteris paribus, an 
 embryo spark will so easily be struck, which at a conve- 
 nient time will be fanned into a flame. She is present, 
 also, at the critical moment ; and, by her sympathy and 
 tenderness, quickens emotions of which she is appa- 
 rently unconscious. 
 
 “*Tis but a kindred string to move 
 For pity melts the soul to love.”— 
 
 The bereaved family, and particularly the parties in 
 question, who are now, de facto, “the united head” of 
 it, find themselves for a while—such are the customs of 
 society—chiefly secluded from company; often alone 
 together, solum cum sold, si non omnibus horis, saltem 
 vespertinis, quando solitudo, tenebre, tristitia etiam, 
 memoria, cupido—omnia flammis surgentibus favent ; et 
 citius fide, etiam nocte silenti vix divulsos; and thus 
 with less and less reluctance constrained to depend on 
 each other for all that solaces and sweetens life. Long 
 before they are aware, they have become mutually ne- 
 cessary, and many months anterior to the time when the 
 deposition of weeds is customary, they have made to each 
 other a complete developement of what the actual state 
 of things 7s, as well as a satisfactory demonstration of 
 what it issoon to be. No courtship is so easy as this : It 
 begins, they know not, they are afraid to know, when ; 
 it is carried on, they know not, they are not willing to 
 know, how ; it is completed, (all excepting the conclud- 
 ing ceremony,) very often, without having been sus- 
 
 5* 
 
54 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 pected, even. by those busy-bodies, who worm out and 
 and publish every other affair of a similar nature. 
 
 A few individuals, also, possessing minds more en- 
 lightened, and a morality more elevated, have given 
 to the marriage in question the authority of their exam- 
 ple. A few have thrown around it “ the sanctity of their 
 lawn” a few have enveloped it in “the purity of their 
 ermine.” Some of these, doubtless, have done it igno- 
 rantly, or hastily ; while others have first: investigated its 
 lawfulness and then have hesitatingly ventured. But 
 the investigation has usually been commenced because 
 the affections were fastened, and the purpose formed ; 
 and of course has been pursued with less exemption from 
 prepossession and bias, than truth and fair-play would 
 seem to require. The cool logic of the intellect is at best 
 a feeble advocate, when opposed by the warm rhetoric of 
 the affections. While the head is umpire, reason and 
 argument will usually carry the day; but when the 
 heart is on the bench, a single impulse will put to flight 
 a whole army of syllogisms. Still, decisions made m 
 such a forum are not to be regarded as precedents, or as 
 entitled to all that authority which is allowed to ad- 
 judged cases, in our courts of law. 
 
 A few of the more enlightened, also, have, without 
 this personal bias, arrived at the same conclusion. Some 
 in this, as in all other cases of mere morality wncon- 
 nected with loss and gain, have, without examination, 
 taken the popular side of the question. Others, resolv- 
 ing to throw off the shackles of prejudice and prescription, 
 andaided by the writings of unprincipled Europeans, have 
 adopted loose and licentious notions respecting Marriage. 
 Among these notions are the following:—That marriage 
 is not an institution of God, but a mere creature of muni- 
 cipal law :—T hat the marriage-contract is merely a civil 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 55 
 
 contract; liable, like every other contract, to be varied, 
 dissolved, and renewed, at the pleasure of the parties :--- 
 And that, in enacting laws respecting it, the Legislature 
 is not bound to regard the Law of God at all, but merely 
 its own views of the good of the state. 
 
 The effect of these innovations on the Law of incest, 
 has been,—to unsettle the minds of the community on 
 the whole subject, to introduce a loose and vague scep- 
 ticism with regard to the guilt of Incest in all cases 
 whatsoever, and to leave a painful uncertainty, as to 
 the actual extent of the alterations, to which the Original 
 Law has been subjected. The people at large rarely 
 consult the Statute-book. Few of them, so far as my 
 observation extends, appear to be aware, that inroads 
 have been made upon the Law of incest by a legislative 
 act ; yet, perceiving that marriages are actually cele- 
 brated, which are among those prohibited at the end of 
 the Old Testament, they conclude that the Law of in- 
 cest has grown obsolete. Knowing propinguity* to be 
 the only ground and rule of Incest, they naturally place 
 all marriages, where the degree of propinquity is the 
 same, on a level. The consequence has been, that 
 marriages, still pronounced incestuous by the Statute- 
 book, have been extensively contracted. The parties 
 have thus ignorantly exposed themselves to an infamous 
 punishment, and their children to the loss of their in- 
 heritance, and to a disgraceful epithet under circum- 
 stances peculiarly humbling and painful. I have known 
 two instances of marriage between an uncle and niece, 
 and have heard of one between a half-brother and 
 sister. So general, however, is the impression, that 
 this uncertainty is fairly attributable to the Legislature, 
 
 * By the word propinquity, is intended nearness in general: by af- 
 finity, nearness by marriage: and by consanguinity, nearness by blood. 
 
56 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 and to the zigzag plight of the Statutes; that Incest 
 passes unmolested and unnoticed. Not less general 
 perhaps is the impression, that Incest, except between 
 lineal relations, cannot be prosecuted to effect. These 
 facts should teach us to “leave off” the revisal of the 
 Law of God, ‘“ before it be meddled with.” 
 
 In investigating the subject of Incest, the Divine Law 
 is our only directory ; for that law alone is universally 
 binding on the Human Race. If that law prohibits 
 Incest, it is a sin; if it does not, it is innocent. 
 
 The most natural and obvious mode of conducting 
 this discussion, would be—simply to ascertain, What 
 marriages are pronounced incestuous by the Scrip- 
 tures. 'This course I would gladly take, were it possi- 
 ble; but those, who advocate innovations on the Ancient 
 Law of incest, have supported their scheme by very dif- 
 ferent arguments. Some of them contend that the in- 
 cest, prohibited in the Scriptures, is merely incestuous 
 fornication or aduliery, and that no marriage can 
 be incestuous ;—others, that consanguinity is the sole 
 scriptural ground of Incest, and that it cannot exist in 
 any case of mere affinity ;—others, that the Levitical 
 prohibitions were intended merely to preserve the natural 
 supremacy of the husband ;—others, that the Levitical 
 Law prohibits marriage with certain women, while they 
 are the wives of other men, but not after they become 
 widows ;—others, that the Law of Incest was either 
 merely ceremonial, or merely the national law of Israel, 
 and in neither case binding on us ;—others, that Incest 
 is merely a positive offence, and therefore not a crime in 
 its own nature ;—others, that we are subject to no Law 
 of Incest whatever, but that all marriages are lawful ;— 
 others, that marriage with a wife’s sister is authorized 
 in the Scriptures, and is in itself particularly proper ;— 
 
 Abe ./ 2 ‘ab 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 57 
 
 and others, that it is in vain to amend the laws of any 
 one State, and leave those of the other States as they are. 
 
 The subject is, however, of so much intrinsic. im- 
 portance, as to justify any length of discussion, which 
 it fairly involves. If Incest be now a sin, it is unques- 
 tionably a sin of no light magnitude. It was one of 
 nine crimes, for which the Canaanites were exterminated, 
 and for which the Israelites were threatened with ex- 
 termination. Under the Levitical Law, those guilty of 
 it were punished with death. Few sins are spoken of 
 in the Scriptures as equally offensive to the eye of God. 
 If then it be now a sin, and if many of the marriages 
 now customary in this country are incestuous ; it is most 
 desirable that its guili and danger should be fully ex- 
 posed ; and the degrees, within which marriage is pro- 
 hibited, exactly ascertained. 
 
 The whole discussion involves but Two Questions : 
 — What was the Levitical Law of Incest ?—Is that 
 Law binding on us ? 
 
 TI. Waar was THe LeviricaL Law or kv- 
 
 CEST ! 
 
 ‘The answer to this question will lead us to consider, 
 
 I. THe various SecTIONS oF THE LAW ITSELF. 
 
 The following is the whole Law of Incest, as pro- 
 mulgated to the Israelites.* 
 
 Lev. xviii. 6. None of you shall approach to any, 
 that are near of kin to him: I am the Lorp. 
 
 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. 
 
 ' * The examination of Leviticus xviii. 18, will be pursued, immedi- 
 ately after the Levitical Law of Incest has been settled. 
 
58 THE LAW OF INCEST: 
 
 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 the daughter of thy mother, whether she be 
 born at home or abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt 
 not uncover. 
 
 10. The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy 
 daughter’s. daughter, their nakedness thou shalt not un 
 cover: 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: 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 thy 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 nakedneess of thy 
 brother’s wife : it is thy brother’s nakedness. 
 
 17. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a wo- 
 man 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. 
 
 29. For whosoever shall commit any of these abomi- 
 nations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut 
 off from among their people. 
 
 Leviticus xx. 11. And the man, that lieth with his 
 father’s wife, hath uncovered his father’s nakedness : 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 59 
 
 both of them shall surely be put to death: their blood 
 shall be upon them. 
 
 12. And if a man shall lie with his daughter-in-law ; 
 both of them shall surely be put to death: they have 
 wrought confusion : their blood shall be upon them. 
 
 14. And if a man take a wife and her mother; it is 
 wickedness : they shall be burnt with fire, both he and 
 they : that there be no wickedness among you. 
 
 17. And if-a man shall take his sister, his father’s 
 daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her naked- 
 ness, and. she see his nakedness, it is a wicked thing, 
 and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people : 
 he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness: he shall bear 
 his iniquity. 
 
 19. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy 
 mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he un- 
 covereth his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity. 
 
 -20. And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he 
 hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear 
 their sin: they shall die childless. 
 
 21. And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is 
 an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s 
 nakedness : they shall be childless. 
 
 Deut. xxii. 30. A man shall not take his father’s 
 wife, nor discover his father’s skirt. 
 
 Deut. xxvii. 20. Cursed be he, that lieth with his 
 father’s wife, because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. 
 
 22. Cursed be he, that lieth with his sister, the 
 daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. 
 
 23. Cursed be he, that lieth with his mother-in-law. 
 
 Having thus recited all the various Sections of the 
 Levitical Law of Incest, we are led, in answering the 
 question, What was that Law ? to consider, 
 
60 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 Il. Tue PrincreLes, oN WHICH THE LAW OF 
 INCEST IS TO BE INTERPRETED. 
 
 As these have occasioned much controversy, and need 
 to be settled, we shall examine some of them at length. 
 
 1. 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. 
 
 ur. The Four Phrases used to designate this Inter- 
 course 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 Ley. xviii. ; the 
 last three in Lev. xx.; the second and third in Deut. 
 xxii.; the second and fourth in Deut. xxvii. 
 
 In Lev. xvii. 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 Gen- 
 eral Summary, this prohibited intercourse is pointed out 
 by the phrases---to wncover the nakedness, to take, and to 
 lie with. 'Yhe first phrase therefore has the same mean- 
 ing with each of the other three ; and they of course 
 with each other. Again; in Leviticus 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 éo take. 
 These four phrases then, as used in this Law, have the 
 same identical meaning. . 
 
 ut. ‘The Sexual Intercourse, here prohibited, is every 
 kind of sexual intercourse ; but especially that of mar- 
 riage. 
 
 ‘1 his will be evident from the following considerations : 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 61 
 
 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 con- 
 jugal 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 a 
 large. 
 
 (1.) To approach to, occurs no where but in Lev. xviii. 
 6 and 14; both of which are now under discussion. 
 
 (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 Ezek. 
 xxill. 18. The phrase is therefore general. 
 
 (3.) To take, in Hebrew 799, when connected with 
 TWN, a woman, is the popeontliee Hebrew phrase for 
 to marry a@ re To take, used absolutely, denotes 
 the same thing: Gen. xxxiv. 9, 16, “And ¢ake our 
 daughters unto you :—and we will take your daughters 
 unto 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 excep- 
 tion to this use is in Ezek. xvi. 32, “ But as a wife that 
 committeth adultery, that taketh strangers instead of her 
 husband.” Here however, fo take, is used with refer- 
 ence to its connection with her husband, (that taketh 
 not her husband, but strangers,) and not indepen- 
 dently of its reference to MATS: The phrase fo take, 
 
62 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 therefore, is in all instances used with reference to mar- 
 riage, and in all but one denotes ¢o marry. 
 
 4. To lie with denotes every, species of sexual inter- 
 course : 
 
 (1.) Marriage, Gen. xxx. 15, 16, Num. v. 20, 2 
 Sam. xi. 11. 
 
 (2.) Fornication, Exod. xxii. 16, Deut. xxii. 23, 28. 
 
 (3.) Adultery, Gen. xxxix.7, Lev. xviii. 20, Num. 
 v. 20. 
 
 (4.) Rape, Deut. xxii. 25, 2 Sam. xin. 14. 
 
 , (5-) Incest, Gen. xix. 32, 34. 
 
 (6.) Sodomy, Lev. xviii. 22, Lev. xx. 15. 
 
 (7.) Bestiality, Lev. xviii. 23, Lev. xx. 15. 
 
 (8.) Intercourse generally, Lev. xv., passim., 
 Judges xxi. 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, there- 
 fore, it is evident, that these prohibitions are not limited 
 to incestuous fornication or adultery, but include mar- 
 riage 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 incestu- 
 ous 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 life-time.* 
 
 17, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a 
 
 * Those whom I oppose insist that this is a part of the Law of incest. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 63 
 
 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. 
 
 Ley. 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 inter- 
 course is Marriage: but the one, regarding the pas 
 sage as prohibiting Polygamy, and the other, Incest. 
 The first of these interpretations is, Jf thou hast a 
 wife, thou shalt not marry another wife until after 
 her death, but then thou mayest, 'The second inter- 
 pretation 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, for that 
 will not vexher; and after her death her sister also. 
 Now if the intercourse here forbidden is not mairiage, 
 but fornication or adultery ; then the prohibition, accord- 
 ing to the first interpretation, will read thus, Jf thou 
 hast committed fornication or adultery with one 
 woman, thou shalt not afterwards commit fornica- 
 tion or adultery with another woman, during her 
 life-time, for it will vex her ; but after her death thou 
 mayest. "This rule would precisely accommodate Mod- 
 ern Italy. According to the second interpretation, it 
 will read thus, If thou hast committed fornication or 
 adultery with one woman, thou shalt not commit for- 
 nication or adultery with her sister, until after her 
 death, for it will vex her, although thou may- 
 est commit fornication or adullery with a woman, 
 who is not her sister, for that will not vex her ; and, 
 after her death, with her sister also. 
 
 The second of these passages, on the supposition that 
 
64 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 marriage is not here prohibited, will read thus, Jf thove 
 hast committed fornication or adultery with @ 
 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 aman shall commit fornication 
 or adultery with a woman and her mother, it is wick- 
 edness. 
 
 A construction, involving these consequences, will not 
 be seriously contended for, as a valid construction of a 
 law of God. 
 
 4. From the Language of one Section of the Law, 
 compared with the Language of a subsequent Statute, 
 partially and 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 repeal- 
 ing Statute isin 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, “ And if he 
 like not to take his brother’s wife,” &c.- Vo take, and 
 to take to wife,in the Repealing statute, then have 
 one meaning ; and no one will deny that ¢o take has the 
 same meaning, both in the Hnacting, and Repealing, 
 statutes. It means therefore fo take to wife, in both. 
 
 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 Isra- 
 elites uniformly regarded the prohibition as a prohibition 
 of marriage. ‘They were certainly not inclined to works 
 of supererogation, and doubtless may he regarded as best 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 65 
 
 acquainted with the drift of their own laws, and as the 
 best interpreters of their language. 
 
 6. From the Interpretation always put upon these 
 phrases by Christian churches and governments. They 
 have uniformly regarded this prohibition as a prohibi- 
 tion of Marriage-—We have thus a uniform construc- 
 tion 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. Ofcourse itis lawful to mar- 
 ry 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 
 srand-mothers and mother, and daughters, and sisters, 
 and grand-daughters as his wives, at the same time. 
 
 8. If marriage, between persons within the speci- 
 fied degrees, is not unlawful; then fornicution, 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-por- 
 tion would by law have been. By the Law of incest, 
 fornication with one near of hin, 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 propingut- 
 ity ; for it is identically the same in marriage, as in for- 
 nication. It is not owing to the fact, that there is sex- 
 ual intercourse between a brother and sister; for that 
 exists in both cases. Neither is it owing to the fact that 
 the intercourse is dai ak ; for it is as truely and as 
 
66 ~ THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 fully so with a stranger, as with a sister. Incestuous 
 fornication in itself, therefore; involves no more turpi- 
 tude’ than that between strangers. 
 
 But it will be said that, although the fornication in 
 the two cases was equally criminal, yet a severer punish- 
 ment was necessary for that which was incestuous, to 
 prevent the continual occurrence of it in families. 
 
 This account of the subject is wholly inconsistent 
 with the Language of the Law. 'The intercouse with 
 a sister, as well as with every other kinswoman, prohi- 
 bited in the law, is called “a wickedness,” “an abomi- 
 nation,” “an abominable custom ;” and is spoken of as 
 one of the crimes, for which the land of Canaan vomited 
 out its inhabitants. But this is not said of ordinary for- 
 nication, 
 
 In incestuous fornication, also, detection was almost 
 of course certain, whereas in incestuous adultery it was 
 exceedingly difficult; yet the punishment of adultery, 
 whether incestuous or ordinary, was equally severe ; 
 while that of fornication, if incestuous, was death, and 
 only a fine, if it was not incestuous. This immense 
 difference could not have existed, in two cases of equal 
 criminality, where detection trode closely on the heels 
 of transgression. 
 
 The scheme alleged, also, would have been wholly 
 incomplete. The language of the Law of incest, thus 
 interpreted, was: You may marry your sister, your 
 daughter, or your mother, as innocently as a stran- 
 ger. If you commit fornication with a stranger, 
 you shall be fined. Fornication with your sister, or 
 with those near of kin, is no more criminal than 
 with a stranger ; yet there is greater danger that 
 you will commit it. _ Therefore, if you do, you shall 
 be put to death.—No law, speaking such a language, 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 67 
 
 could possibly answer its object. Let the consciences of 
 men be once satisfied, that sexual intercourse, as such, 
 with their nearest connections, is no more criminal 
 than with strangers; and incest will become equally 
 common with fornication and adultery. No matter 
 what laws are made, or what punishments threatened ; 
 if you remove the consciousness of deep criminality, you 
 also remove, under any government not completely des- 
 potic, the possibility, and the dread, of punishment; for 
 it is only the enormous guilt of particular crimes, which 
 leaves the human conscience satisfied, when exemplary 
 punishment is inflicted. 
 
 Why is not the crime of Incest now prevalent? Why 
 are our houses pure, and our families innocent? It is 
 because the Law of God has placed a guard against the 
 human passions, in that strong sense of guilt, in that 
 instinctive horror at the bare thought of sexual inter- 
 course with our near connections, which is impressed on 
 our minds with the force of a second nature. “'This 
 restraint breaks down every propensity to incestuous 
 commerce, and stifles those inclinations, which nature 
 for wise purposes has implanted in our breasts, at the 
 approach of the other sex. It holds the mind in chains 
 against the seductions of beauty. It is a moral feeling, 
 in perpetual opposition to human infirmity. It is like 
 an angel from heaven, placed to guard us against pro- 
 pensities that are evil. It is that warning voice, which 
 enables you to embrace your daughter, however lovely, 
 without feeling that she is of a different sex. It is that 
 which enables you, in the same manner, to live famil- 
 iarly with your nearest female relations, without those 
 desires which are natural to man.”* Remove this sense 
 
 * Lord_Erskine. 
 
68 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 of guilt, and families are dissolved. Children, instead 
 of finding a perpetual home under the parental roof, 
 would at an early age be banished from its threshold. 
 The sister could not approach her brother without fear 
 of impurity. The father would find a rival in every 
 son; and the mother, in every daughter. 
 
 9. If the Law of incest did not forbid incestuous mar- 
 riage, it was useless. 
 
 The Israelites had two general laws, forbidding for- 
 nication and adultery in all cases—as well with stran- 
 gers as with relations. What necessity then was there 
 of particular statutes, forbidding them with relatives. 
 It may be said that the punishment of these offences, 
 when incestuous, is more severe. But this is not true 
 of adultery. When, therefore, it is said, Leviticus xx. 
 11, “He that committeth adultery with his neighbour's 
 wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put 
 to death ;’—why add, “And the man.that lieth with 
 his father’s wife, both of them shall surely be put to 
 death ;” as well as numerous sections of a similar cha- 
 tacter; if the latter be mere prohibitions of adultery. 
 What would be thought of the wisdom of a legislature, 
 which should enact a similar statute with regard to any 
 other crime: for example, that of Horse-stealing — 
 “ He, who steals the horse of any person, shall be im- 
 prisoned three years.—He, who steals his father’s horse, 
 shall be imprisoned three years.—He, who steals his 
 brother’s horse, shall be imprisoned three* years.—He, 
 who steals the horse of his father’s brother, shall be im- 
 prisoned three years :”——and so on, through a succession of 
 thirty-three relatives? Is it not, then, equal folly to enact, 
 with regard to adultery—“ He, who commits adultery 
 with any woman, shall be put to death.— He, who com- 
 mits adultery with his mother, shall be put to death,— 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 69 
 
 He, who commits adultery with his brother’s wife, shall 
 be put to death.—He, who commits adultery with his 
 father’s brother’s wife, shall be put to death,”—and so 
 on through an equal succession ? Fd 
 
 10. If the Law of incest did not prohibit incestuous 
 Marriages, its only effect was to weaken the force of the 
 General Statute respecting adultery. Every thing is 
 lawful, which is not prohibited by some law ; and every 
 thing is lawful, so far as a given law is concerned, 
 which that law does not prohibit. And the more par- 
 ticular and circumstantial the terms of a penal law are, 
 as the prohibition of the given offence is less general, so 
 the stronger is the implication that the conduct under 
 different circumstances is lawful. A law, forbidding for- 
 nication with females under twenty years of age, and 
 assigning their age as the ground of the prohibition, 
 would give rise to a strong implication, that with those 
 who were older it was lawful. 
 
 The bare recitation of several of the prohibitions in 
 question, altered to adapt them to the scheme which, I 
 oppose, will set the subject in a convincing light. 
 
 None of you shall commit adultery with any that are 
 near of kin to him. 
 
 Thou shalt not commit adultery with thy mother ; for 
 she is thy mother: thou shalt not commit adultery with 
 her. 
 
 Thou shalt not commit adultery with thine uncle’s 
 wife; for she is thine aunt. 
 
 Thou shalt not commit adultery with thy daughter- 
 in-law ; for she is thy son’s wife. 
 
 Thou shalt not commit adultery with thy brother’s 
 wife ; for she is thy brother’s wife. 
 
 Thou shalt not commit adultery with a woman and 
 her sister, during her life-time, 
 
70° THE LAW OF INCEST. S 
 
 Thou shalt not commit adultery with a woman and. 
 her daughter, nor with her grand-daughter ; for they are 
 
 her near kinswomen. at 
 nd if a man commit adultery with a woman and her 
 mother, it is wickedness. 7% 
 
 Who does not see, from bare inspection, that the 
 limitation of the prohibition to these cases of propinquity, 
 with the regular assignment of the propinquity, in each — 
 case, as the reason why the connection is wrong, and 
 why it is prohibited, carries with it to the mind an al- 
 most irresistible implication, that where propinquity did 
 not exist, such connection was lawful. Is any one 
 ready to charge such a mode of legislation on God ? 
 
 11. The Law of incest, established in the Koran, fur- 
 nishes a striking commentary upon the gross licentious- 
 ness of the opposite interpretation. Mohammed had 
 the Arabic Translation of the Old Testament, and often 
 made use of it in writing the Koran. In the fourth 
 chapter of that. work, he says, “ Marry not women,* 
 whom your fathers have had to wife, for this is un- 
 cleanness, and an abomination, and an evil way. 
 Ye are forbidden to marry your mothers, and your 
 daughiers, and your sisfers, and your aunts both on 
 the father’s and on the mother’s side, and your bro- 
 ther’s daughters, and your sister’s daughters, and 
 your wives’ mothers, and your daughiers-in-law, 
 and the wives of your sons, and ye are also forbidden 
 to take to wife two sisiers.”t ‘This, as far as it ex- 
 
 * As Mahommed was legislating for polygamists, he mentions each 
 female relative in the plural. 
 
 T It might be well for the Legislature of New-York to compare this 
 Law of Mohammed with their own Law of incest of Jan. Ist, 1830. 
 The Law of Mohammed forbids a man to marry not only his lineal fe- 
 malo relatives, both ascending and descending, but his sister, his aunt 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. > A 
 
 tends, is substantially a repetition of the Levitical Law 
 of incest, accommodated, however, to a state of polyga- 
 my, and is in terms a prohibition of incestuous mar- 
 riage. It will not be-contended that Mohammed was 
 influenced by any violent bigotry against licentiousness. 
 Yet he had too much integrity to foist such an inter- 
 | pretation, as that which [I am opposing, on the Old 'Tes- 
 ‘tament, and too much purity to enact such a law, as 
 that which is here charged on the Law-Giver oF 
 IsRAEL. 
 
 I have been led to discuss this point, at greater length 
 than some of my readers may regard as necessary, be- 
 cause the advocates for one of the marriages long con- 
 sidered unlawful, when driven from a few of their first 
 positions, resort usually to this--that no marriage is 
 incestuous ;—and the most discerning of their number 
 
 and his niece—relations by consanguinity—and his father’s wife, his wife’s 
 mother, his wife’s sister, his wife’s daughter, and his son’s wife—relations 
 by affinity ; whereas the law of New-York forbids him to marry none 
 but his lineal female relatives and his sister. It is worthy of observa- 
 tion, also, that Cicero, (Orat. pro Cluentio,) speaking of the mother of 
 Cluentius, thus characterizes her marriage with her son-in-law: “O 
 mulieris scelus incredibile, et preter hance unam in omni vita inaudi- 
 tum!” Is it not passing strange that a Christian Legislature, in its mar- 
 riage-laws, should have exhibited a degree of licentiousness, of which 
 the licentious prophet of Arabia would have been ashamed ; and should 
 have sanctioned numerous marriages, one of which—that with a wife’s 
 mother,—the Roman Orator, himself a Heathen, pronounces “an incre- 
 dible wickedness, until then unknown.” Are the good people of the 
 State of New-York generally aware that, in their State, it is lawful for 
 a man to marry his aunt and his niece, by blood; as well as his father’s 
 wife, his son’s wife, his wife’s mother, his wife’s daughter, and his wife’s 
 sister: all forbidden even by Mohammed, and several of them by the 
 laws of Heathen Rome? Has the possession of the Bible carried us 
 downward, on the scale of moral elevation, far below the footing of 
 Mohammed and his followers, and even below that occupied by the 
 more decent Heathens, and left us almost on the level of the ancient 
 Canaanites. 
 
72 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 take this position in the outset. The evidence actually 
 exhibited will, I flatter myself, satisfy every reader, that 
 the.Law of incest as certainly forbad marriage, between 
 the various correlatives whom it mentions, as every other 
 species of sexual intercourse. if 
 
 IV. The Ground of Incest in the Levitical Law is as 
 truly Affinity, as Consanguinity. . 
 
 To those, who have read that Law, an apology seems 
 due, for attempting to prove so plain a point. Yet, in 
 most discussions of this subject, it is denied. If, then, 
 the reader will turn back to the Law itself, he will see 
 that the marriages prohibited in Lev. xviii. 8, 14, 15, 
 16, and 17; Lev. xx. 11, 12, 14, 20, and 21; Deut. 
 xxii. 30; and Deut. xxvii. 20, 23; are every one of 
 them, cases of affinity. Under a subsequent head, I 
 have examined at length what marriages are forbidden 
 by the Law of incest. It will there be found that of 
 the marriages expressly forbidden, six are cases of con- 
 sanguinity, and eleven of affinity. 
 
 But it has been objected that the Punishment, de- 
 nounced against incestuous marriages in cases of affin- 
 tty, is less severe, than in cases of consanguinity, and 
 of course, that the guilt is less. Until it could be shown 
 that we have a right to incur some degree of guilt ; this 
 objection, if it were true, would not be regarded as valid. 
 But it is wholly untrue. In Leviticus xvill. seventeen 
 express cases of Incest are enumerated; including 
 eleven of affinity, and six of consanguinity : together 
 with the crimes of polygamy, (as we suppose,) unclean- 
 ness, adultery, sodomy, bestiality and idolatry. After 
 this enumeration, the Divine Lawgiver announces his 
 own views of all these crimes without discrimination, in 
 the following remarkable language: “ Defile not ye 
 yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the 
 
$; “> 4 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST: et 
 
 ‘nations were defiled, which I cast out-before you. And 
 the land is defiled; therefore do I visit the iniquity 
 _ thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her in- 
 habitants. Ye shall, therefore, keep my statutes and 
 my judgments, and shall not commit any of these 
 abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor 
 any stranger that sojourneth among you; that the 
 land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it 
 spued out the nations that were before you !”—This 
 language is applied to all the crimes recited above with- 
 out distinction,—to incest, as truly asthe rest, and to 
 the eleven cases of affinity, as truly as to the six of con- 
 sanguinity. Let us now hear the Punishment de- 
 nounced against them all :—“ For whosoever shall com- 
 mit any of these abominations, even the souls that com- 
 mit them, shall be cut off from among their people. 
 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye com- 
 mit not any of these abominable customs, which were 
 committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves 
 therein: I am the Lorp your God.”—Death, then, is 
 here threatened in every case of Incest: as well of 
 affinity, as of consanguinity. No language could be 
 more explicit or universal; none could more strongly 
 indicate supreme loathing and abhorrence. 
 
 The 20th chapter of Leviticus enumerates the crimes 
 just recited ; and among others eleven express cases of 
 Incest: seven of affinityiand four of consanguinity. 
 In this chapter, the Punishment of these crimes is de- 
 nounced, not in one general threatening at the close, 
 but against each individual crime as it is mentioned. 
 In ¢wo of consanguinity, and five of affinity, death is 
 threatened in so many words. In éwo of consanguinity 
 
 with a father’s sister, and a mother’s sister—it is 
 said, “they shall bear their iniquity ;” which uniformly 
 f 
 
74° THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 denotes they shall bear its punishment, which we 
 have seen was death. In one of affinity—with an 
 uncle's wife, it is said, “they shall bear their sin, they 
 shall die childless.” In the other of affinity—with a 
 brother's wife—it is said, “It is an unclean thing, 
 they shall be childless.” 
 
 It is insisted that, in these two cases, the realities 
 was not Death, but Perpetual Sterility ; and, in sup- 
 port of this position, the following singular course of 
 argumentation has been pursued :—“ Suppose one of 
 the offending parties, the man for instance, to have been 
 previously married, and to have had children: If 
 the threatening, that the offending parties should die 
 childless, meant, that they should be capitally punished, 
 then, in order that the threatening might be executed, 
 the children must have been put to death before their 
 parents. Can it then be, that the lives of the innocent 
 children of the former marriage were to be shortened, 
 because the father had committed incest ?”—The diffi- 
 culty with this argument is, that it may be made to 
 recoil upon him who uses it. As the lives of the sup- 
 posed children of an imagined previous marriage were 
 not to be shortened, they would of course live out their 
 natural lives; and as the parents were to die childless, 
 they of course were destined to outlive these children, 
 as well as those of the second marriage. But children, 
 usually and in the order of nature, outlive their parents. 
 The lives of the parents thus offending were therefore 
 to be protracted to a very unusual length. Of course 
 the threatening, “they shall die childless,” was merely 
 a threatening, “that their days should be very long, 
 in the land, which the Lord their God had given them !” 
 To say the least, this was a new, and to most offenders 
 must have been a very popular, punishment; and Paul’s 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 76 * 
 
 remark relative to the Fifth Commandment, if slightly 
 varied, may be applied to these two Sections of the Law, 
 with still stronger emphasis—T hat these. are the first 
 and only Threatenings with promise. 
 
 This argument need not be further.exposed. I will 
 only add, that the punishment of Perpetual Sterility 
 could not have been executed, without a constant stand- 
 ing miracle-—The real meaning of this threatening is 
 obvious. 'The word “ childless” has no reference to the 
 issue of any former marriage; and the threatening 
 means, that the offending parties shall be cut off imme- 
 diately, before they have had time to procreate incestuous 
 issue ; for, in Leviticus xviii, it is said of those, who con- 
 tract these two identical marriages, that “they shall be 
 cut off from among their people.” 
 
 I will only add that Mohammed, as we have seen 
 on a former page, as well as Heathen Rome, had too 
 much principle, or too much decency, to confine their 
 laws of incest to cases of consanguinity. 
 
 V. Where the Law of incest forbids marriage with 
 the wife of an individual, it really forbids it with his 
 widow. 
 
 There are four female connections expressly men- 
 tioned in the law, as the wives of given individuals: a 
 father’s wife, a son’s wife, a brother's wife, and an 
 uncle's wife. It has been strenuously contended that, 
 as the word wife is here used, and not widow, that wife 
 and not widow is intended ; and of course that it was 
 lawful to marry either of these connections, when they 
 became widows. - In support of this position: it. is said, 
 that mere affinity is the sole ground of the several pro- 
 hibitions, that the affinity ceases in each case with the 
 life of the respective husband, and that the prohibition 
 therefore ceases at his death. Thus, it is said that a 
 
76 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 step-mother ceases to be related to her step-son, as soon 
 as her husband is dead; but why the propinquity then 
 ceases, has not been explained. What, then, let me 
 ask, originally constituted that propinquity ? Plainly 
 the fact, that the father,—consensu atque concubitu, 
 qui faciunt nuptias,—had consummated marriage 
 with her. In the language of the law, she then became 
 one flesh with him: or had his propinquity. As soon 
 as this became a fact, the propinquity was complete. 
 But when this once became a fact, it could never be 
 otherwise than a fact; and of course the foundation of 
 the propinquity, between the step-mother and the step- 
 son, could never cease. Neither the father’s death, nor 
 the subsequent marriage of the step mother, could affect 
 it; because neither could affect the pre-existent faci of 
 their marriage, which was the foundation on which it 
 rested. My sister does not lose the propinquity which she 
 has in common with me, either at my father’s death, or 
 at her marriage ; because her propinquity is founded on 
 a pre-existent fact, which can never cease to be a fact. 
 
 The scriptural writers, in pointing out correlatives by 
 affinity, in all cases use the word wife, and never the 
 word widow, when they are actually speaking of a 
 widow. Ruthiv.5. “ Buy it of Ruth, the wife of the 
 dead.”—2 Sam. xii. 10. “'Thou hast taken the wife 
 of Uriah.”— Mat. xxii. 25. “The first died, and left 
 his wife.”—Acts v. 7. “ Ananias’ wife, not knowing 
 that her husband was dead.”—Such was the common 
 parlance of the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the Romans; 
 and such is that of the French, the Germans, the Span- 
 iards, and the Italians, as well as of the English. In 
 their versions of the scriptures, they never introduce the 
 word widow in such cases. Nay, those with whom | 
 contend have confessed, in a manner not to be gains 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 77 
 
 sayed, that this is the only fair construction of the law ; 
 for, in stating the question now in debate, they always 
 ask, “Is it lawful for a man to marry his brother’s wife,” 
 and never his brother’s widow; —“Is it lawful for a 
 woman to marry her sister’s husband,” and never, her 
 sister’s widower. 
 
 The language of Statutes is chosen with great exact- 
 ness; yet no law of incest, probably, can be found in 
 any statute-book, in which marriage is prohibited with 
 a father’s widow, a brother’s widow, &c. But the 
 language uniformly is “a father’s wife,” “a brother’s 
 wife.” The other phraseology is rarely if ever used, 
 except when logical precision is necessary. 
 
 If the construction which I oppose be correct, the Law 
 of incest, in prohibiting marriage with a father’s wife, a 
 brother’s wife, an uncle’s wife, and a son’s wife, merely 
 prohibited polygamy on the part of the women in ques- 
 tion ; i. e. prohibited them from having the two hus- 
 bands specified at the same time, and assigned the pro- 
 pinquity of the two men, as the reason why it was un- 
 lawful. I will barely. ask the reader, therefore, whether 
 the prohibition—“ Thou. shalt not marry thy father’s 
 wife”—means— Thou and thy father shali not be hus- 
 bands of the same woman at once, because ye are near 
 of kin 2--If it does; then two men, not near of kin, 
 might be her husbands.at once. If it does not ; then the 
 Law of incest forbids marriage with a wife, as a widow. 
 
 It ought also to be observed, that this palpable. mis- 
 take, if it ever existed except in the mind of a caviller, 
 grew probably out of the manner, in which these various 
 phrases are rendered in the English Version. The 
 Hebrews usually express the given correlatives by 
 phrases corresponding to father’s wife, son's wife, 
 uncle's wife, and brother's wife ; and our translators 
 
78 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 have generally given a literal version of those phrases. 
 Had they been uniformly rendered step-mother, daugh- 
 ter-in-law, aunt-in-law, and sister-in-law, neither the 
 mistake nor the cavil probably would have originated. 
 
 I will barely add that Mohammed, in constructing 
 his laws of marriage and incest, was not gross enough 
 in his licentiousness to avow the principle, which I am 
 now opposing ; and that the Greeks and Romans, and 
 almost all other Heathen nations, not excepting even 
 the Canaanites, had too much decency to adopt it. 
 
 VI. The Law of incest was not made to preserve the 
 Supremacy of husbands, and the Subordination of 
 wives. . 
 
 It is said that, by the laws of both God and nature, 
 the husband is, and ought to be, the head of the family ; 
 and a direct reference is made to Ephes. v. 23, “ For 
 the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is 
 the head of the church.”—T hat this is sound law, and 
 sound orthodoxy, no man will deny. Indeed most 
 women profess to admit it in the abstract ; and nothing 
 in the concrete, no prescription derived from any pre- 
 vailing practice, however ancient or however general, 
 can be allowed to unsettle acknowledged principles. - 
 
 It is contended that the Law of incest is made 
 in exact conformity with this design; that it forbids 
 those marriages, in which the husband is naturally 
 the younger, and in grade of generation the inferior, 
 party ; while it allows those, in which his age and 
 standing are superior. Thus, it is said that marriage 
 is forbidden with a mother, with an aunt, and with an 
 uncle’s wife ; while marriage with a daughter, with a 
 niece, with a nephew's wife, and with a wife’s niece is 
 not forbidden. 
 
 ‘Those, who have advanced this argument, have ex- 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 79 
 
 amined the Law of incest, just as far as suited their own 
 purposes, and no further. It is true, that marriage is 
 expressly prohibited between a son and a mother, a 
 nephew and an aunt, and that it is not expressly pro- 
 hibited between a father and a daughier,* an uncle 
 and a niece. It is also true, that marriage is expressly 
 prohibited with an wnecle’s wife ; while it is not ex- 
 pressly prohibited with a nephew’s wife, or with a wife’s 
 niece. But it is also true, that it is not expressly pro- 
 hibited with a wife's aunt. Yet surely a man is as 
 absolutely one generation younger than his wife's aunt, 
 
 * It has indeed been supposed by some persons, that marriage be- 
 tween a father and a daughler is expressly forbidden in Leviticus xviii. 
 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.”—To this it is answered, 1. That the last clause, which is 
 explanajory of the first, clearly confines the prohibition to incest with 
 a mother, 2. That all the directions in the Law of incest are ad- 
 dressed to men, and in no one instance to women; and of course that, 
 if it had been the intention to give an express prohibition of marriage 
 between father and daughter, in this verse, the direction would have 
 been addressed to a father not to uncover the nakedness of his daughter, 
 as it is, In a subsequent verse, to a brother not to uncover the naked- 
 ness of his sister. The bare suggestion, that a daughter should pro- 
 ceed to uncover the nakedness of her father, is unnatural and mon- 
 strous, and no such prohibition could have been needed. 3. The scrip- 
 tures no where, not even inthe case of the daughters of Lot, speak of 
 a woman as uncovering the nakedness of a man. 4. To uncover the 
 nakedness of a man, when the act is not his own, denotes uniformly to 
 uncover the nakedness of his wife. See particularly Lev. xviii. 8, 14, 16, 
 and Ley. xx. 11, 20, and 21. 5. In the Law itself, we are taught ex- 
 plicitly, in two passages, what the phrase, the nakedness of thy father, 
 actually denotes: Lev. xx. 11. ‘The man that lieth with his father’s 
 wife, hath uncovered his father’s nakedness.”—Lev. xviii. 8. “ The 
 nakedness of thy father’s wife, shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s 
 nakedness.”——These reasons have convinced me that Lev. xviii. 7, is 
 addresssd only to a son, forbidding him to marry his mother; and that 
 the connective §, rendered or, ought to be rendered here, as in many 
 other cases, by namely, that is, or to wit. 
 
80 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 as he is than his wnede’s wife. Here, then, in the very 
 class of relations, on which the objector had his eye in 
 forming his theory,—collaterals of the second degree by 
 affinity,—we find a case, which completely oversets that 
 theory. ' 
 Again. Marriage is expressly forbidden with a grand- 
 daughter, but it is not expressly forbidden with a grand- 
 mother.* A grand-mother is two generations older 
 than her grand-son ; so that the danger of subverting 
 the marital prerogative would have been extreme. Butin 
 the case of a grand-father and grand-daughter, where 
 the chance of maintaining that prerogative would have 
 been the highest possible, if superiority of age could 
 have maintained it, there is an express prohibition. 
 Again. Marriage is expressly prohibited with a wife’s 
 daughter, with a son’s wife, and with a wife’s grand- 
 daughter ; in each of which the husband would have 
 the advantage, by one or two generations of priority ; 
 and yet it is not expressly prohibited with a grandfa- 
 ther’s wife ; in which he would be placed under a double 
 disadvantage. It is not true, therefore, that it was the 
 grand design of the Law of incest to prohibit those mar- 
 riages only, which, through the inferiority of hisage and 
 standing, would jeopard the husband’s right, to be the 
 head of the family. Husbands, Tadmit, have been toiling, 
 for many a weary century, to carry this point without suc- 
 cess. But it will not do, to subvert the Law of incest, in 
 order to prevent conjugal usurpation, and the consequent 
 subversion of family order. In this, as in all practical 
 cases, the Scriptures point out the path of duty so clearly, 
 that she who runs may read:—“ Wives submit yourselves 
 
 * Let it not be said that such a prohibition was unnecessary, be- 
 cause no grand-son would be in danger of marrying his grand-mother ; for 
 marriage is expressly prohibited with a wife’s grand-mother., 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 81 
 
 unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord:”—“ As the 
 church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be untotheir 
 own husbands, in every thing.”—How this duty could be 
 expressed more broadly or clearly in English, in Greek, 
 or even in Hebrew, is to me inconceivable. If then 
 wives will not obey these most reasonable, and salutary, 
 and explicit injunctions ;— why then—alas !—there is no 
 help for it !— Certain we are, the remedy, which it is sup- 
 posed the Law of incest was intended to apply to this evil, 
 was worse than none ; for, if we were to look for the class 
 of husbands, who, as a class, are not only wholly denied 
 their prerogative, but are kept by their wives under the 
 most absolute and childlike subjection, we should find it 
 to be the class of old husbands, whohave married young 
 wives. 
 
 VII. A Wife is not more nearly related to her husband 
 and his relations, than a Husband is to his wife and her 
 relations. 
 
 The reader may not unnaturally smile, at this formal 
 and grave assertion of what he may regard as a palpable 
 truism. And when I first heard the proposition, that 
 a wife is more nearly related to her husband and his 
 relations, than a husband is to his wife and her rela- 
 tions, it seemed to me about as rational as to say, that 
 London is nearer to Paris, than Paris to London. Yet 
 this proposition has found many advocates both among the 
 clergy and the laity, and has been soberly advanced, not 
 only to regulate the decisions of our Ecclesiastical Courts, 
 but to guide our Legislatures in the enactment of laws.* 
 
 This proposition is, | believe, purely of American origin, 
 and was first promulgated about thirty years since, by 
 the Rev. Mr. of Its promulgation was a 
 
 * This position was taken and maintained by the Presiding officer of 
 the Senate in the case mentioned in the advertisement, 
 
Pg 
 
 82 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 work of both “ necessity and mercy ;” as its Author was 
 then about to marry his wife’s sister--a step, at that 
 time, not in all respects clerical ;—and it became neces- 
 sary, in his view, to issue a pamphlet defending the step,—— 
 if not in order to allay personal uneasiness, yet—in order 
 to quiet parochial agitation, and prevent ecclesiastical 
 censure. 
 
 The ground actually taken by the Rev. Author, is this: 
 —-'That a husband is no/ at al/ related to his wife, or to 
 her former relations ; because by the marriage the wife 
 is completely “ absorbed” in the husband. In this lan- 
 guage, he does not mean simply to say, that the ame and 
 the estate of the wife are absorbed in those of the hus- 
 band: this we all admit ; but he says that the wife her- 
 self is absorbed in him: That is, by the marriage, a 
 
 Wife becomes the flesh of her husband's flesh, as truly 
 as Hve was Adam’s flesh before her personal existence ; 
 but a Husband never doesandnever can become ¢he flesk 
 of his wifes flesh. In other words, both husband and 
 wife are, to-all intents and purposes, ‘he husband’s flesh, 
 or have the husbana’s consanguinity ; but are neither of 
 them in any sense the wife’s flesh, or have the wife's 
 consanguinity : she losing by the marriage all propin- 
 quity to her former relations. 
 
 * The curious reader-will be willing to know, whence 
 the Rey. Author derived this singular notion. He him- 
 self informs us that it was from the Institution and Law 
 of Marriage. In the Law of marriage it is said, “ And 
 they twain shall be one flesh.” This “ one flesh” he in- 
 sists, means the husband’s flesh.—Why ?-—Because 
 Adam, when Eve was presented to him, said, “ This is 
 now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh,” Gen. ii. 
 23. ‘The next verse, “For this cause shall a man leave 
 his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 83 
 
 they shall be one flesh,” according to the Rev. Author, is a 
 continuation of this speech of Adam ; and he insists 
 that this very speech of Adam is expressly assigned as 
 the reason, why husband and wife become one flesh. 
 Our Saviour thought differently: he tells us that the 
 24th verse was noi a continuation of the speech of Adam, 
 but a declaration of God himself. He also tells us that 
 the therefore, or for this cause, in this passage, refers— 
 not to the preceding speech of Adam; but—to the fact 
 that God made Man male and female. His language 
 is: “ Have ye not read that he, which made them at 
 the beginning, made them male and female, and said, 
 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, 
 and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one 
 flesh ?” - Adam’s remark, that Eve is “bone of his bone 
 and flesh of his flesh,” does not therefore contain the 
 reason, why a man and his wife are one flesh ; nor 
 even furnish the evidence of the fact, unless they are 
 one flesh independently of the remark ; and of course 
 does not prove that ¢hat one flesh, which they now are, 
 is the husband’s flesh. 'The Rey. Author also adduces 
 Adam’s remark, “'This is now bone of my _ bone, 
 and flesh of my flesh,” as conclusive evidence, that 
 Adam did not consider Eve as flesh of his flesh, until 
 their marriage. Who, that remembers that Eve was 
 formed of a rib taken out of Adam’s body, and that 
 Adam himself assigns this single fact as the reason, why 
 she was “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh,” but 
 must admire this attempt at argument ? 
 
 The Rey. Author endeavours to establish his general 
 proposition by asserting, that the Scriptures never speak of 
 a wife and her children as nigh of kin to her former 
 kindred, but only to her Ausband’s kindred. We will 
 examine this assertion. Gen. xxix. 10, 12, 14, “ And it 
 
ae 
 $4. _\PHE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 came to pass when Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of 
 Laban, his mother’s brother, &c.---“ And Jacob told 
 Rachel that he was her father’s brother, (FI&, kins- 
 man,) and that he was Rebekah’s son. And Laban 
 said unto him, ‘Surely thou art my bone, and my flesh. ” 
 We here perceive that Rebekah was not so totally “ ab- 
 sorbed” in her husband Isaac, as to prevent Laban from 
 continuing to be her brother ; and that her flesh was not so 
 much become flesh ofher husbana’s flesh, as to prevent 
 her son Jacob from continuing to be the kinsman of 
 Laban, and the same bone and flesh with him. In 
 Leviticus xvili. 13, it is said, “'Thou shalt not uncover 
 the nakedness of thy mother’s sisier, for she is thy 
 mother’s near kinswoman ;” and in Lev. xx. 19, “'Thou 
 shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister ; 
 for he uncovereth his near kin.” Plainly in the first of 
 these two passages, (both of them contained in the Law 
 of incest,) a married woman, and in the last, her-son, are 
 declared to-be near of kin to her former relations--- 
 Judges ix. 1, 2, “ And Abimelech went unto his mother’s 
 brethren, and communed with them and with all the 
 family of the house of his mother’s father, saying,--- 
 Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh. 
 And his mother’s brethren spake of him, He is our 
 brother.” Wad the Rev. Author observed these and 
 many similar passages, he must with Christian frank- 
 ness have acknowledged that a married woman does not, 
 by her marriage, lose any part of her propinquity to her 
 own kindred, and that her children are just as near.to 
 them, as to her husband’s kindred. 
 
 But he adds—When a man died, and left his estate 
 incumbered, his own relations were to redeem it, and 
 not those of his wife. This was true; and simply be- 
 cause by the laws of Israel his own relations and not 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 85 
 
 those of his wife, had a right to his estate by descent. 
 
 The Rev. Author also insists that the Husband is said, 
 in the Scriptures, to betroth, espouse, take, receive, and 
 marry the wife; while the Wife is said to be betrothed, 
 espoused, taken, and received by, and married, and 
 given in marriage, to, the husband. Hence he con- 
 cludes, that the wife is “absorbed,” or becomes “her 
 husband’s flesh.” With regard to the words marry, and 
 married to, this is not correct— The wife of the dead 
 shall not marry without.” “ But if widows cannot con- 
 tain, let them marry.” “If a virgin marry, she hath 
 not sinned.” “The younger widows will marry.” 
 “He that 7s married, careth how he may please his 
 wife.” With regard to the word fo take, it is also un- 
 true. Ezek. xvi. 32, “ Butasa wife, that ta/eth strang- 
 ers intead of her husband.” 
 
 As to the other words, it is true; and it only proves the 
 well-known fact, that the man was acéive and the 
 woman passive, in effectuating the marriage. In our 
 own language, we say, for the same reason, that the 
 gentleman courts, addresses, and makes proposals to, 
 the lady, and that the lady is courted and addressed by, 
 and receives proposals from, the gentleman; yet who 
 ever imagined from this fact, that a lady, on the eve of 
 marriage, was about to undergo an absorption ? 
 
 The same conclusion is drawn by the Rev. Author 
 from the account of the Mystical Union between Christ 
 and his Church, in Eph. v. 23, 31; and from the paral- 
 lel, there drawn between that Union and the Marriage 
 Union. To this it is sufficient to reply that, in the pas- 
 sage referred to, Paul is endeavouring to explain the 
 intimacy and tenderness of the “ Mystical Union,” by 
 comparing it to the Marriage Union ; but that he sheds 
 
 8 
 
86 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 no new light on the latter: leaving it just where he 
 found it. 
 
 Great stress is laid, by the Rev. Author, on Deut. xxv. 
 5, 6, already cited; which is a partial and conditional 
 repeal or suspension of the Section in Lev. xviii. 16, 
 forbidding marriage with a brother's wife. Where a 
 man lived in his brother’s family, and his brother died 
 without issue, he is authorized, by the repealing Section 
 to marry the widow, in order to raise up a name to his 
 brother in Israel. The first-born of this second mar- 
 riage took the name of the deceased brother, and was 
 heir to his estate. The argument is this :—If the pro- 
 hibition of marriage with a brother's wife involved a 
 prohibition of marriage with a wife’s sister ; then the 
 permission of the former marriage involved the permis- 
 sion of the latter; and of course marriage with a wife’s 
 sister was lawful. 
 
 The object of the partial repeal, in Deut. xxv. is ex- 
 pressly stated to be,----to procure an heir to the brother 
 deceased, and perpetuate his name. But, by the laws 
 of Israel, a deceased wife could not have an heir ; for 
 the real estate of the family belonged to her surviving 
 husband. Her name also was sunk in that of her hus- 
 band, at the time of the marriage. Of course her sister 
 could not marry the husband, to raise up an /eir to her 
 deceased sister, or to perpetuate her name ; for she had 
 no name but that of her husband, and could have no 
 heir—no person on whom the law would cast her 
 estate---as she had no estate separate from her husband. 
 This partial suspension of the prohibition to marry a 
 brother’s wife, could not therefore, under any circum- 
 stances, involve a suspension of the prohibition to marry 
 a wife’s sister. Plainly, if the exception to a general 
 law can be supposed in any case to extend farther than 
 
a 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST. _ 87 
 
 the express language of the exception ; yet certainly 
 it can never extend oe than the reason of the ex- 
 ception extends. 
 
 The Rev. Author supposes, thatthe Language of the 
 Law of Incest completely establishes the point, for which 
 he contends----particularly that in Levit. xviii. 6, “ None 
 of you shall approach to any, that is near of kin to 
 him.” ‘The Hebrew phrase, rendered near of kin, is 
 wa ANU : literally, flesh of his flesh. He in- 
 sists that this General Section is comprehensive, and 
 includes all the Particular Prohibitions which follow. 
 He also insists that the phrase, near of kin, denotes con- 
 sanguinity, or nearness by blood, and that consan- 
 guinity is the sole ground of incest. If this General 
 Section does include all the Particular Prohibitions, 
 (which we do not deny,) then the Particular Prohibitions 
 certainly and necessarily explain and define the force and 
 meaning of the General Section. The reader will 
 therefore be surprised at the information, that consan- 
 guinity is the sole ground of incest, when he remem- 
 bers that of the marriages, expressly prohibited, eleven 
 are with relations by affinity, and only six with relations 
 by consanguinity. But, to allay this surprise, he ig 
 immediately informed that consanguinity is the real 
 cause of the prohibition in all those, which are common- 
 ly regarded as cases of affinity. For example: the 
 reason why you are forbidden to marry your brother’s 
 wife is this----That your brother is flesh of your flesh ; 
 and the flesh or consanguinity of his wife is by her 
 marriage absorbed, so that she is now flesh of his flesh 
 and of course has become your sister by consanguinity. 
 The same may be said of a father’s wife, a son’s wife, 
 an uncle’s wife, and of the wife of every other near rel- 
 ative. She loses her former flesh or consanguinity 
 
88 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 in toto, and receives a new one identically the same with 
 that of her husband. 
 
 This is ingenious, and, did we not compare it with 
 the Law of incest, might seem plausible. But in that 
 Law, marriage is expressly prohibited with no less than 
 siz of a wife’s former relations~-with her father’s 
 mother, her mother’s mother, her mother, her daughier, 
 her son’s daughter, and her daughters daughter. 
 But if the wife’s former consanguinity were “ absorbed ” 
 in her husband’s, neither she nor he would be at all 
 related to her former relations ; and of course it could 
 not be unlawful for him to marry them. The wife 
 therefore is not absorbed in her husband; her consan- 
 guinity to her former relations does not cease; and her 
 husband, by marrying her, becomes as truly and as 
 nearly related to them, as she becomes related to his 
 relations. The former flesh or propinquity of neither is 
 lost or changed; but that of each is so transferred or 
 communicated to the other, as to render the subsequent 
 propinquity of each, like that of their children, two-fold : 
 yet not so far, as to give either any propinquity to the 
 relations of the other by affinity. Accordingly, while 
 the husband is expressly forbidden to marry six of his 
 wife’s relations by consanguinity, he is expressly for- 
 bidden to marry only five of his own relations by 
 affinity ; and yet he is forbidden to marry none of her 
 relations by affinity. And as the same is true, mutatis 
 mutandis, of the wife ,;* it follows that husband and 
 wife are equally near to each other, and to each other’s 
 kindred. Consanguinity, therefore, even in this ex- 
 
 * This is literally true, with this slight exception: that the wife is 
 expressly forbidden to marry only five of her husband’s relations by 
 consanguinity, and siz of her own by affinity. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST: 89 
 
 tended sense of the word, is not the sole ground of In- 
 cest ; but Affinity also: or to use a more general term, 
 Propinquity. 
 
 It ought to be added, that if the wife’s former consan- 
 guinity ceased upon her marriage, and became her hus- 
 band’s consanguinity, then, upon the death of her hus- 
 band, she would have as perfect a right to marry him, 
 who was previously her wncle, her nephew, her brother, 
 or her father, or even her son by a previous marriage, 
 as her husband had to marry “er, or as his sister has to 
 marry either of them. It ought also to be added, that 
 as a brother’s wife, on this scheme, is the own sister of 
 his brothers, the Section, directing the surviving brother 
 to marry the widow of his deceased brother, was a di- 
 rection to marry his own sister. It ought to be added, 
 likewise, that, if the wife loses her former consanguinity, 
 and takes that of her husband, the two families are no 
 more connected by the intermarriage than they were 
 before: one of them merely having lost, and the other 
 gained, an own daughter ; that all relationship by 
 affinity is a mistake and an impossibility ; and that the 
 phrases father-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, sis- 
 ter-in-law, and others like them, though used in Codes 
 of Laws by all nations, and even by God himself, have 
 no meaning. It ought to be added, finally, that the 
 children of a man, by two wives, are, on this plan, own 
 brothers and sisters, or of the full blood; that those 
 of a woman by two husbands, are not related at all ; 
 and that relationship by the half blood is a nonentity : 
 so that those heretofore called half-brothers and 
 half-sisters, if born of the same mother, not being re- 
 lated, may lawfully intermarry. 
 
 VIII. With regard to tmplied prohibitions, we are 
 
 8* 
 
90 THE LAW OF INCEST. " 
 
 bound to give the Law of incest a wniform construc- 
 tion. 
 
 Certain marriages are prohibited 7m express terms ; 
 and others are supposed to be prohibited by clear im- 
 plication. 'This implication is thus supported: in the 
 express cases, the reason directly assigned for the pro- 
 hibition is the propinquity of the parties: but there 
 are certain other cases, in which the propinquity of 
 the parties is mathematically the same as in the ex- 
 press cases ; and other cases still, in which it is greater. 
 These, therefore. are supposed to be prohibited. 
 
 Iam not here inquiring whether this reasoning is 
 correct: I merely insist, that, whatever our Rule ts, it 
 must be uniform, and applicable to every case. 
 Either there are implied prohibitions, or there are not. 
 If there are not ; then we must follow the strict letter 
 of the law, and exclude from its operation every case 
 not mentioned totidem verbis. If there are implied 
 prohibitions; then we must include in them every case, 
 in which the reason of the implication operates. Thus, 
 we have no right, in order to obviate a difficulty, to in- 
 clude various implied cases of consanguinity, and yet 
 refuse to include any implied cases of affinity. Neither 
 the law itself, nor the reason of the case gives any such 
 rule of implication, but each leaves the two classes of 
 cases in this respect exactly on a level. | 
 
 I will illustrate this principle. The law expressly 
 forbids marriage between a mother and her son, and 
 between a brother’s wife and her husband’s brother ; 
 but it does not expressly prohibit marriage between a 
 father and his daughter, or between a sister's hus- 
 band and his wife’s sister. It also expressly prohibits 
 marriage between a grandfather and his grand- 
 daughter, and between a nephew-in-law and his 
 
” THE LAW OF INCEST. 91 
 
 aunt-in-law ; but it does not expressly prohibit it ‘be- 
 tween a grandmother and her grandson, or between 
 a niece-in-law and her wnele-in-law. Now if the ez- 
 press prohibition of marriage between a mother and 
 her son, and between a grandfather and his grand- 
 daughter, proves that marriage is also prohibited be- 
 tween a father and his daughter, and between a 
 grandmother and her grandson, because the propin- 
 quity in each set of cases is the same, and equals are 
 equal; then does the express prohibition of marriage 
 between a brother’s wife and her husband’s brother, 
 and between a nephew-in-law and his aunt-in-law, 
 prove that marriage is also prohibited between a 
 sister's husband and his wife’s sister, and between a 
 niece-in-law and her wncle-in-law, because the propin- 
 quity in each set of cases is the same, and equals are 
 equal.—So far as the rule of implication is concerned, 
 therefore, either if was lawful for a man to marry 
 his daughter and his grandmother, or it was not law- 
 ful for him to marry his wife’s sister or his niece-in- 
 law, i. e. his wife’s niece. 
 
 IX. Various marriages, not expressly prohibited by 
 the Law of incest, are really prohibited by that Law. 
 
 The reason assigned for every prohibition is the pro- 
 pinguity of the parties. 'The law declares that a mo- 
 ther is so near to her son, that marriage between them 
 is “an iniquity.” Buta father is just as near to his 
 daughter, as a mother to her son. If then the propin- 
 quity between a mother and her son is so great, as to 
 render marriage between them an iniquity; the very 
 same propinquity between a father and his daughter 
 renders marriage between them an iniquity; because 
 equals are equal. In the same manner, if the propin- - 
 quity between a grandfather and his granddaughter, 
 
92 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 and that between an aunt and her nephew, is so great, 
 as to render marriage between them unlawful; then is 
 the very same propinquity between a grandmother 
 and her grandson, and between an wnele and his 
 niece, so great, as to render marriage between them un- 
 lawful; because equals are equal. 
 
 Various cases also are expressly prohibited, in which 
 the propinquity is such less, than in various other 
 cases not expressly prohibited in the Law. ‘Thus, 
 marriage is expressly prohibited with a wife’s daughter 
 and a wife's grandmother ; but it is not expressly 
 prohibited with an own daughter, or an own grand- 
 mother. If then the propinquity is great enough in the 
 two former cases, to render marriage unlawful, @ for- 
 tiorz it is great enough in the two latter cases: because 
 it is greater in the two latter than in the two former, 
 and the greater is greater than the less. 
 
 If there are no zmplied prohibitions, the law involves 
 a self-evident falsehood. It says that the less propin- 
 quity between a man and his wife’s daughter, or his 
 wifes grandmother, is great enough to render mar- 
 riage with either, criminal; and that the greater pro- 
 pinquity between a man and his own daughter, or his 
 own grandmother, is not great enough to render mar- 
 riage with either criminal:—in other words, that the 
 less propinquity between a man and his wife’s daugh- 
 ter, or his wife's grandmother, is greater than the 
 greater propinquity between a man and his own 
 daughter, or his own grandmother ; which is mathe- 
 matically a falsehood, and is not, therefore, the lan- 
 guage of the law. here are cases, then, really prohi- 
 bited by the Law of incest which are not expressly 
 mentioned in that Law. 
 
 X. All marriages are really prohibited by the Law 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 93 
 
 of incest, in which the propinquity is the same, as in 
 those expressly prohibited. 
 
 Were not the propinquity of the parties the rule for 
 determining what cases are prohibited by implication, 
 there could be no rule. But the Law itself obviously 
 makes propinquity the rule and the only rule. It does 
 this expressly by assigning propinquity as the only 
 reason why the marriages specified are prohibited. 
 When the Law says to an aunt and nephew, “You 
 are too nearly related to marry”—because equals are 
 equal, it says the same to an uncle and niece ; since 
 the two last are just as nearly related as the two first, 
 In other words, it makes propingutty the sole criterion, 
 by which to determine, whether a given marriage not 
 mentioned is prohibited or not. Of course if the Law, 
 in any one case, declares a given degree of propinquity 
 to be so great, as to render marriage unlawful, it virtually 
 declares an equal or a greater degree of propinquity 
 in any other case, to be so great as to render marriage 
 unlawful: for the self-evident reasons, that equals are 
 equal, and that the greater is greater than the less. 
 
 Having thus recited the Sections of the Levitical Law 
 of incest, and ascertained the Principles on which it is 
 to be interpreted; we are led, in answering the ques- 
 tion, What was that Law ? to consider, 
 
 II. Tae Marriaces, wHIcH THE Law OF IN- 
 CEST ACTUALLY PROHIBITED. 
 
 In doing this we shall commence with Lineals, and 
 close with Collaterals. 
 
 1, Lineals of the first degree by consanguinity. 
 
 Lev. xviii. 7. The nakedness of thy father or the na- 
 kedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: She is 
 thy mother: thou shalt not uncover her nakedness, 
 
94 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 Lev. xx. 11, And the man, that lieth with his father’s 
 wife, hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of 
 them shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be 
 upon them. 
 
 Deut. xxii. 30, A man shall not take his father’s wife, 
 nor uncover his father’s skirt. 
 
 Deut. xxvii. 20, Cursed be he, that lieth with his 
 father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. 
 
 In these passages marriage is expressly forbidden 
 between a son anda mother. But the propinquity is 
 the same between a father and a daughter. 'They 
 therefore may not intermarry. Hence, 
 
 A woman may not mary A man may not marry 
 her his 
 Son, Mother, 
 Father. Daughter,* 
 
 2. Lineals of the first degree by affinity. 
 
 Ley. xvii. 8. The nakedness of thy father’s wife 
 shalt thou not uncover : it is thy father’s nakedness.t 
 
 Lev. xviii. 15, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
 of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son’s wife; thou 
 shalt not uncover her nakedness. 
 
 Lev. xviii. 17, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
 of a woman and her daughter : it is wickedness. 
 
 Ley. xx. 12, And if a man lie with his daughiter-in- 
 law ; both of them shall surely be put to death. 
 
 Ley. xx. 14, And if a man take a wife and her 
 mother; they shall be burnt with fire. 
 
 Deut. xxvii. 20, Cursed be he that lieth with his 
 mother-in law. 
 
 Marriage is here expressly forbidden with a step-moth- 
 
 * The implied cases are italicised. 
 } This passage certainly forbids marriage with a step-mother, because 
 thepreceding verse forbids it with an own mother. Several of the pas- 
 sagesrecited under the last head also forbid marriage with a step-mothers 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 95 
 
 r, (Lev. xviii. 8,) with a step- daughter, (Lev. xviii. 17, 
 nia xx. 14,) with a mother-in-law, (Lev. xviii. 17, and 
 xx. 14, and Deut. xxvii. 20,) id with a dasie hte 
 
 » 
 
 in-law, (Lev. xviii. 15, and xx. 12.) Hence, F 
 A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
 
 her’ = : his 
 Step-son, Step-mother, 
 Step-father, Step-daughter, 
 Father-in-law, Daughter-in-law, 
 Son-in-law. Mother-in-law. 
 
 3. Lineals of the second degree by consanguinity. 
 
 Lev. xviii. 10, The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, 
 or of thy daughter’s daughter, thou shalt not uncover : 
 for theirs is thine own nakedness. 
 
 Asa woman is just as near to her son’s son, and her 
 daughters son, as aman to his son’s daughter and his 
 daughters daughter ; the prohibition of the two latter 
 implies that of the two former. Hence, 
 
 A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
 
 her his 
 
 Father’s father, Son’s daughter, 
 
 Mother’s father, Daughter’s daughter, 
 
 Son’s son, Father’s mother, 
 
 Daughter's son. Mother’s mother. 
 
 Or more concisely, and in more customary language, 
 
 Grand-father, Grand-daughter, 
 Grand-son. Grand-mother. 
 
 A. Lineals of the second degree by affinity. 
 
 Lev. xvii. 17, “'Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
 of a woman,—and her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s 
 daughter: it is wickedness.” 'This passage pronounces 
 the propinquity between a grand-mother and_ her 
 grand-daughter, (whether her son’s daughter or her 
 daughter's daughter) to be so great, that it is not law- 
 ful for the man, who is the husband of either, to marry 
 the other. 'This clause therefore, in express terms for- 
 
96 ~ PHE LAW OF INCEST. # 
 
 bids marriage between a man and his wife’s grand- 
 daughter, whether her son's daughter or her daugh- 
 ter’s daughter, and between a man and his wife’s 
 grand-mother, whether her father’s mother or her 
 mother’s mother. But a woman has identically the 
 same propinquity to her husband’s grand-son on the 
 one hand, whether his son’s son, or his daughter’s 
 son, and to her husband’s grand-father on the other, 
 whether his father’s father or his mother’s father. 
 Hence, 
 
 A woman may notmarry Aman may not marry 
 
 her his 
 Father’s mother’s husband, Wife’s son’s daughter, 
 Mother’s mother’s husband. Wife’s daughter’s daughter. 
 Son’s daughter’s husband, Wife’s father’s mother, 
 Daughter’s daughter’s husband. ( Wife’s mother’s mother. 
 Husband’s son’s son, Father’s father’s wife, 
 Husband’s daughter’s son. Mother's father’s wife. 
 Husband’s father’s father, Son’s son’s wife, 
 Husband’s mother’s father. Daughter's son’s wife. 
 Or more concisely, and in more customary language 
 ? ’ 
 Grand-mother’s husband, Wife’s grand-daughter, 
 Grand-daughter’s husband. Wife’s grand-mother. 
 Husband’s grand-son, Grand-father’s wife. 
 Husband's grand-father. Grand-son’s wife. 
 
 5. Collaterals of the first degree by consanguinity. 
 
 Ley. xviii. 9, The nakedness of thy sister, the daugh- 
 ter of thy father or the daughter of thy mother, whether 
 she be born at home, or abroad, even their nakedness 
 thou shalt not uncover. 
 
 Ley. xviii. 11, The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s 
 daughter, begotten of thy father, (she is thy sister,) thou 
 shalt not uncover her nakedness. 
 
 Lev. xx. 17, And if a man shall take his sister, his 
 father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and see 
 her nakedness, and she see his nakedness: it is a wick- 
 edness ; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 97 
 a» 
 people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness, he shall 
 bear his iniquity. 
 
 Deut. xxvii. 22, Cursed be he that lieth with his sis- 
 ter, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his 
 mother. : 
 
 Kach of these passages forbids marriage in express 
 terms, between a brother and a sister, both of the whole 
 and of the half blood. Hence, 
 
 A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
 her his 
 Brother. ; Sister. 
 
 6. Collaterals of the first degree by affinity. 
 
 Lev. xviii. 6, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
 of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. 
 
 Lev. xx. 21, And if a man shall take his brother’s 
 wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his 
 brother’s nakedness: they shall be childless. 
 
 These passages, in express ierms, forbid marriage 
 between a husband’s brother and a brother's wife. 
 But the propinquity between a wife's sisier and a sis- 
 ters husband, is identically the same. Hence, 
 
 A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
 
 her his 
 Husband’s brother. Brother’s wife. 
 Sister’s husband. Wife's sister. 
 
 7. Collaterals of the second degree by consanguin- 
 aty. 
 
 Lev. xxviii. 12, 13, Thou shalt not uncover the na- 
 kednees of thy father’s sister: thou shalt not uncover 
 the nakedness of thy mother’s sister. 
 
 Lev. xx. 19, And thou shalt not uncover the naked- 
 ness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for 
 he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their 
 iniquity. 
 
 qurcy: 9 
 
, 3° ) ~it 
 98 . THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 Te passages expressly forbid marriage between 
 a man and his father’s sister or his mother’s sister 
 —that is, between a nephew and his aunt ; but their 
 propinquity is identically the same as that between 
 a woman and her father’s brother or her mother’s . 
 brother---that is between a niece and her uncle. Hence, 
 
 y 
 A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
 
 her — his 
 Brother’s son. Father’s sister. 
 Sister’s son. Mother’s sister. 
 Father’s brother. Brother’s daughter. 
 Mother’s brother. Sisters’s daughter. & 
 Or more concisely, and in more customary language. 
 Nephew. Aunt. 
 Unele. Niece. 
 
 8. Collaterals of the second degree by affinity. 
 
 Lev. xviii. 14, Thou shalt not uncover the naked- 
 ness of thy father’s brother : thou shalt not approach to 
 his wife: she is thine aunt. 
 
 Lev. xx. 20, And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s 
 wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they 
 shall bear their sin: they shall die childless. 
 
 The phrase “an uncle’s wife” includes both a fath- 
 er’s brother's wife, and a mother’s brother's wife. 
 This passage therefore expressly forbids marriage be- 
 tween a husband’s nephew and an uncle’s wife. But 
 a wife’s niece is just as near to an aunt’s husband—i. e. 
 to a father’s sister’s husband or a mother’s sister's 
 husband. In the same manner a husband’s uncle is 
 just as near to a nephew’s wife—that is toa brother’s 
 son’s wife or a sister's sows wife. In the same man- 
 ner a wife’s aunt is just as near to her niece’s husband 
 --that is, to her brother’s daughter’s husband and her 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. — “5 " 
 
 sister's daughter's husband. 'These therefore are for- 
 bidden to intermarry. Hence, 
 
 99 
 
 * 
 A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
 her his 
 
 Husband’s brother’s son. idonn brother’s wife. 
 Husband’s sister’s son. Mother’s brother’s wife. 
 Father’s sister’s husband. Wife's brother's daughter. 
 Mother's sister’s husband. Wife's sister’s daughter. 
 § Husband’s father’s brother. § Brother's son’s wife. i 
 Husband’s mother’s brother. Sister’s sons’ wife. ¥ 
 
 Brother’s daughter's husband. § Wife's father’s sister. 
 
 Sister’s daughter’s husband. Wife’s mother’s sister. 
 
 Or more concisely, and in more customary language, 
 
 Husband's nephew. Uncle’s wife. 
 Aunt’s husband, Wife's niece. 
 Husband’s uncle. Nephew’s wife. 
 Niece’s husband. Wife's aunt. 
 
 The above are all the marriages prohibited by the 
 Levitical Law of Incest. The following tables exhibit 
 them at one view: those expressly forbidden in Roman 
 letters, and those by implication in Italics, 
 
100 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST- 
 
 TABLE I. 
 A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
 her -- his 
 1. Son. 1. Mother. 
 . Father. 2. Daughter. 
 . Mother’s husband. 3. Wife’s daughter. 
 Husband’s son. 4. Father’s wife. 
 . Husband’s father. 5. Son’s wife. 
 . Daughter’s husband. 6. Wife’s mother. 
 
 ~ 
 . 
 
 . Father’s father. 
 
 . Mother’s father. 
 
 . Son’s son. 
 
 . Daughter's son. 
 
 . Father’s mother’s husband. 
 . Mother’s mother’s husb’d. 
 . Son’s daughter’s husband. 
 . Daughter’s daughter’s husb. 
 . Husband's father’s father. 
 
 . Husband's mother’s father. 
 . Husband's son’s son. 
 
 . Husband's daughter's son. 
 
 . Brother.* 
 
 . Husband’s brother. 
 
 . Sister’s husband. 
 
 - Brother’s son. 
 
 .. Sister’s son. 
 
 . Father's brother. 
 
 . Mother’s brother. 
 
 - Husband’s brother’s son. 
 
 . Husband’s sister’s son. 
 
 . Father's sister’s husband. 
 
 . Mother's sister’s husband. 
 
 - Husband’s father’s brother. 
 
 . Husband’s mother’s brother. 
 . Brother’s daughter's husb’d. 
 . Sister’s daughters husband. 
 
 Son’s daughter. 
 Daughter’s daughter. 
 Father’s mother. 
 Mother’s mother. 
 
 W ife’s son’s daughter. 
 Wife’s daughter’s daughter. 
 W ife’s father’s mother. 
 Wife’s mother’s mother. 
 . Son’s son’s wife. 
 
 . Daughter’s son’s wife. 
 
 . Father’s father’s wife. 
 
 . Mothers father’s wife. 
 
 . Sister.* 
 
 . Brother’s wife. 
 
 . Wife's sister. 
 
 . Father’s sister. 
 
 - Mother’s sister. 
 
 . Brother's daughter. 
 
 . Sister's daughter. 
 
 . Father’s brother’s wife. 
 . Mother’s brother’s wife. 
 . Wife's brother’s daughter. 
 . Wife's sister’s daughter. 
 . Brother’s son’s wife. 
 
 . Sister’s son’s wife. 
 
 . Wife's father’s sister. 
 
 . Wifes mother’s sister. 
 
 WON NW NW NNWNNN NV SEH ee ee eee 
 
 > £ PO en ll ell oll oll ee Pa 
 
 O28 09 02 98 89 19 0 Oe OD DT OT OR 00 SOM SE Sh 90 
 ww 
 
 SSA SSHIAAGT EHV HK SOCBAAUHE WN HOOP 
 
 In this table, the correlatives, who may not intermarry, 
 are placed opposite each other, and numbered alike. In 
 the table which follows, the correlatives are arranged as 
 in our common bibles. 
 
 * Brother and sister, both of the whole and of the half blood are ex- 
 pressly forbidden to marry. A conscientious man will of course con- 
 sider the same rule as extending to all other collateral relatives by con- 
 
 sanguinity and affinity ; on the ground, that he cannot consent to incur 
 half of the guilt of Incest. 
 
=e 
 a teh 
 
 11. 
 f 12. 
 
 Be RE KH 
 ow 
 
 woe 
 
 ft 21. 
 
 Ok 
 * 10. 
 
 t 13. 
 
 t 14. Daughter’s daughter’s husb. 
 
 t 17. 
 $18. 
 
 * 22. 
 * 23, 
 + 32. Brother’s daughter’s husband. 
 
 Toa 
 
 { 26. 
 
 THE. LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 101 
 
 | TABLE II. 
 A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
 
 her 
 
 Father’s father. 
 Mother’s father. 
 Father’s mother’s husband. 
 Mother’s mother’s husband. 
 
 . Husband’s father’s father. 
 
 . Husband's mother’s father. 
 . Father's brother. 
 
 . Mother’s brother. 
 
 . Father’s sister's husband. 
 
 . Mother’s sister’s husband. 
 
 . Husband’s father’s brother. 
 . Husband’s mother’s brother. 
 
 Father. 
 
 . Step-father. 
 . Husband’s father. 
 
 Son. 
 Husband’s son. 
 Daughter’s husband. 
 
 . Brother. 
 . Husband’s brother. 
 
 Sister’s husband. 
 
 Son’s son. 
 
 Daughter’s son. 
 
 Son’s daughter’s husband. 
 
 Husband’s son’s son. 
 Husband’s daughter’s son. 
 Brother’s son. 
 
 Sister’s son. 
 
 Sister’s daughter’s husband. 
 Husband’s brother’s son. 
 
 a ee ee a ee 
 
 DwWwWwWd WR eee 
 
 SHR SARO HARM 
 
 his 
 
 . Father's mother. 
 
 . Mother’s mother. 
 
 . Father’s father’s wife. 
 
 . Mother's father’s wife. 
 
 . Wife’s father’s mother. 
 . Wife’s mother’s mother. 
 . Father’s sister. 
 
 . Mother’s sister. 
 
 . Father’s brother’s wife. 
 . Mother’s brother’s wife. 
 . Wife's father’s sister. 
 
 . Wife’s mother’s sister. 
 
 Mother. 
 Step-mother. 
 Wife’s mother. 
 Daughter. 
 
 W ife’s daughter. 
 Son’s wife. 
 Sister. 
 
 . Wife's sister, 
 
 Brother’s wife. 
 
 Son’s daughter. 
 
 Daughter’s daughter. 
 
 Son’s son’s wife. 
 
 Daughter's son’s wife. 
 
 W ife’s son’s daughter. 
 Wife’s daughter’s daughter. 
 
 . Brother's daughter. 
 . Sister’s daughter. 
 . Brother’s son’s wife. 
 
 Sister's son’s wife. 
 Wife's brother’s daughter. 
 Wife's sister’s daughter. 
 
 { 27. Husband’s sister’s son. 
 
 * Her own relations by consan- * His own relations by consan- 
 
 guinity. guinity. 
 
 } Her own connections by aflin- { His own connections by affin- 
 ity. ity. 
 
 { Her husband’s relations by . {His wife’s relations by con- 
 consanguinity. sanguinity. 
 
102 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 TABLE III. 
 
 A woman may not marry. A man may not marry 
 
 her his 
 Grand-father. Grand-mother. 
 Grand-mother’s husband, Grand-father’s wife. 
 Husband’s grand-father. Wife’s grand-mother. 
 Father. Mother. 
 Step-father. Step-mother. 
 Husband’s father. ; Wife’s mother. 
 Son. * Daughter. 
 Daughter’s husband. Son’s wife. 
 Step-son. Step-daughter. 
 Grand-son. Grand-daughter. 
 Grand-daughter’s husband. = Grand-son’s wife. 
 Husband's grand-son. W ife’s grand-daughter. 
 Brother. Sister. 
 Sister’s husband. Brother’s wife. 
 Husband’s brother. Wife's sister. 
 Uncle. Aunt. 
 Aunt’s husband. Uncle’s wife. 
 Husband’s uncle. Wife's aunt. 
 Nephew. Niece. 
 Niece’s husband. Nephew’s wife. 
 Husband’s nephew. Wife's niece. ° 
 
 This table embraces the same relatives as the two 
 preceeding, but expressed more concisely: Lineals first, 
 and Collaterals afterwards. In each triad of relatives, 
 the first is a relative by the individual’s own consan- 
 guinity: the second, by the individuals own affinity: 
 the third by the consanguinity of the married partner. 
 The law has thus a beautiful and truly mathematical 
 simplicity. 
 
 By attentively examining the preceding tables, we 
 shall discover the following results : 
 
 1. Marriage is prohibited between all Lineals, and 
 all Collaterals, of the first and second degrees, both by 
 consanguinity and affinity. The Lineals include all, 
 both in the ascending and descending series, with whom 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 103 
 
 marriage, according to the present length of human life, 
 is physically possible. The Collaterals include all 
 with whom one associates on the footing of brothers or 
 sisters, of children of brothers or sisters, and of bro- 
 thers or sisters of parerts. Between an individual and 
 these relatives there is and ought to be all the intimacy 
 of the most pure and confidential love ; and the mind in 
 which it dwells, ought to prove to it -a sanctuary so 
 secure, so holy, that no sensual desire should ever in- 
 trude to soil its purity or jeopard its repose. In the 
 sanctions of the Law of incest, this very safeguard is 
 furnished to it, by God. * 
 
 2. The Second Table is the same with that in our 
 common Bibles ; comprising identically the same rela- 
 tions, and in the same arrangement, in each column. 
 In the Table in the Bible, the six first relations, how- 
 ever, are expressed more concisely and comprehensively : 
 in the first column, by the words Grandfather, Grand- 
 mother’s husband, and Husband's grandfather ; and, 
 in the second, by Grandmother, Grandfather’s wife, 
 and Wife's grandmother : each of these including two 
 of the relatives in the Second Table. 
 
 3. The number of cases, ezpressly prohibited, is 
 seventeen ; and that of those prohibited by tmplication, 
 sixteen. 
 
 4. Of the E'vpress cases, six are by consanguinity, 
 and e’even by affinity: and of the Implied cases five 
 are by consanguinity, and eleven by affinity. 
 
 5. The first column exhibits ¢hirty-three relations, 
 which a Woman may not marry: of which eleven are 
 her own relations by blood, eleven her own relations 
 by marriage, and eleven her husband’s relations by 
 blood. 'The second column exhibits the same ‘Tesults, 
 
 Beene 
 
 ft 03 
 
{- 
 
 104 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 mutatis mutandis, as to the relatives which a Man 
 may not marry. 
 
 6. Of the twenty-two relations by affinity, which a 
 Man may not marry, siz of his wife’s, and five of his 
 own, are eapressly prohibited ; and five of his wife’s, 
 and six of his own, by implication: whereas of the 
 twenty-two relations by affinity, which a Woman may 
 not marry, five of her husband’s, and siz of her own 
 are express cases, and six of her husband’s, and five of 
 her own are implied cases. 
 
 7. Wherever a Man is forbidden to marry a given 
 relation of his own by consanguinity, he is also for- 
 bidden to marry the same relation of his own by 
 affinity, andthe same relation of his wife by con- 
 sanguinity. But he is forbidden to marry no relation 
 of his wife by affinity. In other words double affinity 
 is not regarded by the Law, as in any case amounting to 
 adebarring propinquity. Of course a man has a right 
 to marry the widow of his wife’s father, son, brother, 
 uncle, or nephew. The same is true, mutatis mu- 
 tandis, of a Woman. 
 
 8. The Lineals prohibited are eighteen in number, 
 six by consanguinity, three express, and three implied ; 
 and twelve by affinity, eight express, and four implied : 
 the Collaterals are fifteen in number, five by consan- 
 guinity, ¢hree express, and two implied; and ten by 
 affinity, three express, and seven implied. 
 
 9. The law does not prohibit the intermarriage of 
 Collaterals of the third degree by consanguinity : 
 —that is of first cowsins : nor of course those more re- 
 mote. Many suppose the intermarriage of first cousins 
 to be physically inexpedient. Where this impression 
 is strong enough to counteract any propensity, that may 
 exist in favour of such a marriage, it will of course pre- 
 
 Bf 
 
‘ THE LAW OF INCEST. 105 
 
 vail. But God has not forbidden it. There must be 
 obviously a partition wall, somewhere between the inner 
 and the outer courts of this temple, which no unhallowed 
 foot may pass; and that, which is actually erected, ap- 
 pears to us to be erected on the very line of demarca- 
 tion, which Infinite wisdom and purity must have drawn. 
 At all events, when we find that God has erected it 
 where it is, we are satisfied that it is right. 
 
 We have thus far examined the Law of incest, with- 
 out reference to the much-debated Section, Leviticus 
 xvii. 18. It is insisted, however, that that Section con- 
 tains an Express L'xception to the Law, and authorizes 
 marriage with the Sister of a deceased wife. Its true 
 import, therefore, we will now attempt to ascertain. 
 
 The language of Leviticus xviii. 18, rendered by 
 our translators, in the fex/, “ Neither shalt thou take 
 a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her naked- 
 ness beside the other in her life-time”—but rendered 
 by our translators tm the margin, “ Neither shalt thou 
 take one wife to another”—has received, as we have 
 already seen, the two following widely different and very 
 Opposite constructions :— 
 
 1. Neither shalt thou take one wife to another to vex 
 her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other, in her 
 life-time. 
 
 2. Neither shalt thou take another wife, who is the 
 sister of thy first wife, to vex /er,to uncover her naked- 
 ness beside the other, in her life-time ; although thou 
 mayest take one who is not her sister, because that will 
 not vex her; and her sister also, after her death. 
 
 This second interpretation, if it can be established, is 
 a full permission of polygamy, and of marriage with 
 the sister of a deceased wife. As to the lawfulness of 
 polygamy, we have already seen, that it was directly 
 
106 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 prohibited by the Original Law of marriage, and that 
 no evidence of its lawfulness under the Levitical Code 
 exists, unless it is found in this passage. We-will en- 
 deavour, then, to examine the passage, on its own 
 merits, by the ordinary rules of criticism. 
 
 _ The whole difficulty respecting this passage has arisen 
 from the phrase TOMS Sy TON, (ishah el acothah,) 
 translated, a woman to her sister’: not, however, from 
 any dispute with regard to the meaning of the separate 
 words in this phrase ;—for it is admitted, on both sides, 
 that TON, (ishah,) means a woman, or a wife,* that 
 BI (el,) means fo, and Fit Tats, (acothah,) her sister. 
 The only question is, Whether this phrase is to be in- 
 interpreted according to the meaning of its separate 
 words, or whether it has here, and every where else, an . 
 
 idiomatic meaning—the meaning of one woman to 
 another, or one wife to another. = 
 
 That words, in all languages, are sometimes used 
 idiomatically ; that occasionally they have a different 
 meaning, when connected, from what they have when 
 apart ; and that the true meaning of a phrase is not 
 always given by rendering it word for word into an- 
 other language, is perfectly known to every one. Every 
 language has its own peculiar idioms, which cannot be 
 rendered verbatim into any other ; and, of all languages 
 probably, none is more frequently idiomatic than the He- 
 brew. When such idioms occur, the only way to render 
 them accurately, is either by a corresponding idiom, 
 or by a circumlocution. Thus the phrase 7} 3, 
 
 * The original and customary meaning of TON is a@ woman: its 
 secondary and less common meaning is a wife. "The same is true of 
 yon in Greek, of femme in French, and of the corresponding word in 
 
 various other oohoaces What the true meaning is, in each case, is 
 of course determined by the sense. 
 
e 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST’. 107 
 
 literally the son of my threshing-floor, denotes my 
 threshed grain :-—®BS Vw, literally a tongue of fire, 
 really a flame tf 2, Ve, literally the tooth of a rock, 
 
 really a crag :-—D.M nSw, literally the lip of the sea, 
 
 really the sea-shore.—The English language is full of 
 such idioms. If any one will attempt to render the 
 phrase, “ The horses are together by the ears,” liter- 
 ally into any other language,—into the Latin for ex- 
 ample, Equi sunt und per aures—he will see that ‘it 
 will make absolute nonsense. The English phrase, J 
 gave him tit for tat, or the similar one, J gave him a 
 Rowland for his Oliver, obviously cannot be literally 
 translated into any language ; yet it is perfectly intel- 
 ligible to say in French, Je lui donnois son paquet ; 
 and in Latin, Par pari retuli ; and in Greek, “Ove xced 
 times, Totoy xceb Emnnouras ; and in Hebrew, Se Ann py, 
 12 nA 1v- Hach of these five phrases has the 
 same idiomatic or general meaning ; yet the words in 
 neither, taken singly, have the same literal meaning 
 with the words in either of the other four. It is then 
 certain, that, when phrases are idiomatic, their mean- 
 ing is entirely different from the simple meaning of the 
 words, of which they are composed ; and that an idiom 
 of one language, if rendered word for werd into another, 
 is falsely rendered, unless the other language has an 
 idiom identically similar. ‘ 
 
 How then do we decide, whether a given phrase is 
 idiomatic or not ?—By the best and simplest of all rules 
 —by the customary use of it among those who write 
 and speak the language.— Usus est jus et norma lo- 
 quendi.—lf those, who best understand the language, 
 give the phrase a meaning totally different from the 
 simple meaning of the words ; we bow of course to 
 
108 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 their authority, and admit it to be an idiom of the 
 language. Thus, when a F'renchman hears the phrase, 
 “I have other fish to fry,” stead of attempting in vain 
 to render it literally into J’ai d’autres poissons a 
 Srive, he readily admits the explanation, J’ ai d'autres 
 affaires ; and when an Englishman meets with the 
 phrase “ I] mettoit du foin dans ses bottes,” instead of 
 insisting that it shall be rendered, He put hay in his 
 boots, he is happy in hearing it explained by another 
 idiom, He laid up something against a rainy day. 
 An apology is due to the reader, for attempting to sup- 
 port principles so obvious, and so generally admitted : 
 and it is found in the fact, that these very obvious prin- 
 ciples have been strenuously denied, or disregarded, in 
 their application to the case in hand. 
 
 The question then meets us, Do the Hebrew writers 
 give to the phrase in question, ADAMS a8 TWN, @ wo- 
 man to her sister, the simple meaning of the words ; 
 or do they use it as an idiom? This we can aeriinie! 
 by referring to the passages in which it actually occurs.* 
 
 This phrase ts found in two forms—in the masculine, 
 TIN piss WN, (ish el auchiv,) a man to his brother ; 
 and in the feminine, ADS DN MWR, (ishah el aco- 
 thah,) a woman to her sister. In the masculine form, 
 it occurs twenty-five times in the Hebrew Scripttres 
 and in the feminine, ten. _ I will adduce the several 
 instances, for the satisfaction of the reader. He will 
 perceive, that the Hebrew writers never intend by it a 
 brother, or a sister, in the literal sense, but always, one 
 thing to another of the same kind ; that, if applied to 
 
 * We hope that the sight of a few Hebrew words, on this and seve- 
 ral of the following pages, will not deter the mere English reader > bite 
 perusing them. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST: 109 
 
 men, it denotes—not a man to his brother,—but one 
 man to another ; if to women,—not a woman to her 
 sister,—but one woman to another, and if to the cur- 
 tains of the tabernacle, one curtain to another, §c. 
 
 -L. Gen. xiii. 11. “And Abraham and Lot separated 
 themselves—the one from the other”—In the Hebrew, 
 TIS >¥7a WNX,—literally, @ man from his brother, 
 correctly, one man from another : or one from another. 
 
 2. Gen. xxvi. 31, “ And Abimelech and Isaac sware 
 —one to another”—In the Hebrew, TN WN,—lite- 
 rally, a man to his brother—correctly, one man to 
 another. 
 
 . Gen. xxxvii. 19, “ And they said one to another,” 
 ais the Hebrew, 8 DN Wx—literally, aman to 
 his brother, correctly, one man to another. 
 
 A, Gen. xlii. 21, The same as the last. 
 
 5. Gen. xlii. 28, The same as the last. 
 
 6. Exod. x. 23, “ And the Egyptians saw not—one 
 another” —In the Hebrew, VT8 FS WN,—literally, a 
 man his brother, correctly, one man, another. 
 
 7. Exod. xvi. 15, “ And the children of Israel said one 
 to another”—In the Hebrew, TIS a8 wN,— literally, 
 —a man to his brother,—correctly, one man to 
 another. 
 
 8. Exod. xxv. 20, “And the faces of the cherubim shall 
 look—one to another” —In the Hebrew, 118 aN WN, 
 —literally, a man to his brother,—correctly, one face 
 to another. 
 
 9. Exod. xxvi. 3, “The five curtains shall be 
 coupled together—one to another”—In the Hebrew, 
 TMS DN “TYN—literally, a woman to her sister,—— 
 correctly, one curtain to another. 
 
 10. Exod. xxvi. 3, “ And other five curtains 
 
 shall be coupled—one to another”—In the Hebrew, 
 10 
 
ten 
 
 110 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 OMS Biss TON,— literally, a woman to her sister— 
 correctly, one curtain to another. 
 
 11. Exod, xxvi. 5, “'That the loops may take hold 
 —one of another”—In the Hebrew, BEIM WS TDR, 
 —literally, a woman of her sister—correctly, one loop of 
 another. 
 
 12. Exod. xxvi. 6, “And couple the curtains together” 
 —In the Hebrew, rata ms 5m TWN, literally, a woman 
 to her sister—correctly, one curtain to another. 
 
 13. Exod. xxvi. 17, “'T'wo tenons shall be set-—one 
 against another”—In the Hebrew, TOMS Bs) MUN, 
 —literally, a@ woman against her sister —correctly, 
 one tenon against another. 
 
 14. Exod. xxxvii. 9, “ The cherubim stood with their 
 faces—one to another” —In the Hebrew, TT8 dS D™N, 
 —literally, a man to his brother—correctly, one face to 
 another. 
 
 15. Lev. vii. 10, “ One, as much as another, ”__In 
 the Hebrew, TIN5 WN,— literally, a man as his bro- 
 ther—correctly, one man as another. 
 
 16. Lev. xvii. 18, “ Neither shalt thou take a wife to 
 her sister”—(in the margin, “ one wife to another”)— 
 In the Hebrew, AMS as MWN,—literally, @ woman 
 to her sister,—correctly, one wife to another. 
 
 17. Lev. xxv. 14, “Ye shall not oppress—one 
 another”—In the Hobiow: PS ais WN,— literally, 
 a man, his brother-—correctly, one man, another. 
 
 18. Lev. xxv. 46, “Ye shall not rule—one over 
 another ”—In the Helirew! VIS i N,—literally, a 
 man over his brother—correctly, one man over another. 
 
 19. Lev. xxvi. 37, “And they shall fall—one upon 
 another”—In the Hebrew, VND WX,— literally, @ 
 
 man, upon his brother—correctly, one man, upon 
 another. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 111 
 
 + 
 
 20. Num. xiv. 4, “And the Israelites said—one to 
 another”—the same as No. 7. 
 
 21. Deut. xxv. 11, “ When men strive together—one 
 with another”—In the Hebrew, 7781 0", — literally, 
 aman, with his brother—correctly, one man, with 
 another. 
 
 22. Neh. iv. 19, “We are separated—one far from 
 another”—In the Hebrew, VIS WN,— literally, a 
 man from his bro: her,—correctly, one man, from 
 another. 
 
 23. Job xli. 17, “'The scales of Leviathan are joined 
 ——one to another”—In the Hebrew, VIISD DX— 
 literally, a man, to his brother—correctly, one scale, 
 to another. 
 
 24. Jer. xiii. 14, “ And I will dash them—one 
 against another”—In the Hebrew, 1778 SS DR 
 literally, a man against his brother—correctly, one 
 man, against another. 
 
 25. Jer. xxv. 26, “ And all the kings of the north— 
 one with another”—In the Hebrew, TTS Biss Dw— 
 literally, a man, with his brother—correctly, one king, 
 with another. 
 
 26. Jer. xxxiv. 14, “Letye go, every man his brother, 
 that is an Hebrew”—-In the Hebrew, TTR OR we, 
 —literally, a man, his brother—correctly, one man, 
 another. 
 
 27 & 23. Ezek.i.9, and 11, “ Their wings were joined 
 —one to another”—In the Hebrew, ATMs ats MD, 
 —literally, a woman, to her sister—correctly, one wing 
 to another. 
 
 29, Ezek. i. 23, “ And their wings were straight—one 
 towards another ;’—In the Hebrew, roteaimtss 5m Mw, 
 —literally, a woman, towards her sister—correctly, 
 one wing, towards another. 
 
112 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 30. Ezek. iii. 13, “ The wings of the living creatures 
 touched one another” —In the Hebrew, TDM DS TON, 
 —literally, @ woman, her sister —correctly, one Wink, 
 another. , 
 
 31. Ezek. iv. 17, “And be astonished—one with 
 another”—In the Hebrew, 1778 W7N,— literally, a 
 man, with his brother—correctly, one man, with 
 another. 
 
 32. Ezek. xxiv. 23, “And moum, one towards 
 another”—In the Hebrew, 1778 DN w~,— literally, 
 a man, towards his brother—correctly, one man, 
 towards another. 
 
 33. Ezek. xxxiii. 30, “ And speak, one to another” 
 —In the Hebrew, TTR ON 7N,— literally, a man, 
 to his brother—correctly, one man, to another. 
 
 34. Ezek. xlvii. 14, “ And ye shall inherit it—one as 
 well as another”—In the Hebrew, VTS) Dx— 
 literally, a man, as well as his brother—correctly, one 
 man, as well as another. 
 
 35. Joel ii. 8, “ Neither shall one thrust another” — 
 In the Hebrew, T7778 wx~,— literally, Neither shall @ 
 man thrust his brother—correctly, Neither shall one 
 man thrust another. 
 
 This phrase, in the masculine form—a man to his 
 brother—occurs also, in connection with 7729 WX, 
 literally, a@ man, his companion, in four other in- 
 stances: Exod. 32. 27, Isaiah 19. 2, Jer. 31. 34, and 
 34.17. 'To show its meaning in this connection, also, 
 I need cite but one of the passages: Exod. 32. 27, 
 “ And Moses said to all the sons of Levi, go throughout 
 the camp and slay every man his brother, and every 
 man his companion, and every man his neighbour.” 
 -—-As the tribes did not intermarry, and the sons of 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 113 
 
 Levi were directed to slay none but persons belonging to 
 the other eleven tribes; it is obvious that the phrase a man, 
 his brother, when thus connected, has no allusion to a 
 brother by consanguinity ; but denotes as elsewhere 
 one man, another, or perhaps, from the repetition of 
 the thought, one man, several others. 
 
 The similar phrase 4499 WR, @ man, his com- 
 panion, in the masculine form, occurs in nineteen in- 
 stances: Gen. 11. 3, and 7, Ex. 18. 7, and 16, and 21. 
 18, Judges 6. 29, Ruth 3.14; 1 Sam. 10, 11, and 20. 
 Al, bis; 2 Kings 3. 23, and 7. 3, 6,9; 2 Chron. 2v. 
 23; Esth. 9. 19, 22; Isaiah 3.5; Jer. 36. 16, and 46. 
 16; Mal. 3. 16.—In the feminine form, TADS AORN, 
 @ woman, her companion, it occurs in four instances : 
 Isaiah 34. 15,16; Jer. 9.20; and Zech. 11.9. In 
 each of these instances its precise Meaning is one, 
 another. 
 
 The similar phrase 77729 Wk, a man, his neigh- 
 bour, occurs in Lev. 19. 11, and Lev. 25.17; and in 
 both signifies one, another. That it has the exact 
 meaning of 778 wos, a man, his brother, is proved 
 from its use in the latter instance: in Lev. 25. 14, “Ye 
 shall not oppress one another,” VTS WS, a man, his 
 brother, and in Lev. 25. 17, “ Ye shall not oppress one 
 another,” ID779 Os, a man, his neighbour. These 
 three phrases, therefore, have a common meaning. 
 
 The thirty-five instances, which I have recited, are, 
 with the exception of the four, mentioned in the last 
 paragraph but two, all the instances, in which the phrase 
 in question occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. In twenty- 
 five, it is in the masculine form, VTS WN, a man, his 
 brother ; and in ten, in the feminine form, ACIS mo, 
 a woman, her sister. Of these, twenty-one are in the 
 
 10° 
 
114 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 Pentateuch, eight in Ezekiel, three in Jeremiah, one in 
 Nehemiah, one in Job, and one in Joel. In ¢thirty- 
 two of these instances the phrase is actually rendered 
 one another ; in one the 12th, it is rendered fogether, 
 which is precisely equivalent to one to another ; and in 
 one, the 26th, it is rendered,—“ Let ye go, every man 
 his brother, that is an Hebrew.”—This deviation from 
 the common rendering, however, was adopted,—not to | 
 express the relationship of brother, for the command is 
 addressed to the Hebrews as a nation concerning their 
 Hebrew slaves; but to avoid an awkwardness which 
 would have attended the customary rendering in this 
 instance—Let ye go, every man, another, that is an 
 Hebrew. In thirty-four instances, then, out of the 
 thirty-five, this phrase is actually rendered, and with 
 absolute precision, by one to another—one man to an- 
 other, one woman to another, one curtain to another, 
 one wing to another, one face to another, one tenon to 
 another, one loop to another, one scale to another, one 
 king to another, one thing of any kind to another, 
 wherever two things of a kind are brought together— 
 and, in no one instance, is the word brother or sister 
 thus used to express relationship by blood. In the 
 thirty-fifth also, the instance in question, it is rendered 
 by our translators in the margin, one woman to an- 
 other.* 
 
 The question then recurs, How are we to interpret 
 this phrase, in this only remaining instance of the thirty- 
 
 * If the English Translators had in every instance rendered the He- 
 brew literally, by a man to his brother, or a woman to her sister the phrase 
 would have long since become naturalized in English, and have denoted 
 just what it denotes in Hebrew one to another. By thus rendering it 
 in thirty-four instances and not in the thirty-fifth, they have led the 
 mere English reader into sad mistakes and perplexities, 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 115 
 
 five, Ley. xvii. 18. That every candid mind—not 
 committed either in feeling or in fact—must be ready 
 on this evidence to decide that the phrase is a Hebrew 
 idiom, and denotes one woman to another, 1 cannot 
 doubt. Yet before summing up the evidence I will state 
 a parallel case. 
 
 The parallel case is the following. In one of Cicero’s 
 Letters to his Son at Athens, you may look for the fol- 
 lowing direction—“ Nunquam uxori nubas !’—At the 
 first sight of this illustrious sanction of celibacy, many a 
 
 -bachelor will triumph ; while those single ladies, who 
 read Latin, will scarcely believe their own eyes.— May 
 you never marry a wife !—Impossible ! Could Marcus 
 Tullius,—himself a married man,-—write thus to his 
 Son !/—-Well might he imagine his Country, Italy and 
 the whole Republic to fasten their astonished eyes upon 
 him and cry out, “ Marce Tulli, quid agis 2—To be 
 sure of the meaning, the Bachelor consults his dictionary, 
 and finds that no scholar, male or female, can deny that 
 the meaning of nunguam is never,—of nubas, may you 
 marry,—(or may you be married to,—) and of uxori, 
 a wife. Satisfied with the investigation, he lays down 
 his Ainsworth, more confirmed in his purpose than be- 
 fore—Not so fast, Sir!—The selfish and incorrigible 
 shall not triumph eternally.—Look into your Pliny; and 
 read, in one of his letters, an account of three of your 
 own fraternity at Rome: an account, short indeed, but 
 terminating in each instance with the pithy and ominous 
 conclusion—“ wrort nupsit !’—Do you start, lest you, 
 too, should come, by analogy, to the same end :—look 
 a little more minutely at his account of the last of the 
 three—* Non uxorem duit, sed, O fallacem ceelibis 
 spem! uxori nupsit !’—He did not take a wife; but 
 O how a bachelor’s hopes are blasted! he married a 
 
116 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 wife /—Will this do? Did Pliny utter such a palpa- 
 ble contradiction ?—Look again into your Ainsworth, 
 and under Nubo or Uzor, learn your doom.—“ Uzxori 
 nupsv”’—not, I have married a wife, but—* I am mar- 
 ried toawife:? “ Uxori nubere,” “to marry your 
 master,” “to get under petticoat government,” “ to be 
 heripecked.” With this illustration, you will find uth s 
 narratives painfully intelligible. 
 
 I stop then to ask, whether any scholar could hesitate 
 as to the meaning of Cicero’s advice to his Son, when 
 he had found the phrase, Uxori nubere, three times so 
 used in Pliny, as to have but one meaning. Can we 
 usually explain a controverted phrase by more than 
 three examples, in which its meaning is clear and in- 
 disputable ; or rather, when we find three such examples, 
 does not its meaning cease to be controverted. 
 
 Our inquirer, however, anxious for a different result, 
 examines the other Latin classics ; and would have been 
 happy, as he met the phrase in question eigh¢ times in 
 Terence, and once in Plautus, in Martial, and in Ovid, 
 could he have found even one instance, in which it 
 had not the same identical meaning. Looking over the 
 fragments of Varro, he finds “ Uxort nubere” explain- 
 ed by “Imperio uxoris parere.” Ainsworth, Robert 
 Stephens, Facciolati, and all the modern lexiographers 
 agree with Varro. As a last effort he searches the pages 
 of Cicero, and resolves that the Roman Orator shall 
 speak for himself. Here he discovers twenty other pas- 
 sages in which the phrase occurs; but in every one it 
 indisputably means to be henpecked. He also finds, 
 by the help of Facciolati, that these various instances, 
 amounting to thirty-four, are, with the one in question, 
 the only instances, in which the phrase is used by any 
 Roman author. On these facts, I ask any unbiassed 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 117 
 
 man—What is the true meaning of “ Nunquam uxori 
 nubas ?’—To this question every such man will reply, 
 “Tt isa peculiar idiom of the Latin language, having 
 a meaning of its own, which is to be determined by its 
 customary use, as a phrase, among the best Latin 
 writers.” —Every language abounds with such idioms, 
 even upon this very subject. Thus the French say, 
 “La poule plus haut que le cog chante :”—literally, 
 The hen. crows louder than the cock—correctly, ‘ The 
 grey mare is the better horse.” 
 
 Let us, then, apply this rule to the case in hand. 
 The controverted Hebrew phrase occurs eight times in 
 Ezekiel, three times in Jeremiah, and once in Job, in 
 Nehemiah, and in Joel. It also occurs twenty times in 
 the Pentateuch, beside the passage in question ; and in 
 each of these thirty-four instances, it is agreed to mean 
 one to another, and to have no reference to relationship 
 by blood. ‘These also are all the instances in which it 
 does occur, singly, in the Hebrew Scriptures ; and in the 
 four instances, in which it occurs, in connection with a 
 similar phrase, it is agreed also to mean one to another, 
 and to have no reference to relationship by blood. This 
 phrase too, and three others* of a similar construction, 
 are the customary, if not the only, mode of expressing 
 one to another, in the Hebrew.—Buxtorf expressly 
 mentions the phrase as an Hebrew idiom : explaining 
 the masculine form by Unus ad alteruwm, and the 
 feminine by Una ad alteram. With him agree Cas- 
 tell, Robertson, Taylor, Eichhorn and Gesenius ; but for 
 brevity, I will quote only Gesenius. Under the article 
 
 * Two of these have been already mentioned.,. The third Nr 
 Wd, literally man to man, correctly one to another, occurs in ] Sam. 
 il, 25, and Hosea iv. 4, 
 
 e$o4 Qte oe 
 
 .- 
 
 Ye wt 
 
es 
 
 Rank Nasa! Lobe hoo / 
 
 118 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 MS, a brother, he says, “Following after D"8, a man— 
 it denotes one another ; alter, alter ;?* and under the 
 article NIM, a sister, he says, “ With TWX, a woman, 
 preceding, it denotes one another ; altera, altera.”t 
 -—At the same time, there is scarcely an idiom of the 
 Hebrew, the meaning of which can be determined by 
 thirty-four clear indisputable examples of its use; and — “9 
 except this, there is not an instance in the one or 
 any other language, in which the meaning of a given 
 phrase can be proved to be cdiomatic, by thirty-four 
 such examples, with no epposing example of a different 
 meaning, whose true meaning has been—I will not say 
 controveried, but—for a moment doubted. Why it 
 has been doubted in this, is obvious. On these facts, 
 every unbiassed man will say, that the phrase in ques- 
 tion is an Hebrew Idiom ; and that, in Leviticus xviii. 
 18, it has the same meaning as every where else,— 
 denoting, “ Neither shalt thou take one woman, or one 
 wife, to another, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness 
 beside the other, in her life-time.” 
 
 But we have not yet done with this passage. The 
 interpretation to which those are necessarily driven, who 
 favour the marriage in question, is the following: Neither 
 shalt thou take a second wife, who is the sister of thy 
 Jirst wife, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside 
 the other in her life-time: although thou mayest take 
 one who is not her sister, because that will not vex her, 
 and her sister also, after her death.—That it would 
 ver a wife, to have her husband bring home her sister, 
 as a second wife, is readily admitted ; but that it would 
 not vex her to have her husband bring home a second 
 wife who was not her sister,----will sound oddly in the 
 
 * Gibb’s Gesenius, p. 25. 7 Gibb’s Gesenius, p. 25. 
 
THE LAW ON INCEST. 119 
 
 ears at least of wives ; so oddly, that, even in opposi- 
 tion to the most extended and laborious Hebrew criti- 
 cism, and in spite of a chain of syllogisms which 
 Aristotle himself would pronounce without a flaw, 
 they will be ready, for reasons which all wives per- 
 fectly understand, and which they feel too, to the very 
 
 _ quick, to pronounce the interpretation, which involves 
 this position, infallibly and incurably erroneous, and 
 
 the position itself inevitably false. Nay so incredulous 
 and incorrigible are they on this one point, that were 
 they told it was in the very Bible itself, not one of them 
 would believe it. We will then examine this position on 
 its own merits. 
 
 Were the idea of Incest wholly out of the question ; 
 were Polygamy also lawful; and were a married woman 
 under the necessity of seeing a second wife brought 
 into the house as her partner; I have no hesitation to 
 believe that cateris paribus, she would prefer a sister to 
 a stranger. Without pretending, however, to any pecu- 
 liar knowledge of the female heart, I find, in the very 
 nature of the case, the most satisfactory evidence, that 
 there would be far less danger of bitter rivalry between 
 two sisters, than between two strangers. Sisters are 
 usually more alike, than strangers, in person, complexion 
 and features, and of course differ less as to personal 
 beauty. Their education, habits, views, feelings, man- 
 ners, and character, have a far greater resemblance. 
 Their rank, fortune, connections, friends, and family 
 interests, are one and the same; and of course would 
 never be the occasion of jealousies and quarrels. Should 
 quarrels arise, the family connections, instead of taking 
 sides with one or the other, would unite to reconcile 
 them. They are also attached to each other by early 
 
120 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 friendship, as well as by the indissoluble bond of natural 
 affection. 
 
 Let us now view the case of two females, thus con- 
 nected, who are strangers. Less alike usually than 
 sisters, in the endowments of body and mind; they 
 have no other point of resemblance. They are des- 
 cended from different lineage, have imbibed different 
 prejudices, and have been educated in different families, 
 under different parents and teachers, among different 
 associates, to different views, feelings, principles, habits 
 and characters. They have different personal and 
 family friends, have no natural affection, no early 
 friendship, no habits of kindness and confidence, no 
 oneness of interests and wishes, to endear them to each 
 other. They know each other only as rivals, in all 
 which a wife can value. The first wife looks on the 
 second merely as an intruder, whose only wish is to rob 
 her of her husband’s affection and her own influence 
 and happiness. ‘The second sees in the first a jealous 
 adversary, always busy in disappointing her hopes and 
 thwarting her purposes. 'Their feelings, interests and 
 plans, are always in collision. ‘There is nothing in the 
 past, the present or the future, to take off the edge of 
 jealousy, or to prevent the growth of hatred. In such 
 circumstances, peace is impossible. In their personal 
 quarrels, their family connections will take sides. The 
 relations of each will support her influence, her interests, 
 and her rights, at the expence of her rival. She, who 
 had the humbler birth, whose connections are the least 
 respectable and powerful, who brought the smaller for- 
 tune, who is the inferior in education, in manners, in 
 personal beauty and accomplishments, in mental en- 
 dowments and acquisitions, who is either without child- 
 ren, or has the smaller number, or those of the least 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 121 
 
 promise, will never be allowed to forget her disadvantage. 
 Who does not see, in all these distinctions, ‘perpetual 
 sources of jealousy and hatred. \ Yet while two sisters 
 escape them almost all, they also feel the numerous 
 and powerful inducements to harmony already recited. 
 Far indeed am I from suggesting, that these induce- 
 ments would be sufficient. In the house of Polygamy, 
 harmony cannot reside. Still it is obvious, that. the 
 causes for rivalry and contention, between {wo sis- 
 ters, would be incomparably fewer, than between to 
 strangers. 'Thus, in examining, on its own merits, 
 the position, necessarily taken by those whom I oppose, 
 — That it will not vex awife, if her husband marries 
 a second wife, who is not her sister ; we perceive that 
 it is obviously false ; nay, that the very reverse of this 
 position is true; and that the causes of vexation would 
 be far greater than if he married her sister. 
 
 But it is said, with confidence, that the Scriptures 
 have furnished us with a Narrative, relating to this 
 subject, in the marriage of Jacob with Rachel and 
 Leah, which illustrates. and supports this position. As 
 this case is constantly and confidently appealed to in sup- 
 port of this interpretation, we will examine it with at- 
 tention. The result of the examination will prove, if I 
 mistake not, that, although there were many causes of 
 rivalry and contention in the case of Rachel and Leah, 
 which would not ordinarily attend the marriage of two 
 sisters; still, even in that case, there was far less of 
 rivalry and contention, than exists in the marriage of 
 two women who are not sisters. 
 
 Rachel was young, and, to the eyes of Jacob, very 
 lovely, when he first saw her, at the well of Haran. At 
 this interview, Jacob’s gallantry and manly spirit, and 
 
 Rachel’s courteousness and personal beauty, inspired 
 11 
 
122 THE LAW OF INCEST. © 
 
 them with a mutual affection, not often parallelled for 
 its ardour or its strength. He served Laban seven years, 
 that he might receive Rachel as his wife; “and they 
 seemed to him but a few days, for the love that he had 
 to her.” —“ And Jacob said unto Laban, ‘Give me my 
 wife ; for my days are fulfilled.’ And Laban gathered 
 together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 
 And in the evening, he took Leah his daughter, and 
 brought her to Jacob, instead of Rachel.” The mar- 
 riage ceremonies of the country rendered such a decep- 
 tion not only possible, hey — What during that 
 night, were the feelings of Rachel towards Leah! Her 
 husband, betrothed to her for seven years, and inex- 
 pressibly endeared by his affection and tenderness, cruelly 
 stolen from her, at the moment so long anticipated by 
 her with cheerfulness and joy, by him with impatience 
 and transport :—stolen from her without his knowledge 
 or consent, and with the agonizing mistake on his part, 
 that /erself was then with him :—stolen by a sister 
 whom Jacob had never loved, by a sister who had 
 fraudulently supplanted her in her bridal bed !—“ And 
 it came to pass that, in the morning, behold it was 
 Leah! !/’—What was the anguish of Jacob’s mind, 
 when he rose up in the morning, and said unto Laban, 
 “ What is this, that thou hast done tome? Did I not 
 serve thee for Rachel? Wherefore hast thou beguiled 
 me?”’—Who can wonder that “Leah was hated” by 
 Jacob, or that Rachel was still more tenderly loved. 
 Who could wonder, if Rachel had despised Leah, or if 
 Leah had been envious of Rachel. Surely it needed 
 all the strength of sisterly affection and parental influ- 
 ence, to save them from unceasing jealousy and rancour. 
 —What then was the fact ?—The story is told us in 
 Gen. xxix. 31,—xxx. 21. Yet we find no recital of 
 
 ? 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 123 
 
 uncommon bickerings, or of peculiar unhappiness. We 
 are simply told that Jacob at first hated Leah, and loved 
 Rachel ; that Rachel envied Leah her children, and 
 said to Jacob “Give me children, or else I die ;” and 
 that when Rachel asked Leah for the fruit ide 
 Reuben from the field, she replied, “Is it a small matter 
 that thou hast taken my husband; and wouldest thou 
 take my son’s mandrakes also 2” 
 
 But we have another case of polygamy in the Scrip- 
 tures, that of Elkanah of Mount Ephraim, who had two 
 wives, Hannah and Pen nah, who were not sisters. 
 Hannah, like Rachel, was loved by her husband, and 
 like her had no children. Peninnah, like Leah, had 
 children, and, like her, triumphed over her associate, 
 No two cases could be more nearly parallel. Peninnah, 
 however, had not supplanted Hannah on the bridal 
 night. The distress of Hannah is described in 1 Sam. 
 i. 1,—ii. 11. Irefer the reader to the two cases, as de- 
 tailed at length, with perfect confidence that the vera- 
 tions of Hannah were far more intense than those of 
 Rachel. 
 
 Let him particularly notice the appearance of Hannah 
 in the temple: “ And when the time was, that Elkanah 
 offered, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her 
 sons and daughters, portions ; but unto Hannah he gave 
 a worthy portion, for he ioved Hannah, but she had no 
 children. And her adversary also provoked her sore, for 
 to make her fret, because she had no children. And he 
 did so year by year. When she went up to the house 
 of the Lord, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, 
 and did not eat. Then said Elkanah her husband to 
 her ‘Hannah, why weepest thou; am I not better to 
 thee than ten sons ?—So Hannah rose up, after they 
 had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk: (now 
 
124 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 Eli the priest sat upon a seat, by a post of the termple of 
 the Lord :) and she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed 
 unto the Lord, and wept sore. And she vowed a vow, 
 and said, ‘O Lord of hosts! if thou wilt indeed look on 
 the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and 
 not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine 
 handmaid a man-child; then will I give him unto the 
 Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor 
 come upon his head’—-Now Hannah she spake in her 
 heart, only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard : 
 therefore Eli thought she had been drunken. And Eli 
 said unto her, ‘How long wilt thou be drunken? Put 
 away thy wine from thee.—And Hannah answered 
 and said, ‘No, my lord; Iam a woman of a sorrowful 
 _spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink ; 
 but have poured out my soul before the Lord. Count 
 not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial; for out of 
 the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken 
 hitherto.’ ” 
 
 Here, then, in the house of Elkanah, where the twe 
 wives were not sisters, we find the distress introduced 
 by polygamy incomparably more intense and agoniz- 
 ing, than in the house of Jacob. This too was the 
 fact, though the circumstances of Hannah and Rachel 
 on the one part, and those of Leah and Peninnah on 
 the other, were generally the same; and though the 
 original substitution of Leah bade fair to kindle in the 
 mind of Rachel an irreconcilable hatred. But what is 
 the position under consideration— That it will ver a 
 wife, uf her husband marries her sister ; but that it 
 will not vex her, if he marries a stranger. In other 
 words, the polygamy of Elkanah was no cause of 
 grief or vexation ta Hannah ; she was perfectly core 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 125 
 
 tented and happy under it, because Peninnah was 
 not her sister! ! 
 
 I appeal then with confidence to every reader, male 
 as well as female, that the position assumed in this in- 
 terpretation is false; and that the interpretation repre- 
 sents God as assigning both a foolish, and a false 
 reason, for the permission of polygamy. Examined on 
 its own merits, therefore, it proves to be erroneous.* 
 
 Our investigation of Lev. xviii. 18, and of the inter- 
 pretation of it to which we are driven, if we admit mar- 
 riage with a wife’s sister to be lawful, viz.— Neither 
 shalt thou take another wife, who is the sister of thy 
 first wife, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside 
 the other in her life-time, although thou mayest take 
 one who is not her sister, because that will not vex her, 
 and after her death, her sister also—has brought us 
 then to the following results : 
 
 1. Polygamy was expressly prohibited by God in the 
 Original Law of Marriage, on account of its immoral 
 tendency ; has been shown to have been unlawful to the 
 Patriarchs and under the Levitical code ; and is declared 
 by Christ to be adultery. 
 
 2. The Law of incest, in expressly forbidding mar- 
 riage between a brother's wife and a husband’s bro- 
 ther, just as certainly forbad it between a sister’s hus- 
 band and a wife’s sisier, as in expressly forbidding 
 marriage between a nephew and an aunf, or between a 
 
 * Mohammed had either too much reverence, or too much sense, to 
 assign so foolish and so false a reason for forbidding a man to marry 
 his wife’s sister. As he authorized polygamy, he prohibited this mar- 
 riage simply on the account of the incest. In thus comparing the re- 
 spective claims of the institutions of Mohammed, and those of the sys- 
 tem which we oppose, to the character of purity and even of common 
 decency, it is painful to find in every case that the prophet of Mecca 
 has the advantage. 
 
 0, VA Y.f Aerrectf2 
 
126 THE LAW OF INCEST. ou 
 mother and a son, it forbad it between an wncle and a 
 niece, or between a father anda daughter. If we deny 
 this, we must also deny that equals are equal. 
 
 3. The Law of incest in expressly forbidding mar- 
 riage between a man and his collaterals of the second 
 degree by affinity, declares the propinquity between 
 them to be so great, as to render marriage between 
 them unlawful; and yet this interpretation makes it 
 declare the propinquity between a man and his wife’s 
 sister, a collateral of the first degree, and of course one 
 degree nearer than they, not to be so great as to ren- 
 der marriage between them unlawful: in other words, 
 that the less is greater than the greater. 
 
 4. If we deny the unlawfulness of this marriage, we 
 are also compelled to admit that under the Levitical Law 
 of incest a man had a right to marry his own daughter, 
 and his own grandmother; and that these marriages 
 are now right. 
 
 5. The reason, expressly assigned in the Law, why a 
 brother’s wife may not marry a husband's brother 
 after the husband’s death is that, on account of the 
 propinquity, such marriage is “‘an’ abomination ;” and 
 yet the reason assigned in this interpretation, why a 
 sister's husband may not marry a wife’s sister, during 
 the life-time of the wife, that is why he may not have 
 two sisters for wives at once, when the propinquity is iden- 
 tically the same, isthatit will vex the sister whom he mar- 
 ried first! We cannot chargesuch trifling ona Law of God. 
 
 6. A minute and careful examination of every pas- 
 
 sage in the Scriptures, in which the controverted. phrase, 
 aman to his brother, or a woman to her- sister occurs, 
 has shown that the re brother and sister in this 
 phrase have no reference to relationshi ip by blood ; and 
 that the phrase itself denotes uniformly one to Prather: 
 
 oN 9 conan ~ 
 
 i ee: nat a me we 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. . 127 
 
 and, in the given passage, one woman to another, or 
 one wife to another. 
 
 7. The position assumed in the interpretation—that 
 it will not vex a wife, to have her husband take ano- 
 ther wife, who is not her sister, has been shown to be 
 not only ridiculously foolish, but certainly and palpably 
 false. 
 
 Hence, until we are prepared to admit a construc- 
 tion of a public statute of the Divine Law, which re- 
 peals the Great Original Law of Marriage, given by 
 God to the whole Human Race, on purpose, as he him- 
 self tells us, to promote morality and religion among 
 men; which, in opposition to the whole tenor of Scrip- 
 ture, permits Polygamy, though God himself declares 
 it to be immoral in its tendency ; which assigns for this 
 repeal and this permission, a reason at once foolish and 
 false ; which declares a given degree of propinquity to 
 be less than another degree, to which it is mathemati- 
 cally equal, and to be less than several other degrees, 
 which with mathematical certainty are greater than it: 
 in other words, that equals are not equal, and that the 
 less is greater than the greater ; which makes it law- 
 ful under the Levitical Code for a man to marry his own 
 daughter and his own grandmother ; and which re- 
 quires us to reject a meaning of a Hebrew idiom, sup- 
 ported by thirty-four clear examples, and to adopt one, 
 which has not a solitary example to support it; we 
 must reject the proposed construction, and conclude 
 that Lev. xviii. 18, is a simple prohibition of Polygamy ; 
 that it does not remotely affect the Law of incest ; and 
 that the prohibitions of that Law are just as we have 
 stated them, in our examination of its several provisions. 
 
 We are thus brought to the Second General Ques- 
 ~ tion, 
 
* 
 
 &s 
 7 
 
 € or ey 4 
 
 beg 
 
 128 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 IL Is rar Law oF INCEST NOW IN FORCE? 
 
 It is singular, as well as mortifying, that in a Chris- 
 tian country, it should be necessary to discuss the ques- 
 tion— Whether it is right for a man to marry his mother 
 or his daughter 2—Yet principles, involving a negative 
 answer to this question, have been, in the progress of 
 this controversy, frequently advanced, and maintained. 
 
 If any of the prohibitions of the law of incest are 
 now in force, they are a// in force. No Statute, repeal- 
 ing a part of the Law and confirming the rest, has ever 
 been published. There is nothing, plainly, either in 
 the Old Testament, or the New, which designates indi- 
 vidual prohibitions, as applicable exclusively to the Is- 
 raelites, or which intimates that the Gentiles were to 
 be bound by some of them, and not by others. There 
 is nothing too, in the nature of the case, which enables 
 us to adopt a part, and reject a part. The Bible, to 
 those, who receive it as the word of God, is the only 
 rule of faith and practice. If the Bible pronounces In- 
 cest a sin, as practised by us; to us itisa sin. If it 
 does not pronounce it a sin, as practised by us; to us it 
 is not asin. The Bible teaches us “all things neces- 
 sary for life and godliness ;” and we are not left to the 
 light of nature, to determine what is, and what is not, 
 asin. The light of nature, also, teaches nothing defi- 
 nite on the subject. Those nations, which have not 
 possessed the Bible, have not usually regarded Incest 
 as a sin; and those which have, have never agreed 
 with each other as to its ex/ent. It was obviously no 
 sin, in the immediate sons of Adam and Eve, to marry 
 their sisters ; and, if God had not prohibited incestuous 
 marriages, it would have been always equally lawful. 
 Impressions and prejudices growing out of education, or 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 129 
 
 traditions or national customs, are here wholly destitute . 
 of authority. Our own desires and passions are no 
 
 criterion of right and wrong. The fact, that I feel no 
 
 wish to marry my mother, or my sister, does not prove 
 
 it to be wrong; and the fact, that I feel a wish to marry 
 
 my wife's sister, or my wife’s niece, does not prove it 
 to be right. The decisions of no individuals, as well as 
 
 of no bodies of men, whether legislatures, courts, or 
 
 councils, can have the least authority, in constituting 
 
 any marriage a sin, which is not pronounced a sin by 
 
 the Law of God. If they could; the same act would be 
 
 a sin in one age, in one country and one church, and a 
 
 righteous act in another. If, then, the prohibitions of 
 the Law of Incest are not all of them now obligatory, it 
 
 is perfectly right for a man to marry his sister, his 
 
 daughter, or his mother. To the great body of the 
 
 community, this single consideration will render the re- 
 
 mainder of the discussion unnecessary. 
 
 In attempting to prove that the Law of incest is now 
 binding, we are met in the threshold with various diffi- 
 culties arising from the fact thal it was a part of the 
 Levitical Law. 'These need to be disposed of, before 
 we offer any direct proof that it is now obligatory. We 
 are constrained therefore, in establishing this point, to 
 commence with negative evidence; and afterwards to 
 present that which is direct and positive. 
 
 I. THe Fact THAT THE Law oF INCEST IS A 
 PART OF THE LevitricaL Law, Is NO OBJECTION TO 
 ITS BINDING FORCE. 
 
 The Levitical Law consisted of two great divisions : 
 the Ceremonial or Ecclesiastical Law, and the Civil or 
 Municipal Law. 
 
 Those, who urge this objection, have alleged, 
 either---- That the Law of incest was a part of the 
 
130 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 _ Ceremonial Law; or--- That it was a part of the Civil 
 Law of Israel ; or---That, if the Law itself is bind- 
 ing, so is its Penalty. 
 
 I. The objection, that the Law of Incest is a part of 
 the Ceremonial Law, furnishes no evidence that it is not 
 now obligatory. 
 
 The CeremoniaL Law was THE CONSTITUTION 
 oF THE IsRAELITISH CuuRCH: establishing its Priest- 
 hood and Ritual, its Ceremonies and Observances. It 
 had nothing in it of a moral nature,{was never binding 
 except on the Israelites, and was expressly abrogated as 
 to its binding force on them, by its Divine Author at the 
 commencement of the Christian Dispensation. 
 
 That the Law of incest is a part of the Ceremonial 
 Law, is argued on the following grounds. 
 
 1. That the nameless crime forbidden in Lev. xviii. 
 
 _ 19, and xx. 18, is clearly a mere ceremonial offence ; 
 and that, as the crime of Incest is found in the same con- 
 nection, and in the same chapters with it, it must there- 
 fore be a ceremonial offence. 
 
 Were we to admit the crime in question to be a cere- 
 monial offence ; the fact, that it is mentioned in the same 
 connection, and in the same chapters, with Incest, would 
 not prove that Incest is a ceremonial offence. In Lev. 
 xvii. and xx. are mentioned in precisely the same con- 
 nection, the seven crimes of adultery, polygamy, Incest, 
 the crime in question, sodomy, bestiality, and sacrificing 
 one’s own children to Moloch ; and, in the 20th chapter, 
 the two additional crimes of idolatry, and cursing a pa- 
 rent. ‘These are all prohibited, under the penalty of 
 death. ‘The crime of bestiality, also is mentioned no 
 where else, but in these two chapters and in Exodus xxii, 
 19; whereas Incest is prohibited in two other chapters 
 of the Pentateuch. But the fact, that the crime in ques- 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 131 
 
 tion is found in the same connection with the crime last 
 mentioned, and with adultery, idelatry, sodomy, the curs- 
 ing of a parent, and the sacrificing of one’s children, does 
 not prove that they were ceremonial offences; and, of 
 course, it does not prove that incest was such an offence. 
 
 In Lev. xix., prohibitions of idolatry, stealing, cheat- 
 ing, lying, perjury, profanity, fraud, robbery, slander, 
 adultery, and profanation of the Sabbath, are found inter- 
 mixed with clauses, prohibiting the gendering of diverse 
 cattle, the mingling of diverse seed, the wearing of lin- 
 sey-woolsey, the rounding of the corners of the head, the 
 marring of the corners of the beard, the cutting of the 
 flesh, and the marking of it for the dead :—the latter 
 all indisputably ceremonial offences :—yet this fact does 
 not prove, that the former were offences of that charac- 
 ter ; and of course, were this true of Incest, it would fur- 
 nish no evidence, that it was a ceremonial offence. , 
 
 But the position, continually taken for granted, that 
 the crime in question was a mere ceremonial offence, is 
 wholly denied; and would those, who thus take it for 
 granted, attempt to prove it, they would find it no easy 
 task. 'That it was not such an offence, is evident from 
 various considerations. 1. It had noconnection, near or 
 remote, with any part of the regulations of the ceremo- 
 nial law. 2. The punishment, death, proves that it 
 was not a ceremonial offence. Severe punishments 
 were indeed threatened in various cases, to those, who, 
 being ceremonially unclean, should venture to appear in 
 that condition i the tabernacle, and engage in the 
 worship of God; but death is never we believe threat- 
 ened for Ceremonial uncleanness merely, nor for any of- 
 fence merely ceremonial. 3. The nature of the case 
 proves it to have been an offence of a very different char- 
 acter. Were any individual to ask himself the question ; 
 
ig 
 “4 * 
 .f caw 
 
 132 _. THE LAW OF INCEST: 
 
 Why are sodomy and bestiality, crimes of so enormous 
 a magnitude ?---the answer would probably be, That 
 they both imply, and produce, a moral degradation and 
 brutism so entire and hopeless, that he, who can commit 
 them, proves himself, 7pso facto, hopelessly abandoned. 
 The same jis true of the crime in question ; and, could 
 the fact be fully ascertained, I am satisfied that it would 
 appear, that savage nations, and those civilized nations, 
 which have been grossly licentious, have far more exten- 
 sively regarded the latter crime with instinctive loathing 
 and abhorrence, than either of the former, particularly 
 ~ than the first. 4. The nine crimes, recited above, are 
 expressly mentioned, in Ley. xviii. and xx. as the crimes, 
 for which the Canaanites were exterminated. That these 
 crimes differ from each other, in their degrees of enormi- 
 ty, is certain; yet they are all recited by the Divine 
 Law-giver, without distinction, as the causes of that 
 
 xterminatlon----“ For in all these, the nations are 
 defiled, which I cast out before you; and the land is 
 defiled: therefore do I visit the iniquity of the land upon 
 it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.” 
 These crimes are all coupled together ; and, for the com- 
 mission of the crime in question, as truly as of the other 
 eight, it is declared, that the Canaanites were cut off. 
 But, if so, it certainly was not a Ceremonial offence : for 
 the Canaanites could no more commit such an offence 
 than we can, as they were never under the Ceremonial 
 law. 5. The character given of this, in connection 
 with the eight other crimes, proves that it is not a ceremo- 
 nial offence. It is declared, with them, to be “an ini- 
 quity ” “a land-defiling sin,” “ an abomination,” and 
 “an abominable custom ;” and that, as committed by 
 the Canaanites, as truly as by the Israelites. This could 
 not have been said of a ceremonial sin. 6. In Ezekiel 
 
t 
 ’ 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST. 4 133 
 
 xxii. 10, it is declared that the Jews, by their repeated 
 
 commissions of this very sin, and of murder, idolatry, 
 oppression, incest, and adultery, had proved themselves 
 so hopelessly abandoned, that God would scatter them 
 among the heathen, and disperse them among the 
 countries. 
 
 2. It is alleged that Incest is a Ceremonial offence, be- 
 cause it is not probibited in the Moral Law, or the Law 
 of the Ten Commandments. | 
 
 The Seventh Commandment of the Moral Law either 
 prohibited all unlawful sexual intercourse, or it pro- 
 hibited nothing but adultery in the strict sense.—If it 
 prohibited all unlawful sexual intercourse, as Incest 
 was such intercourse, it prohibited Incest; and Incest, 
 therefore, was not a Ceremonial offence.—If it prohibited 
 nothing but adultery in the strict sense, then it did 
 
 . . . . . . % 3 
 not prohibit fornication, rape, sodomy or bestiality. But, _ 
 in that case, the fact, that these four crimes are not pro- 
 
 hibited in the Moral Law, does not prove them to be 
 ceremonial offences; the same fact, therefore, does not 
 prove Incest to be a ceremonial offence. 
 
 3. It is said that the Law- of Incest is not revived in 
 the New Testament, and that of course it is a part of 
 the Ceremonial Law. What the fact is, in this case, 
 we shall see hereafter. At present, it will be sufficient 
 to remark, that the laws prohibiting rape and bestiality 
 are not revived, nor is either of these crimes alluded ‘to, 
 in the New Testament. Yet this fact does not prove 
 them to be ceremonial offences; and, of course, if it 
 were a fact, it would not prove Incest to be such an 
 offence. 
 
 A, That Incest is a Ceremonial Offence, is argued from 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 SF 
 
‘3 
 134 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 the Decree of the Council of the Apostles, Elders, and 
 Brethren, held at Jerusalem. 
 
 We have an account of this Council in the 15th 
 Chapter of the Acts.* It was convened at Jerusalem, 
 A. D. 52, to decide the question, Whether it was need- 
 ful to circumcise the Gentile Converts, and to com- 
 mand them to keep the Law of Moses? In this 
 Council, Peter supported the negative side of the ques- 
 tion. After observing that God had chosen, that the 
 Gentiles should hear the Gospel through his mouth, 
 and believe; and that God, who searches the hearts, 
 had borne witness to the Gentiles, giving the Holy 
 Ghost to them even as tothe Jews; and had put no 
 difference between the two; he asks, Now, therefore, 
 why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of 
 the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were 
 able to bear? As the observance of the rite of Circum- 
 cision, which was a Ceremonial rite, and a very painful 
 one, was the point in question ; and as Peter, in address- 
 ing an assembly of Jews on that point, calls the law of 
 Moses, which enjoined it, “a yoke, which neither we 
 nor our fathers were able to bear,” it is most obvious 
 that he is speaking of the Ceremonial Law, and of 
 that exclusively. Plainly, it is impossible, that Peter 
 could have called the observance of the Moral Precepts 
 of the Levitical Code “a yoke, which neither we nor 
 our fathers were able to bear.”—After this, when Paul 
 and Barnabas had declared to the Council “the miracles 
 and wonders which God had wrought among the Gen- 
 tiles by them,” James, who was obviously the President 
 of the Council, gave his own opinion. After alluding to 
 the calling and actual conversion of the Gentiles, as a 
 
 * Acts xv. 5—29. 
 
Pa 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST. 135 
 
 glorious fulfilment of the prophecies relating to that 
 event, and of the original purpose of God concerning it, 
 he says, “ Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not 
 them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 
 But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollu- 
 tions of idols, and from fornication, and from things 
 strangled, and from blood.”—To this the Council ac- 
 ceded ; and addressed letters in the name of the apostles, 
 elders, and brethren, to the Gentile Converts in Antioch, 
 Syria, and Cilicia, to be carried by the hands of Barna- 
 bas and Paul: in which, after stating the point in con- 
 troversy thus—“Forasmuch as we have heard that 
 certain, which went out from us, have troubled you 
 with words, subverting your souls, saying, ‘ Ye must be 
 circumcised, and keep the law:’ to whom we gave no 
 such commandment :”—they announce their decision 
 in the following terms :—“ It seemed good to the Holy | 
 Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than — 
 these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats 
 offered to idols, and from blood, and from things 
 strangled, and from fornication. From which, if ye 
 keep yourselves, ye shall do well.”—It is contended that 
 the three first prohibitions were ceremonial ; and, of 
 course, that the subject of the fourth, “fornication,” 
 and consequently the whole Levitical Law forbid- 
 ding unlawful sexual intercourse, and among its 
 other statutes the Law of incest, were also ceremonial. 
 —To this argument we reply, 
 
 1. The prohibition to eat blood was not ceremonial ; 
 for the eating of blood never was permitted to Man, 
 but was always forbidden. This will be obvious from 
 the following facts: 1. It was not lawful before the 
 Flood. The Curse, denounced against Adam and his 
 posterity, prescribes ¢heir food in the following lan- 
 
. 
 136 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 guage: ‘ Cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow 
 shalt thou eat of it.—Thou shalt eat the herb of the 
 field: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy 
 bread, titl thou return to the ground.” They had no 
 permission to eat flesh. 2. It was forbidden after the 
 Flood to Noah and the Patriarchs. The first permis- 
 sion given to Man to eat flesh was given to Noah: 
 “ Hvery moving thing, that liveth, shall be meat for 
 you: Even as the green herb (alluding to the grant to 
 Adam) have I given you all things.” But God imme- 
 diately subjoms, “ But flesh with the life thereof, 
 which ts the blood thereof, ye shall not eat.” This is 
 a law to Noah and his posterity. 3. This prohibition 
 was renewed under the Levitical Code: Lev. xvii. Lt, 
 14, “No soul of you shall eat blood :—For it is the life 
 of all flesh: the blood of it is for the life thereof: there- 
 fore, I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the 
 blood of no manner of flesh ; for the life of all flesh is 
 the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.” 
 4. 'This prohibition is continued in this passage under 
 the Christian Dispensation—Grod, therefore, has ex- 
 pressly forbidden Man to eat blood from the begin- 
 ning to the end of the world. 
 
 2. The prohibition to eat things strangled is not 
 ceremonial. Animats were strangled for the purpose 
 of keepiny the blood in the body, to render them a 
 greater delicacy. ‘The prohibition to eat blood ob- 
 viously, therefore, included a prohibition to eat things 
 strangled. 
 
 3. I'he command here given to abstain “from pol- 
 lutions of idols,” or, as it is afterwards expressed, “from 
 meats offered to idols: ray eidwroberav, the sacrifices 
 of idols ; cannot be considered as ceremonial. It was 
 given, A. D. 52, and Paul was present. The directions 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 137. 
 
 of Paul to the Corinthians relative to meats offered to 
 idols, (1 Cor, x. 25—29,) were written A. D. 56, four 
 years afterwards. ‘There is no discrepancy between 
 them, because they relate to different subjects. The 
 sacrifices to idols were so numerous, that the flesh of 
 the animals, not burned on the altar, and not eaten at 
 the idolatrous feast, was sold in the markets, and brought 
 a large revenue to the priests. Of such meats Paul 
 writes, ‘““ Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, 
 asking no questions for. conscience’ sake. But if any 
 man say unto you, ‘ This is offered in sacrifice to idols ;’ 
 eat not, for his sake that showed it.”—But the fel 
 of the Apostles, in commanding to abstain from meats 
 sacrificed to idols, or from pollutions of idols, obvi- 
 ously refer to eating those meats, in an idol’s temple 
 at the idolatrous feast which followed the sacrifice, 
 and in connection with the abominations then and 
 there practised : conduct which would palpably coun- 
 tenance the worship of the idol. This must be sinful 
 under all circumstances ; and the command _prohibit- 
 ing it could not be a ceremonial prohibition.* 
 
 * Many commentators on this passage, (Acts xv. 5—29,) appear to 
 us to have made for themselves and their readers, by the very course 
 which they have pursued, most of the difficulties in which they have 
 been involved :—particularly by their comments on the two phrases in 
 verses 20 and 29, relating to sacrifices to idols. ‘The phrase, in verse 
 20, is, in the Greek, T@v aArrynuxtav TAY cidwrwy, from the pol- 
 lutions of idols ; and that, in verse 29, Tay eidwaraburay, things, or 
 meats, sacrificed to idols. "They have regarded the latter phrase merely 
 as explanatory of the former; whereas the former is as truly explana- 
 tory of the latter. The phrase, 7% aA oynmate TOY eidorwY, 
 denotes literally the abominations, or pollutions, of idols, and is certainly 
 a strong expression of reprobation, Now we take upon ourselves to 
 say, and without fear of contradiction, that when Paul (1 Cor. x. 25— 
 29) told the Corinthians to eat suc regis as were sold in the market, 
 
Loe : 
 
 +S a 
 
 138 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 4, Had the three preceding commands been cere- 
 monial; yet that prohibiting fornication would not 
 have been of this character. If we take the word in 
 its most limited sense, it surely needs no argument to 
 prove, that a law, forbidding immoral iniercourse 
 among the unmarried, is not a ceremonial, but in the 
 strictest sense a moral, law. 
 
 Hence no evidence can be derived from the decision 
 of this Council, either directly, or by way of inference, 
 that the Levitical Law, forbidding unlawful sexual 
 intercourse, and particularly the Law of incest, was 
 ceremonial. What, let me ask, are i2moralities, if for- 
 nication, rape, sodomy, and bestiaJity are not—Besides; 
 the Decision of the Council continues this very law in 
 full force under the Christian Dispensation: and were 
 we even to admit it to be ceremonial, it is still binding.* 
 
 without asking whether they had been sacrificed to idols or not, and even, if 
 they found that they had been, to eat them, unless a brother was offended, 
 he would “never have called those meats, thus sold in the markets, ta 
 araoynmara TOV sidwArwy, the abominations of idols. As he declares the 
 eating of them a matter of perfect indifference, he could not have used this 
 reprobatory language concerning them. Paul had no duplicity: he spake 
 the same language at Corinth, and in Asia.—Should it be said that the 
 latter phrase, that in verse 29, is the phrase, and the only phrase, used 
 in the Letters of the Council; we admit it; but those Letters were 
 carried by the hands of Barnabas and Paul, who were members of the 
 Council, and of course were present with the churches, at the time of 
 their delivery, to explain the full import of the Decree. 
 
 * This account of this passage, (Acts xv. 5—29,) relieves it, (if we 
 mistake not,) from the difficulties, which have so generally been thought 
 to attend it. The whole truth of the case seems to be this. The 
 Apostles and Elders were consulted on the question, Whether Cir- 
 cumcision and the Ceremonial Law were obligatory on the Gentiles. The 
 Apostles, being aware that the Gentiles were generally accustcmed 
 to the use of blood for food, and to eat it at. their sacrifices, to regard 
 things strangled as dainties, to partake of idolatrous feasts in the temples 
 of idols, and to practise every species of unlaivful sexual intercourse, in 
 
 at 
 
> - 
 ~ Y . 
 vw" EP 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST. 139 
 
 Among what description of offences, Incest is to be 
 classed, will be seen further on. These remarks will 
 be sufficient to satisfy the reader, that he, who attempts 
 to class it among the offences of the Ceremonial Law, 
 does so without argument or evidence. 
 
 II. The fact, that the Law of incest was a part of the 
 Civil or Municipal Law of Israel, furnishes no evidence 
 that it is not now in force. 
 
 Very vague and incorrect notions have been exten- 
 sively entertained, with regard to the obligations of the 
 Civil Law of Israel. Because the Law of God, as sum- 
 med up in the I'wo GREAT CoMMANDMENTSs,* and 
 as somewhat enlarged in the TEN ComMANDMENTs, 
 has been so generaily entitled Tus Morar Law; many 
 persons seem to have taken it for granted, that the Civil 
 Law of Israel had nothing in it of a moral nature; and 
 that the offences, which it forbad, were not immorali- 
 ties. Nothing, however, can be more absolutely erro- 
 neous. 
 
 The Crvit Law or Israet was the ConsTIruTION 
 oF THE IsRAELITISH STATE: establishing the Form 
 of the Government with its Mode of Administration, 
 and the Rights and Duties of rulers and subjects. The 
 
 the most open and shameless. manner, in the very temples of their 
 gods, and in immediate connection with their idolatrous worship ; (See 
 Tholuck’s Influence of Heathenism, Bib. Repos. July, 1832, pp. 441— 
 464 ;) and knowing that the Gentile Converts would be in imminent 
 danger, from long habit, and from the force of example, of continuing 
 these sinful practices; took the occasion offered by the formal reference of 
 this dispute to them, while they exempted the Gentile Converts from the 
 observance of Circumcision and of the whole Ceremonial Law, solemn- 
 ly to charge them to abstain from the sinful practices here enumerated. 
 Nothing obviously could have been more wise, or more appropriate. 
 
 * To avoid a frequent repetition of circumlocutions, we shall call this 
 law the Duologue. 
 
140 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 form of government actually established was a 'THEO- 
 cracy ; in which JEHOVAH was as truly the acknow- 
 ledged LORD, or SUPREME RULER, as, by the 
 Ceremonial Law, he was the acknowledged GOD, or 
 OBJECT OF SUPREME WORSHIP. From the 
 time of the Exodus to the Coronation of Saul, about 
 four hundred years, the administration of the Govern- 
 ment was committed to a succession of Shophetim or 
 Judges, (the same as the Su/ffetes of Carthage,) sum- 
 moned individually to fill the office by a Divine call; 
 and from that Coronation to the overthrow of the state, 
 about four hundred and eighty years, to a line of 
 Monarchs, begun by his appointment, and continued by 
 hereditary succession. ‘The Judges and Kings were 
 chief magistrates, acting under, and in the name of, 
 the Supreme Ruter, professedly acknowledging his 
 authority, and bound by the Constitution and the Laws 
 which he had established. 
 
 The Civil or Municipal Law of Israel embraced Two 
 Classes of Statutes: Local Statutes, and General 
 Statutes. 
 
 First. Loca STATUTES. 
 
 The Local Statutes of Israel were all of a positive 
 nature, were adapted to their peculiar circumstances as 
 a nation, and grew, extensively, out of the great pur- 
 pose or design of God, which ¢hey were appointed to 
 accomplish. From the Exodus to the Commencement 
 of the Christian Dispensation, nearly fifteen handred 
 years, they were the chosen People of God, set apart 
 to preserve the worship of Jehovah on the Earth, and 
 to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah the 
 Saviour of the world, and for the calling or gathering 
 to that worship of all the other Nations of the Earth. 
 The Messiah was to come not only out of Israel, but 
 
. THE LAW OF INCEST. 141 
 
 MA 
 
 out of the family or tribe of Judah. It was necessary, 
 therefore, that the T'welve Tribes should be kept dis- 
 tinct, until the coming of the Messiah ; and in accord- 
 ance with this design many statutes or ordinances of a 
 strictly positive, local and temporary, character. were 
 established, to secure its accomplishment. - I will men- 
 tion some of them : 
 
 The Territory of each tribe was fixed by exact geo- 
 graphical boundaries, which the other tribes could, un- 
 der no circumstances, transgress; 
 
 The Families or Clans of each tribe had their assigned 
 estates in land, within that Territory. 
 
 Marriages could be contracted only in the tribe of the 
 party contracting. 
 
 Estates could not descend to any one out of the tribe 
 of the intestate. 
 
 The Genealogies of the various tribes, and of the 
 various families in each tribe, were to be kept distinct in 
 public records, each in an appointed place. 
 
 Estates, that were sold, or mortgaged for their full 
 value, reverted to the owner or his family, on the return 
 of the year of Jubilee, or of every fiftieth year. 
 
 Many other statutes of a local nature, not immedi- 
 ately and obviouly connected with the accomplishment 
 of this great design, grew out of the peculiar circum- 
 stances and relations of the Israelites as a people. Among 
 these may be mentioned the following : 
 
 The statutes establishing the various courts, and the 
 various executive and judicial officers. 
 
 The statutes relating to leprosy, to jealousy, to the 
 cities of refuge, to the interest of money loaned to an 
 Israelite, to the order of the tribes in war, and to the 
 division of the spoils. 
 
 The statute authorizing the enslaving of captives in 
 
4 
 
 142.°. THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 war, by way of retaliation on the surrounding nations, 
 who enslaved the captive Israelites. And the statute 
 requiring the manumission of Hebrew slaves in the 
 seventh year. 
 
 It is fully admitted that these statutes, and others 
 like them, are not obligatory on us. They had their 
 origin, either in the designation of Israel as the peculiar 
 people of God, from whom the Messiah was to spring, 
 or in their peculiar circumstances and relations as a 
 people ; and, as such, were obviously positive, local and 
 temporary, in their character—obligatory, not in the 
 nature of things, but from positive enactment merely— 
 obligatory only on Israel, while the statute was in force 
 —and in force on them, only till the close of the Leviti- 
 cal Dispensation. 
 
 Secondly. GENERAL STATUTES. 
 
 The General Statutes of the Levitical Code* are 
 those, which did not grow out of the peculiar circum- 
 stances and relations of the Israelites as a people, but 
 out of the great and eternal principles of righteousness. 
 They are founded on the Duologue and the Decalogue, 
 and are mere illustrations or enforcements of their pre- 
 cepts. ‘They are in the strict sense Moral Statutes, 
 enjoining the duties, and prohibiting the breaches, of the 
 Moral Law. Thus, these Statutes, equally with the 
 Moral Law, forbid the worship of false gods, idolatry, 
 and profanity ; enjoin the worship of the Sabbath and 
 obedience to parents and magistrates; and forbid mur- 
 der, adultery, theft, perjury and coveting; and this as 
 fully, and in as direct and as general terms, as the 
 Moral Law. 'They do more. They resolve these 
 General duties and crimes into many Subordinate ones, 
 
 * For the sake of brevity I use this phrase for the Civil Law of 
 Israel. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 143 
 
 explain the nature of both, and show the Obligations of 
 the former, and the Guilt of the latter. This may be — 
 illustrated by several examples. The Third command 
 of the Decalogue forbids Profaneness. 'The Levitical 
 Code* does the same. It likewise forbids all Irreverence 
 towards the name of God, his works, his word and his 
 ordinances. ‘The Fourth Command enjoins the sanc- 
 tification of the Sabbath. The Levitical Code also 
 points out the things from which we are to abstain on 
 the Sabbath, and those which we are to perform. The 
 Fifth command enjoins the first General Relative duty 
 in the order of nature, that of children to their parents. 
 The Levitical Code also enjoins the subordinate duties 
 of reverence, obedience, and support; the duties of Pa- 
 rents towards children, involving maintenance, instruc- 
 tion, government and a settlement in life; and the mu- 
 tual duties of Masters and Servants, of Rulers and Sub- 
 jects, of the Rich and the Poor, of the. Aged and the 
 Young. The Sixth Command forbids Killing. The 
 Levitical Code explains it by forbidding murder, man- 
 slaughter, suicide, drunkenness, maiming, wounding, 
 fighting and assaulting. The Seventh Command for- 
 bids Adultery. 'The Levitical Code explains it by for- 
 bidding Adultery in the strict sense, sodomy, bestiality, 
 incest in many forms, rape, uncleanness, fornication and 
 every other species of impurity. The same is true of 
 the rest. Thus the Levitical Code, in its General sta- 
 tutes, is to the Decalogue, what that is to the still more 
 concise summary of duty in the Duologue. 'The De- 
 calogue is a mere enlargement of the Duologue, a brief 
 commentary, made by God himself, on its provisions, 
 
 *T here speak of the Levitical Code in its broad sense, as it is found 
 in the Old Testament at large; which is throughout a Code of Laws. 
 
v 
 
 144 : THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 * : 
 
 explaining, in very general terms, what it enjoins, and’ 
 what it forbids: the first four of its precepts showing us 
 what is involved in Supreme love to G'od; and the 
 last six, what is implied in the Love which is due to 
 ourselves and to our neighbour. In the same manner, 
 the Levitical Code, in its General statutes, is a fuller 
 enlargement of the summary of duty im the Decalogue, 
 a more extended commentary, made by God himself, 
 on its provisions, explaining minutely what it enjoins, 
 and what it forbids. 
 
 To return then to the Objection. It is said that this 
 Code is not binding on us, because the Civil or Muni- 
 cipal Law of one nation is not binding on another. 
 We cheerfully admit that the Civil or Municipal Law of 
 one nation, as such, is not binding on another; and 
 that, if the Levitical Code, as to its General statutes, 
 stands on the same footing, with the Municipal Law of 
 any other nation,—for example, with the Municipal 
 Law of England,—it is not binding on us. But what 
 is the fact? The Municipal Law of England was 
 enacted by the King and Parliament of England. 
 When it enjoins any conduct as a moral duty, or forbids 
 any conduct as a crime against morality ;—as it does 
 very extensively ;—it expresses the opinion merely of 
 the King and Parliament of England on ihat point. 
 That opinion, within the realm, has the binding force 
 of a esa use, there, the King and Parliament 
 have not only the right to express such opinion, but the 
 power to arm it with adequate sanctions. But, without 
 the realm, if is mere advice, because, there, the King 
 and Parliament have no power thus to arm it; and, 
 being weak, fallible men, their decision has no authority 
 over the conscience. ‘The Levitical Code, on the con- 
 trary, was enacted by God. When it enjoins any con- 
 
“ ™~ 
 5 Sigs 
 ; % a 
 % = My 
 
 THE LAW OF INCEST. ™, 145 
 
 “duct as a moral duty, or forbids any conduct as ‘an of- 
 fence against morality, it expresses the will, the auiho-— 
 ritative sentence of Gov himself, on that point. And 
 although this will or sentence is expressed in the form 
 of a law, within the realm of Israel; yet as God has 
 power to arm it with the requisite sanctions of a law, as 
 fully without as within that realm; and as his will or 
 sentence is always infallibly true, just and right; wher- 
 ever his will or sentence enjoins moral duties or forbids 
 moral offences, applicable not to Israel merely, but to 
 Man as such, and as truly to all other men as to the 
 Israelites ; then i¢ ts not mere advice without that 
 realm, but has the full force of @ law, and absolutely 
 binds the conscience. The fact, therefore, that the Law 
 of incest is a part of the Levitical Code, is no objection 
 to its binding force. 
 
 But it is said, that the Decree of the Council of the 
 Apostles at Jerusalem settles this question; that the 
 point, solemnly submitted to their decision was, whether 
 it was needful to circumcise the Gentile Converts, 
 and to keep the Law of Moses ; that they decided that 
 it was not needful to keep that Law, except to abstain 
 Jrom meats offered to idols, from blood, from things 
 strangled, and from fornication ; that fornication 
 does not include incest; and that therefore the Law of 
 incest is not now in force.—In addition toghe proof al- 
 ready furnished that by the Law of Moses is here in- 
 tended the Ceremonial Law, I will suggest the follow- 
 ing considerations : 
 
 The word fornication, at present, usually denotes in 
 English, serwal intercourse between unmarried per- 
 sons; though it seems, at the era of the English ver- 
 sion of the Bible, to have been equivalent to inconti- 
 
 nence or lewdness ; and even now can scarcely be said 
 13 
 
 ¥ 
 
146 - THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 to have wholly dropped this meaning. But sepysia, in 
 Greek, here rendered “ fornication,” is general, denoting 
 all kinds of unlawful sexual intercourse, and is truly 
 rendered by incontinence. Out of 31 instances, in 
 which it occurs in the Greek Testament, it denotes for- 
 nication in 7, incest in 2, and incontinence in 22.* In 
 the Law of Divorce this mistranslation is obvious: “ He, 
 who putteth away his wife, except for the cause of for- 
 nication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.” 
 This version, according to the present meaning of that 
 word, allows a divorce for fornication committed before 
 marriage ; but prohibits it for adultery committed 
 after marriage. The true rendering is incontinence ; 
 and the law directly authorizes Divorces for incon 
 nence, either before or after marriage.t 
 
 - We turn the argument, therefore, in our own favour ; 
 and say that wrepvei«, the term used by the Council of 
 the Apostles, does include inces/, and all other unlaw- 
 Sul sexual intercourse ; and of course that the Decision 
 of the Council is a direct and solemn recognition of the 
 binding force of the Law of Incest ; and of all the Levi- 
 
 * 
 
 * Ifthe reader wishes any farther evidence, that wopye‘a means 
 unlawful intercourse in general, he is referred to all the Lexicons. I will 
 quote only from Schleusner: “*epve/~ has a most extensive mean- 
 ing, and signifies not only fornication, debauchery, and prostitution of 
 the body for the sake of gain or lust, but uncleanness of every kind, as 
 incest, adultery,” &c. 
 
 { So palpable is the error of the translation in this case, if we give 
 the word its modern meaning, that the mere English reader, probably 
 in every instance, supposes the word, in this passage, to mean adultery 
 after marriage. It certainly includes that; but it also includes incon- 
 tinence before marriage. The Levitical Law was strict on this point ; 
 (Deut. xxii. 14, and xxiv. 1,) and the Law of Christ, in the very term 
 made use of, has respect to it. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 147 
 
 tical laws relating to the same general subject, under the 
 Christian Dispensation.* 
 
 Again. Were this argument valid, it would prove 
 that the solemn decree of the Apostolic Council, begin- 
 ning with “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
 us,” decides, that while the Gentiles are bownd to ab- 
 stain from meats offered to idols, from things strangled, 
 from blood, and from fornication, they are not bound to 
 abstain from sodomy and bestiality as well as incest. 
 
 IIL. If the Law of Incest is binding, it does not there- 
 fore follow that its Penalty is binding. 
 
 A Law consists of a Precept and a Penalty. The 
 precept enjoins or forbids some act: the penalty shows 
 the consequences of disobedience. If the law be of a 
 moral nature, the precept enjoins some moral duty, or 
 forbids some sin. ‘The Precept of every moral law in- 
 volves two things: a Declaration of the lawgiver that 
 the enjoined act is a duty, or the prohibited act a sin ; 
 and a Command to do or refrain from it. Thus the 
 precept of the law, “Ifa man lieth with his neighbour’s 
 wife, he shall surely be put to death,” involves a Decla- 
 ration on the part of God, that adultery is asin; anda 
 Command of God forbidding it. So the precept of the 
 law, “Ifa man lieth with his mother, he shall surely 
 be put to death,” involves a Declaration of God, that in- 
 cest with a mother is a sin; and a Command of God 
 forbidding it. This declaration and this command are 
 absolute, and are wholly distinct from the penalty, and 
 unconnected with it. If, as in these two cases, the sin 
 does not grow out of any peculiar circumstances of the 
 Israelites, but out of the circumstances of all mankind, 
 
 * Toavoid repetition under a following head, we are obliged to pre+ 
 sent this direct argument in this place, 
 
148 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 
 
 and out of the nature of marriage and sexual inter- 
 course generally, then the declaration and the command 
 apply to all men, and are absolutely universal; and these 
 two laws involve declarations of God that adultery, 
 and incest with a mother are universally, sins, by whom- 
 soever committed, and commands of God forbidding 
 all men to commit them. The same is equally true of 
 all the other laws forbidding incest, as well as of those 
 forbidding fornication, rape, and all other unlawful inter- 
 course. 
 
 Not so, with the Penalty. The Penalty of a law 
 may be varied, and that endlessly, and yet the Declara- 
 tion and the Command, involving the principle of the 
 law, not be changed. When God has once declared 
 these various kinds of intercourse to be sins, the princi- 
 ple of these laws can never change, until God repeals the 
 preceptive part of the laws, and authorizes that, which, 
 as his law now stands, he declares to be unlawful inter- 
 course. But in fixing the Penalty of these laws in the 
 Levitical Code, he merely declared, in each case, his own 
 views of the degree of the sin, and the fact, that the 
 penalty actually annexed, was, in the then existing cir- 
 cumstances of Israel, the proper one for that people, to 
 continue as the penalty of the given law among them, 
 until he should change it. But he made no declaration 
 that it was the proper penalty for these crimes, in other 
 nations in different circumstances. By affixing the pen- 
 alty of death, he showed the sins to be very heinous, 
 and the Israelites from the example of the surrounding 
 nations to be in great danger of committing them. The 
 penalty, therefore, has nothing to do with the declara- 
 tion, or the command—i. e. with the preceni or princi- 
 ple of these laws. If God, in the time of David, had 
 changed the Penalty of these laws from death ta iz- 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 149 
 
 prisonment for ten years, and in the time of Hezekiah 
 to a fine of five talents of silver ; these changes of the 
 Penalty would not, in the slightest degree have affected 
 or altered the Precept of the law. It would under each 
 change, have contained a declaration on the part of 
 God that the act was a sin; and a command of God 
 not to commit it. The supposed change in the penalty 
 would have been a mere declaration, on the part of God, 
 that, at the time when it was made, a milder punish- 
 ment was sufficient to prevent trurisgression. 
 
 If any proof were wanting of the soundness of the 
 position here contended for, it might be derived from a 
 comparison of any of the Laws of the Levitical Code 
 with those of the Decalogue. Both codes forbid mur- 
 der, adultery and stealing. The former Code annexes 
 the penalty of death to murder and adultery, and that of 
 fourfold restitution to stealmg. The latter annexes no 
 penalty. And yet each law in the two Codes contains 
 identically the same declarations of God, that the 
 respective acts are sins, and identically the same com- 
 mands of God not to commit them. 
 
 It is not true, therefore, that, if the Law of Incest is 
 binding, its Penalty is also binding. All, that we learn 
 from the penalties of the Levitical law annexed to 
 various crimes, is, ‘hat, if they cannot be prevented with- 
 out a penalty equally severe, we have the sanction of 
 God for annexing it. I need not add that, if this ob- 
 jection had any weight, it would lie with equal force 
 against the laws forbidding rape, sodomy and bestiality, 
 as against the Law of Incest. 
 
 Havine thus ascertained, negatively, that the Law of 
 incest is not a part of the Ceremonial Law ; that it is 
 
 not one of the Local statutes of the Levitical Code; that 
 13* 
 
150 THE LAW OF INCEST: 
 
 the fact of its being one of the General statutes of that 
 Code is no evidence that it is not still in force; that the 
 Council of the Apostles did not abrogate its obligation 
 on the Gentiles ; and that, if the Law of incest itself is 
 in force, still its penalty is not therefore binding; we ~ 
 proceed with the direct argument : 
 
 IU. Tue Law oF INCEST IS JUST AS BINDING ON 
 THE GENTILES, AS Iv WAS ON IsRAEL. 
 
 proof of this we observe, 
 
 . The Levitical Code, as to its General Statutes, is 
 binding on the Gentiles. 
 
 In this respect, the Levitical Code, as to its General 
 Statutes, stands on the same high ground, with the 
 Duologue, and with the Decalogue. 'These two laws 
 are an expression of the will of God, made to the realm 
 of Israel. Since their first. promulgation, they have 
 never been promulgated anew, in the form of laws. 
 Christ, when consulted by two Israelites still under the 
 law, as to their own duty, did indeed acknowledge the 
 binding force of the first of these laws and of the sec- 
 ond table of the second ; but he did it incidentally, in pri- 
 vate conversations. casually occurring, and without any 
 repromulgation of either; and, in doing so, he refers 
 to their original solemn promulgation by God as evi- 
 dence of their binding force. 
 
 Why, then, are these laws binding on all other na- 
 tions? Plainly for the following reasons :—'They are 
 an. expression of the will of God, in the: form, and ac- 
 companied with the sanctions, of a Law, enjoining spe- 
 cific moral duties, and forbidding specific crimes against 
 morality; ‘Though communicated originally to Israel, 
 they did not grow out of the peculiar circumstances or 
 relations of Israel, as.a people, but out of the relations, 
 which they sustained as Men, and as Subjects of the 
 
 a 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 151 
 
 Divine government: 'The Duties, which they enjoin, 
 are when performed, as excellent, and the Crimes, which 
 they forbid, are when perpetrated, as odious, in the case 
 of a Gentile, as of an Israelite: The laws themselves 
 are, in every respect, as much adapted to the circum- 
 stances and relations of the one, as to those of the other : 
 and the Reasons given for the laws are alike, and equally, 
 applicable to both: For example, it was no more ex- 
 cellent, in an Israelite, to love the Lord his God with 
 all the heart, or his neighbour as himself, or to keep the 
 Sabbath, or to honour his parents; and no more odious 
 in him, to worship false gods, or to bow down to idols, or 
 to kill, or commit adultery, or steal, or bear false witness, 
 or covet what was his neighbour’s, than it is in a Gen- 
 tile: Hence we conclude that the Duologue and the 
 Decalogue, as an expression of the will of God, are as 
 obligatory on other nations, as they were on Israel. 
 
 But, in all these respects, the Levitical Code, as to al- 
 most all, if not all, its General Statutes, goes on ail 
 fours with these two laws. I say almost all, because 
 it is barely possible that there may be a few statutes of 
 a moral nature, qualifying more general laws, which 
 were adapted only to the peculiar circumstances and re- 
 lations of the Israelites. If there were any such, that 
 very fact shows that they were binding only on them ; 
 and they are to be regarded as excepted from any re- 
 marks, which may be made respecting the General 
 Statutes of the Code.—Like those two laws, the Leviti- 
 cal Code, as to its General Statutes, was an expression of 
 the will of God, made to Israel. Since its first promul- 
 gation, like them, it has never been promulgated anew 
 in the form of a law. As Christ acknowledged the 
 binding force of the Duologue, and of the second table 
 of the Decalogue, but not that of the first table; so 
 
i 
 
 152 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 Christ, and Paul and James acknowledge the binding 
 force of several of the statutes of the Levitical Code, 
 under the Christian Dispensation.*— 
 
 Why, then, is the Levitical Code binding on all 
 other nations 2? Plainly for the following reasons: It 
 
 * In the fifth of Matthew, Christ, after declaring, “‘ Think not that I 
 am come to destroy the Law ; For till heaven and earth pass, one jot 
 or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” explains 
 what he means by the Law, by quoting two commands from the Deca- 
 logue; and three commands from the Levitical Code: acknowledging 
 both, as the Law, of which he spake. The Law respecting Divorce in 
 the Levitical Code, was, as we have seen, an alteration of the Original 
 Law of marriage. To save the wife from exposure to cruelty, in that 
 early and semi-barbarous state of society, Moses had given the hus- 
 band, in certain cases, the right of divorcing the wife. Christ, ac- 
 knowledging the Mosaic Law to be in full force, repealed a part of this 
 statute of Moses, and took away the right of divorce, except in case 
 of incontinence. He thus admitted that, if he had not repealed a part 
 of the Levitical law of divorce, it would have been binding. Another 
 statute, relating to vows, he comments on, by discountenancing vows 
 in all cases as a practice not adapted to the new dispensation. A third, 
 relating to retaliation, founded on the principles of strict justice, he re- 
 peals, for the same reason, and enacts another, more conformed to the 
 principles of benevolence. Paul alludes to the law respecting Sodomy, 
 in Levit. xviii. 22, and Lev. xx. 13, as obligatory under the Christian 
 dispensation, as well as to the law, in Deut. xxv. 4, which forbids us 
 to) muzzle the ox, that treadeth out the corn. James refers to the sta- 
 tute, in Levit. xix. 13, respecting keeping back the wages of hired 
 labourers ; and to that, in Levit. xix. 15, which forbids respect to per- 
 sons in judgment ; as both in full and binding force. Jude (verses 7, 8) 
 refers to the general law against lewdness or uncleanness,—and particu- 
 larly to the Section forbidding one of the two grossest crimes against, 
 purity,—as now obligatory. These are some of the instances, in which 
 the New Testament treats the General Statutes of the Levitical Code, 
 as in full operation. Indeed, the attentive reader of the New Testa- 
 ment will find it written throughout on the supposition, that every part 
 of the Levitical Law, as to its General or Moral precepts, as well as 
 the Old ‘Testament generally, is absolutely obligatory upon mankind ; 
 and on no other supposition, are the Scriptures a complete and per- 
 fect rule of faith and practice. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 153 
 
 is an expression of the will of God, in the form, and ac- 
 companied with the sanctions, of a law, enjoining spe- 
 cific moral duties, and forbidding specific crimes against 
 morality : Though communicated originally to Israel, 
 it did not grow out of the peculiar circumstances or re- 
 lations of Israel as a people; but out of the relations, 
 which they sustained as Men ; and as Subjects of the 
 Divine government: The Duties, which it enjoins, are, 
 when performed, as excellent, and the Crimes, which it 
 forbids, are, when perpetrated, as odious, in the case of 
 a Gentile, as of an Israelite: The Law itself is, in every 
 respect, as much adapted to the circumstances and rela- 
 tions of the one as to those of the other: and the Rea- 
 sons given for the Law are alike, and equally, applicable 
 to both: For example, it was no more excellent, i an 
 Israelite, to reverence, obey, and support, his parents, 
 or to maintain, instruct, govern and settle, his children, 
 or to perform faithfully the duties of a master, or a ser- 
 vant, of a ruler or a subject; and no more odious in him 
 to exhibit irreverence towards the name, the works, the 
 word and ordinances, of God; or to be guilty of murder, 
 manslaughter, suicide, drunkenness, maiming, wound- 
 ing, fighting and assaulting ; or to be guilty of adultery, 
 sodomy, bestiality, incest in any of its forms, rape, un- 
 cleanness, fornication, and any other species of impurity ; 
 than it is in a Gentile : Hence, with regard to the Le- 
 vitical Code, as to the Precepts of its General Statutes, 
 as fully, and, for the very same reasons, as with regard 
 to those of the Duologue and to those of the Decalogue, 
 we conclude, that that Code, as an expression of the 
 Will of God, is as obligatory on other nations as it was 
 on Israel. 
 
 If. The Law of Incest is strictly Moral in its nature. 
 
 If this position can now need proof, the proof is easily 
 furnished. 
 
154 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 The design of the law is wholly, and in the highest 
 sense, Moral. The design of the Law of incest will be 
 elearly seen, by comparing it with the other laws regu- 
 lating Sexual Intercourse. That the Design of the Law 
 of Marriage—one man with one woman—was moral, 
 will probably be admitted. But if not, God expressly 
 declares it: “And wherefore did he make one? 'That 
 he might seek a godly seed :”’—-In other words, that he 
 might secure and promote godliness or piety ; and 
 prevent the universal and hopeless immorality, which 
 grows out of polygamy and promiscuous concubinage. 
 The design of the law forbidding fornication was to 
 prevent immoral intercourse in the unmarried ; of 
 that forbidding adultery, to prevent immoral inter- 
 coures in the married ; of that forbidding rape, to pre- 
 vent immoral intercourse accompanied with violence ; 
 of that of two other laws, to prevent immoral inter- 
 course of the grossest kinds ; and the design of the 
 Law of incest, to prevent immoral intercourse in fa- 
 milies. If any law, then, can be regarded as a Moral 
 Law, the Law of incest is of this character. 
 
 III. The Law of Incest is just as applicable, and just as 
 necessary, to the Gentiles, as to Israel, and is therefore 
 binding on the former as truly as on the latter. As Incest 
 was in itself, no more odious, in an Israelite, than it is in 
 a Gentile, so the reasons, assigned for its prohibitition, 
 were no more powerful, and extended no farther, in the 
 case of the former, than in the case of the latter. The 
 reasons assigned for the Law of Incest are Propin- 
 quily, and the preservation of Purity in families ; 
 and these reasons are identically the same in both cases. 
 For example: An Israelite was just as near, by con- 
 sanguinity, to his grandmother, and his mother, to his 
 daughter and his granddaughter, to his sister, to his 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 155 
 
 aunt, and his niece; and just as near, by affinity, to his 
 grandfather's wife, and his wife’s grandmother, to his 
 father’s wife, and his wife’s mother, to his son’s wife, 
 and his wife’s daughter, to his grandson’s wife, and his 
 wife’s granddaughter, to his brother’s wife, and his 
 wife’s sister, to his uncle’s wife and his wife’s aunt, to his 
 nephew’s wife and his wife’s niece; as a Gentile is: and 
 it was no more necessary or desirable to preserve, and there 
 was no more reason to fear the loss of, purity, in the family 
 of the one, than in that of the other. And still more 
 particularly ; Because, in cases, where marriage ceases 
 to be incestuous, wnlawful commerce ceases to be in- 
 cestuous, also; and because a brother’s widow, a wife’s 
 sister, a nephew’s widow, and a wife’s niece, come 
 into the family on the footing of sisters and nieces by 
 blood ; there is, and unhappily there is found to be, as 
 stern, and unbending, and pervading a necessity, in 
 Gentile lands, to guard the purity of these connections, 
 by all the sanctions of a law of incest, as there was, or 
 could have been, in the land of Israel. Hence, as God 
 declared that the propinquity, between an Israelite and 
 his sister or niece, was so great, as to render their inter- 
 marriage incestuous, and as their propinquity was 
 mathematically the same as that between a Gentile 
 and his sister, or niece ; I therefore conclude unhesi- 
 tatingly and with mathematical certainty, that their 
 propinquity is so great, as to render their intermarriage 
 incestuous. Hence, also, as God declared that the pro- 
 pinquity between an Israelite and his brother’s widow, 
 or his wifes sister, or his nephew's widow, or his 
 wife's niece was so great, as to render their intermarriage 
 incestuous ; and as their propinquity was mathematically 
 the same, as that between a Gentile and his correspond- 
 ing connections ; I therefore conclude, unhesitatingly 
 
156 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 and with mathematical certainty, that their propinquity 
 is so great, as to render their marriage incestuous. 
 
 The law of incest, therefore, contains the solemn 
 Declaratlon of God, when acting as a Legislator o 
 the given subject,—a declaration to Man as such, 
 not limited, but absolutely universal in its nature, and 
 reason, and rule, and application.—that the degree of 
 propinguity between a man and a woman, in each one 
 of the cases specified in the Law of incest, and in one 
 just as truly as in another, is so great, as to render mar- 
 riage between them incestuous; and a solemn Com- 
 mand from God to Man not to contract marriage 
 within any of those degrees. It has, therefore, all the 
 binding force, which can be given to a Law, by the au- 
 thority of God; and is always and absolutely obligatory 
 on every child of Adam. 
 
 IV. Incest was recognized as a crime, before the Le- 
 vitical Law of Incest was published. 
 
 As committed by the Canaanites, before the promul- 
 gation of that law, it is declared by God to have been 
 “an abomination,” “an iniquity,” “an abominable cus- 
 tom,” and “asin that defiled the land.” This is said 
 of every one of the prohibited degrees, and of one as 
 truly as of another. In the very forcible. language of 
 Moses, referring to Incest and eight other crimes, and 
 to all indiscriminately and alike, it is thus characterized: 
 In all these, the nations are defiled, which I cast out 
 before you; and the land is defiled: therefore, do I 
 visit the iniquity of the land upon it; and the land itself 
 vomiteth out her inhabitants: for they committed all 
 these things ; and therefore I abhorred them.” 
 
 ‘he extermination, spoken of in this passage, was 
 obviously a judicial punishment. Punishment is the 
 manifestation of the displeasure of a ruler for diso- 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. - 157 
 
 bedience to a law. A law cannot be disobeyed before 
 it exists. A law, prohibiting incest and the other eight 
 crimes, a law, too, binding the Canaanites.and the other 
 nations, existed, therefore, before the Levitical Law of: 
 incest was given. ~A law, also, cannot bind, wnless it 
 be known ; for if it be unknown to an individual, to 
 him it does not exist. Unless, therefore, we are ready 
 to charge on the Lawatver or Isrart the gross in+ 
 justice of inflicting condign punishment, for disobedience 
 to an ex post facto law,—conduct which has been the 
 peculiar infamy of Nero and Caligula—some General 
 Law, prohibiting Incest and the other eight crimes, not 
 only existed, but was known to the Canaanites and the 
 other nations, by tradiiion, or otherwise, before the 
 promulgation of the Levitical Code. Laws prohibiting 
 Incest, and the other eight crimes, were therefore pro- 
 mulgated to mankind, at a very early period of the his- 
 tory of the world. 
 
 We cheerfully admit that we cannot specify the time 
 of their enactment, or the manner and circumstances of 
 their promulgation.. But the reason is obvious. 'The 
 history of mankind before the Deluge, and after the De- 
 luge until the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, or wpwards 
 of twenty-five hundred years, is exceedingly brief, and 
 is made up almost exclusively of narrative. 'The only 
 laws given to Adam, which are even remotely alluded to 
 by Moses, are the Law of the Sabbath, the Law of Sa- 
 crifices, the Law of Marriage, the Law directing him to 
 live on the Fruits of the Earth, and the Law forbidding 
 Murder. ‘The only laws given to Noah and his de- 
 scendents, to which Moses either directly or indirectly 
 alludes, are, the law requiring the murderer to be put to 
 death, the Law authorizing Animal Food, and forbid- 
 ding the eating of blood, the Law of clean and unclean 
 
 14 
 
> 
 
 158 THE LAW. OF INCEST. 
 
 beasts in sacrifice, the Law of Faith, and the Law of 
 Circumcision, (both given to Abraham) the Law forbid- 
 ding Sodomy, and perhaps the Law of Family-worship. 
 Yet how few of the duties which we owe to God or 
 Man, or of the sins which we are liable to commit 
 against either, are here included. Here for example we 
 find but one law relating to injuries to the person, and 
 not one relating to property, or to injuries to reputation. 
 From the very nature of the case, therefore,—-as society 
 could not commence without laws on these subjects, and 
 as the early society of the world was not savage, but 
 wholly civilized,—we know that laws necessary to the 
 welfare of society were originally given by God to 
 Man. The same is true of all the laws forbidding sex- 
 ual impurity. The 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus, 
 in recording the fact, that the nations of Canaan were 
 exterminated for the nine crimes therein mentioned— 
 and among them for adultery, incest, sodomy, bestial- 
 ity, polygamy and uncleanness,—have furnished higher 
 evidence, that laws prohibiting those crimes were early 
 given to Man, than Moses has furnished us of the early 
 promulgation even of any of the general laws recited 
 above, except three given to Adam, relating to marriage, 
 to vegetable food, and to murder; and three given to 
 Noah, relating to murder, to animal food, and. to the 
 eating of blood. We have therefore the highest war- 
 rant for asserting, that laws forbidding Sexual Impu- 
 rity, and among them a Law forbidding Incestuous 
 Marriages, were very early promulgated to Mankind ; 
 and that for known disobedience to these laws, and to 
 the other three referred to in these two chapters, the na- 
 tions of Canaan were exterminated. ‘ 
 
 V. Incest is directly recognized as unlawful in the 
 New ‘Testament. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 159 
 
 1. John the Baptist’s declaration to Herod proves. it 
 to be unlawful. Herod and Philip were brothers. He- 
 rodias had been married io Philip, and had afterwards 
 been divorced. We are told, .that, when Herod had 
 married Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, John told 
 him, “It is not lawful for thee to have her.”—It would 
 have been lawful, if Herod had not been Philip’s bro- 
 ther. It was the Incest therefore, that rendered the 
 marriage unlawful.— Herod, we admit, was a Jew. 
 
 2. Paul’s treatment of the incestuous person at 
 Corinth proves, that Incest is now unlawful. The 
 incestuous person had married his step-mother.* Paul 
 speaks of this connection with the utmost abhorrence, 
 
 * It has.been supposed, I know, that the son was not married to the 
 step-mother. Paul thought otherwise. His language is “ that one 
 should have his father’s wife,” or “stepmother.” The phrase to have 
 a woman, denotes, in the Scriptures, to have heras a wife. Thus Mark 
 6. 8, and Matth. 14.5, “Itis not lawful for thee to have thy brother _ 
 Philip’s wife ;” Matt. 22. 28. ‘“‘ Whose wife shall she be of the seven, for 
 they all had her ;” John 3. 29. “He that hath the bride is the bride- 
 groom;” 1 Cor. 7. 10, 12, 29, “If any brother hath a wife that believ- 
 eth not”—“ Let every man have his own wife; and let every woman 
 have her own husband”—“ They that have wives, as though they had 
 none.” The only seeming deviation from this rule is found in John 14. 
 18. ‘The Samaritan woman had had five husbands, and professedly 
 had and was believed by her neighbours to have the sixth. Christ 
 made to her the startling and overwhelming disclosure, ‘He whom 
 thou now hast--i. e. as a husband--is not thy husband:” In other 
 words, “ He, whom thou now professest to have as a husband, is not thy 
 husband.” Probably the idea, that the son had not married the step- 
 “mother, arose from the use of the word fornication in our version. The 
 reader will recollect that this word is general, and denotes adultery and 
 incest as well as every species of unlawful sexual intercourse. If the 
 father, as those whom we oppose insist, was living, epve/a cannot de- 
 note, fornication in the modern sense. If the son was not married, on 
 the ground which they take, it denotes adultery. If, as is clear, he was 
 married, still the marriage was utterly void; and, on the ground which 
 we take, it denotes incestuous adultery, 
 
160 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 asa crime “not so much as named among the Gen- 
 tiles,” and directs the Corinthian Church to excommu- 
 nicate “that wicked person.” 'The-reader, in order to 
 feel the full force of Paul’s language, should read the 
 last 15 verses of the lst Chap. to the Romans. He will 
 there find Paul’s actual opinion of the Gentile world, 
 “oraven, as with the pen of iron and the point of a 
 diamond.” After the perusal, he will be prepared to 
 realize in some measure, what must be that crime, and 
 particularly what must be that species of impurity, in 
 the view of Paul, which, to use his own language, is 
 “such impurity, as is not so much as named among 
 the Gentiles.” But, according to those whom I oppose, 
 if the father had been dead, as no marriage is now in- 
 cestuous, the son would have been guilty of xo crime at 
 all; and, if the father was living, as- no intercourse is 
 now incestuous, he was guilty merely of adultery, in 
 marrying another man’s wife. But what says Paul? 
 The identical crime which he charges upon him is not 
 the crime of adultery, but the crime of marrying his 
 JSather’s wife : a connection, which, he says, “is not so 
 much as named among the Gentiles.” If Paul had 
 not considered it a greater crime, in the son, to marry 
 his father’s wife, than the wife of another man, he 
 could not have laid the whole stress of the charge upon 
 the fact, that he had married his father’s wife. If he 
 had considered the incontinence of the son as amounting 
 to nothing more than adzlterz, he could not have said 
 with the least shadow of truth, that it was a crime “ not 
 so much as named among the Gentiles.” The man, 
 who wrote the first chapter of Romans, knew the Gen- 
 tiles too well, and was too honest a man, to make such 
 an assertion. Had it been true, that adultery was a 
 crime “not so much as named among the Gentiles,” 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 161 
 
 the Heathen Gentiles of that age would have wonder- 
 fully surpassed, in purity, not only the Jews, but the 
 Christian Gentiles of that and of every following age. 
 It was then the J/ncest, involved in the connection be- 
 tween the son and the stepmother, which the Apostle 
 thus deeply reprobated; and on which he laid the 
 charge of this enormous guilt. Incest, then, was a 
 crime, anda crime of singular enormity, in a Corinthian, 
 under the Christian Dispensation. 
 
 3. ‘The Decree, made by the Apostles in Council at 
 Jerusalem, in the name of the Holy Ghost, contains, as 
 we have seen on a previous page, their solemn decision, 
 issued to the Churches, that the Law of Incest, as well 
 as the whole Levitical law relating to impurity, is bind- 
 ing in all its force under the Christian Dispensation. 
 
 A. 'The account given by Paul of the abominations 
 of the Gentiles, in Romans i., is a distinct recognition 
 of both these laws as now obligatory.—Paul was a Jew, 
 writing to many Christian Jews at Rome: and used 
 language in a sense to which Jews were accustomed — 
 The Levitical Law, and the Old and New Testaments 
 generally, class adultery, incest, and the two grossest 
 crimes against purity, as well as those of less turpitude, 
 under the general term wncleanness.* 'The account 
 given of the Gentiles, by Paul, in Romans i. is as fol- 
 lows: “God gave them up to uncleanness, through the 
 lusts of their own hearts.”—He exemplifies this general 
 charge by a specification of one of the two grossest 
 crimes against purity, included under the name unclean- 
 ness, as shamelessly perpetrated by both males and fe- 
 males. He then represents them as filled with all for- 
 
 * This is familiarly the fact, in the writings of Paul. See particu- 
 larly 2 Cor. xii, 21, Gal. v. 19, Eph. iv. 19, and vy, 3, and Col, iu, 5. 
 14* 
 
162 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 nication (xopve'e)—all lewdness or impurity. ‘Thus, 
 he not only represents them as guilty of all the various 
 crimes against purity included under the terms, wnclean- 
 ness and mopveiz, both of which include incest ; and spe- 
 cifies the shameless practice of one of the two grossest 
 crimes against purity, as proving the truth of the gene- 
 ral charge; but pronounces all these offences, included 
 under those terms, to be enormous sins, as committed by 
 Gentiles. This he does after the Levitical Dispensa- 
 tion was closed; and thus distinetly recognizes the 
 whole Levitical law, forbidding cleanness or lewd- 
 ness in all its forms,—and particularly the Law of In- 
 cest—as absolutely obligatory as to its precepts under 
 the Christian Dispensation. 
 
 VL. Ifthe Law of Incest be not binding on the Gen- 
 tiles, neither is any part of the Old Testament. The 
 Old Testament was addressed to Israelites and not to 
 Gentiles: why then is a great part of it binding on the 
 latter? The only answer is, That it consists of Truths 
 and Duties, which are in no sense more applicable to 
 the former, than to the latter. For example: the pro- 
 position, “The Lord reigneth ;” and the precept, “Fret 
 not thyself because of evil doers;” were uttered in form 
 to Israel. Why then do they affect ws? Because the 
 truths contained in the proposition and the precept, and 
 the duty growing out of the former, as well as that pre- 
 scribed in the latter, were given by God, our Almighty 
 Governor, are wholly of a general nature, are just as 
 applicable to our case as to that of Israel, and are just as 
 important and necessary to us as they were to them. 
 All these, as we have seen, are equally true of the Law 
 of Incest. As the same may be shown of every other 
 truth and duty of the Old Testament; it follows that 
 the truths and duties contained in the Law of Incest are 
 just as binding on the Gentiles, as the rest of the Old 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 163 
 
 Testament. The same might be shown, ‘also, as to 
 
 many of the instructions of Christ in the Condes 
 From these considerations it is clear, that the Law: of 
 
 incest is as binding on the Gentiles, as it was on Israel. 
 
 To this course of reasoning, and to the conclusion in 
 which it results, the following pecans have been 
 offered. 
 
 1. It is alleged that Incest isa mere offence by pos- 
 itive statute, and therefore cannot be malum in se, a 
 crime in itself, or in the nature of things; but is 
 merely malum prohibitum. 
 
 In support of this position it is alleged, 1. That In- 
 cest was no crime in Cain, Abel and Seth, and the 
 other sons of Adam, who were under a moral necessity 
 of marrying, and sabe se duty it was to marry, their sis- 
 ters. 2. That it was made the duty of an Israelite, in 
 certain circumstances, to marry his brother’s wife.—But 
 it is said, that God cannot place his creatures under a 
 moral necessity of committing, still less can he make it 
 their duty to commit, a crime in its own nature, or 
 malum in se. Hence it is concluded, that Incest is 
 merely malum prohibitum. 
 
 The application of the phrases malum prohibitum 
 and malum in se, to human laws is intelligible ; but, 
 when made to the laws of God, seems not to be logical 
 or happy. To bury a'corpse in any thing but wool- 
 len, is an offence forbidden by the laws of England, 
 under a penalty of twenty pounds, and is an instance of 
 malum prohibitum ; because it is not an offence by the 
 laws of God. Murder, adultery, stealing and lying, 
 whether forbidden. by human laws or not, are sins ; 
 because they are forbidden by the laws of God, and are 
 therefore mala in se. 
 
164 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 ¥ 
 
 The phrase, a crime in the nature of thing's, also 
 needs explanation. Actions are right or wrong, in the 
 original and highest sense, according to their tendency: 
 to produce good or evil, happiness or misery ; and 
 God, as he himself abundantly assures us, has respect 
 to this tendency, in what he commands, and in what he 
 forbids. In weighing the tendency, of moral actions, 
 and thus deciding on their rectitude or obliquity, we of 
 course take, and we are compelled to take, the nature of - 
 things, as it actually exists, and as we actually find 
 it. Whether it was originally possible forthe Almighty 
 Creator to have given things in such a sense a different 
 and opposite nature, and so to have constituted things, 
 that those actions, whose natural and uniform tendency 
 is now to produce Misery, should have heen reversed 
 in their nature, and have had a natural and uniform ten- 
 dency to produce Happiness; and that those actions, 
 whose natural and uniform tendency is now to produce 
 Happiness, should have been reversed in their nature, 
 and have had a natural and uniform tendency to pro- 
 duce Misery: For example, Whether it was originally 
 possible so to have constituted things, that Enmity to 
 God, leading to the worship of false gods and of idols; 
 Trreverence, leading to profanity and blasphemy ; Im- 
 piety, to the profanation of the sabbath ; Filial impiety, 
 as resulting in disobedience to parents: Malice, as exhib- 
 ited in violence and murder; Lust, in fornication, adul- 
 tery, incest, rape, sodomy and bestiality ; Coveting, in 
 theft, fraud and robbery; and the Spirit of Falsehood, 
 in lying and perjury ; should have had a natural and 
 uniform tendency to produce Happiness: and that Love 
 to God, as shown in owning, reverencing and worship- 
 ping, him; Filial piety; Benevolence; Purity ; Equity ; 
 and the Spirit of truth ;—in their appropriate actings ;— 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 165 
 
 | 
 
 should have had a natural and uniform tendency to pro- 
 duce Misery ;—And, to go-still further back, even to the 
 remotest possible point in the metapbysics of Ethics, 
 Whether, in a still higher sense, it was originally possi- 
 ble for the Almighty Creator to have given things prame- 
 vally, in such asense a different and opposite nature, 
 and so to have constituted things, that that, which is now 
 Happiness, should have been Misery, and that that, 
 which is now Misery, should have been Happiness : 
 —Are questions of “high priori” speculation, which do 
 not fairly meet us, in a practical examination into the 
 nature and causes of actually existing Laws. We know 
 indeed, I admit, with absolute certainty, if we certainly 
 know any thing; (and, with no impeachment of abso- 
 lute Omnipotence, but, on the contrary, with the highest 
 reverence, we may say that we certainly know;) that 
 there are certain points in Physics which no exertion 
 of Physical Omnipotence, no possible physical constitu- 
 tion of things, could bring to pass:—for example, that 
 two and two should equal five ; that whatever is, is 
 not ; that a thing should be, and not be, at the same 
 instant; and that the three angles of a triangle 
 should be more or less than two right angles. And 
 we know with equal certainty, that there are certain 
 points 7” E’thics, which no exertion of Moral Omnipo- 
 tence, no possible moral constitution of things, could 
 bring to pass :—for example, that enmity to G'od, blas- 
 phemous irreverence, impiety, malice, and wilful 
 perjury, should be right, Yet, should there be any, 
 whose optics are not sharp enough, or telescopic enough, 
 to see the truth of this latter admission clearly, we will 
 not stop, as it is a mere concession, as well as for other 
 obvious reasons, to make it more clear. Even they 
 however can see, and will admit, that, if the moral na- 
 
166 THE LAW OF-INCEST. 
 
 ture of God be now right, until it works a total change in 
 itself,—so that it becomes the very opposite of what it now 
 is—and a similar change in the very nature and essence 
 of all moral things ; no supposable law, emanating from 
 God himself, could make these things right—Thus far 
 we concede to the objector. 
 
 But when we come to mere Eirternal Acts, taken 
 separately from ¢he spirit. from which they flow, and 
 not necessarily involving either moral rectitude or obli- 
 quity in the agents, we can make no such concessions. 
 We know of no such acts, which God may not, in the 
 exercise of infinite wisdom and goodness, either permit 
 or forbid, or which he may not permit at one time under 
 one set of circumstances, and forbid at another. Should 
 this be denied, the proof is at. hand;—If there be any 
 mere Herternal Acts, in such a sense wrong, that God 
 consistently with his own holiness cannot,under any 
 circumstances, command them ; it will be agreed that 
 Killing a prisoner of war, in cold blood; Exterminat- 
 ing a whole nation; and Sacrificing one’s own child; 
 are such acts.—Let us then look at facts. 
 
 Agag, king of Amalek, surrendered himself as a pris- 
 oner of warto Saul. Samuel the prophet, acting under 
 the express direction of God, put him to death. 
 
 The commission to exterminate the Canaanites ran 
 thus: “ And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them 
 before thee, thou shalt smite them, and shalt utterly de- 
 stroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, 
 nor show any mercy to them.”* | And again, “Of the 
 cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give 
 thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive 
 that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them.”t 
 This was a command of God to exterminate men, 
 
 * Deut. vii. 2. } Deut. xx. 16, 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 167 
 
 women and children, to seize their country, and to take 
 possession of their property; and it was executed by 
 Joshua. 
 God commanded Abraham to offer his son, his only 
 son; Isaac, as a burnt-oflering, on Mount Moriah. Ina 
 case of all cases the most agonizing, the Patiiarch, with 
 views wholly different from those of the objector,— instead 
 of stopping to ask, Whether the act were not of such a 
 nature, that God, consistently with his own holiness, 
 could not, under any circumstances, command it,—heard 
 the command, bowed in submission to Him who gave it, 
 and obeyed. Rising up early in the morning, he took his 
 son, the heir of promise, and went to the place, of which 
 God had toldhim. “And Abraham built an altar there, 
 and Jaid the wood in order, and bound Isaac. his son, 
 and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham 
 stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his — 
 son.” Just as the life of Isaac was on the wing, a Voice 
 _ from heaven said unto him, “ Lay not thy hand upon 
 the lad; neither do thou any thing unto him.” What 
 was the nature of this conduct ?—“ Murder !” says the 
 objector; “an Act, which God could not license, consist- 
 ently with his holiness !’—What said the Voice from 
 Heaven ?—“ Now I know, that thou fearest God ; seeing 
 thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” 
 Had these acts been done without a Divine command, 
 the first would have been a treacherous assassination ; 
 the second, a wanton butchery of men women and 
 children ; and the third, a cold-blooded murder of an 
 only son. Having been done with that command, they 
 “met a high reward from the hands of God. God, how- 
 ever, in commanding these acts, did not command them 
 to be performed with malice or the spirit of murder, 
 any more than be commands the exercise of that spirit 
 
168 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 in the execution of a murderer. Had he done so,——if 
 we may be justified for one moment in making the hor- 
 rible supposition,—-clouds and darkness, infinitely deeper 
 and more awful than the blackness of darkness itself, 
 would have quenched the glory of the Majesty on High! 
 
 The ground therefore, taken by the objector, cannot 
 be correct ; for it leads to consequences, at which he him- 
 self will revolt. 
 
 “ The Maker justly claims the world he made: 
 In this, the right of Providence is laid.” 
 
 Life is his gift; and he may take it back, at what 
 time, in what place, under what circumstances, and by 
 what means, instruments, or agents, he pleases. If the 
 command to destroy it, in a given case, certainly pro- 
 ceeds from him; what, in other circumstances, would 
 be murder, becomes an imperious duty. While, 
 therefore; as at present advised, we cannot admit, that 
 even a command of God could justify aprety, or blus- 
 phemy, or malice, or perjury ; we claim, with perfect 
 consistency, and on grounds which cannot be shaken, 
 that mere Heternal Acts are not in such a sense wrong, 
 that God consistently with his holiness, cannot, under 
 any circumstances, permit or command them. 
 
 The subject of Marriage and that of Sexual Inter- 
 course stand precisely upon this footing. From the very 
 nature of the case, all commands relating to them must 
 be in one sense of a positive nature. When God had 
 created one man and one woman, “he had,’ says Ma- 
 lachi “the residue of the spirit ;’—1i. e. he had the spirit 
 of life remaining in himself, which he could have im- 
 parted to any additional number of females, and then 
 given them to Adam. When he had thus made them, 
 instead of instituting Marriage—the wnion of one man 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST 169 
 with one woman—he might have instituted Polygamy ; 
 or he might have simply said to Adam and his sons, as 
 he said to the inferior classes of animals, “ Increase, and 
 multiply, and replenish the Earth,” and thus left them 
 to a Promiscuous Iiitercourse. But he made one wo- 
 man only, and then gave Adam and Eve the Original 
 Law of Marriage, binding all their posterity. That 
 Law was strictly positive in its nature, as resulting 
 from a positive command. Still, in its design, in its 
 binding force, and in the duties which it involves, as well 
 as in the violations, to which it is liable, it is, as we have 
 seen, in the highest sense moral. Yet, in revealing his 
 will to Mankind, respecting one important division of 
 the general subject of marriage, viz. Divorce, God, at 
 three different periods of the history of Man, has 
 given three wholly different Statutory provisions con- 
 cerning it. The Original Law of Marriage did not 
 allow of Divorces, in any case whatever ; and no pro- 
 vision was made for its dissolution but by death; and 
 that, had man been willing to do his duty, was indis- 
 putably the only right law for the Human Race. This 
 state of things continued upwards of twenty-five hun- 
 dred years. 'The Levitical Code authorized the hus- 
 band, “if his wife found no favour in his eyes, because 
 he had found some uncleanness in her,” to give her “a 
 bill of divorcement,” which wrought a dissolution of the 
 marriage. This Code was given in a semi-savage state 
 of society ; it was, as we have seen, to protect wives from 
 the cruelty or “hard-heartedness” of alienated hus- 
 bands, in such a state of society, that this legal provision 
 for their relief was made. ‘This state of things contin- 
 ued for nearly fifteen hundred years. Christ abro- 
 gates a part of this provision of the Levitical Code, and 
 
 15 
 
170 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 allows of divorce in a single case—that of incontinence: 
 Hence, under the Christian dispensation, divorce for any 
 cause except incontinence, followed by marriage with 
 another, is adultery ; while, under the Levitical, it was 
 lawful for various other causes; and yet under the Patri- 
 archal, even the divorce for incontinence, as well as 
 every other, if followed by marriage, was adultery. Yet 
 these changes in the Law of marriage, or the Great 
 Law regulating Sexual Intercourse, do not prove that 
 that Law is not in thestrictest sense a Moral law. Nor 
 would the objector hence argue that fornication, adul- 
 tery, rape, sodomy and bestiality, were not mala in se, 
 immoralities, crimes in their own nature, but merely 
 mala prohibita, offences created by statute. 
 
 This is equally true respecting the Law of incest. The 
 facts that Cain, Abel and Seth, lawfully married their 
 sisters, and that an Israelite, in certain circumstances, 
 might lawfully marry his brother’s wife, fall just as far 
 short of proving, that Incest is not malum in se, an 
 immorality, a crime in its own nature. God has a right 
 to give us what positive laws he pleases. When he has 
 forbidden a given act, the wilful commission of that act 
 is asin, and that in every case. When we know his 
 positive commands, our business is not to ask, “ Why,” 
 or “ Wherefore,” but simply to obey. And if we do 
 otherwise, we must meet the consequences. 
 
 Again. ‘This argument might have been urged by 
 an Israelite under the Levitical Code, with just as much 
 force, as now by the objector. Wishing to marry his 
 niece or his sister, he might have said, ‘Incest is 
 merely an offence by positive statute, and not a crime 
 in itself, or in its own nature. Cain, Abel and Seth, 
 and the other sons of Adam, married their sisters from 
 the very necessity of the case. There is no sin, there- 
 
THE LAW ON INCEST. 171 
 
 fore, in my marrying as I wish.’ When brought to 
 his trial, for breaking the Law of Incest, what would 
 Moses have said to him, in reply to such a plea? What 
 Moses would have said to him, a greater LawGIveR 
 than Moses will hereafter say to the man, who now 
 breaks the Law of Incest. 
 
 2. The Practice of incest, among the Patriarchs and 
 Israelites, is alleged, against the binding force of the Law 
 of incest. 
 
 Without repeating the answers to the argument from 
 Practice, in the Essay on Polygamy, and in a former 
 part of this Essay, we will inquire into the actual Ex- 
 tent of the practice. Abraham married his half-sister. 
 Lot’s two daughters committed incestuous rape with 
 their father, after they had made him drunk for the 
 purpose. Jacob married two sisters, under circum- 
 stances, which have.been considered at length. Thamar 
 committed incestuous fornication with Judah, her 
 father-in-law : he not knowing her to be his daughter- 
 in-law. Reuben committed incestuous adultery, if so it 
 may be called, with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. 
 Amram married his father’s sister. Amnon commit- 
 ted incestuous rape with his half-sister. Absalom com- 
 mitted incestuous rape with ten of his father’s concu- 
 bines, on the house-top, in the sight of all Israel. If we 
 except the terrible denunciations against the inhabit- 
 ants of Jerusalem, in F.zek. xxii., for the shameless com- 
 mission of this crime, and the story of the destruction 
 of the Canaanites already recited, and the case of the 
 sons of Adam, which was lawful marriage, the above is, 
 I believe, a full history of Incest in the Old 'Testament. 
 We have here, then, three cases of incestuous marriage, 
 
172 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 thirteen instances of incestuous rape, one of incestuous 
 fornication, and one of incestuous quasi-adultery. 
 
 Probably no argument will be attempted, in favour 
 of the lawfulness of Incest, either from the cases, or the 
 characters, of Absalom, Amnon, Reuben, Thamar, or 
 the two daughters of Lot. We know of Amram, only, 
 that he married his aunt, and lived with his country- 
 men in Egypt, under no regular government. The 
 case of Jacob has been fully examined. 'To those, who 
 rely on any, or on all, of these cases, for their justifica- 
 tion, I have only one suggestion to make: In the day 
 of trial, when asked by the Judge, “ Why did you com- 
 mit Incest?” do you intend to answer, “ Because Jacob 
 did it;” or “Because Amram did it;” or, “ Because 
 the two daughters of Lot, and Thamar, and Reuben, 
 and Amnon, and Absalom did it.” 
 
 But the case of Abraham is worth tenfold more than 
 all the rest. He was the father of the faithful, and 
 the friend of God. Yet he married his half-sister.— 
 To those spiritual descendents of Abraham, then, the 
 Levites of the present day, who have married their 
 wife's sisters ; and who, allegmg that Ais incest was 
 a case of consanguinity, while theirs is a case of mere 
 affinity, intend to give the venerable man a lower place 
 on the scale of obedience, than they take themselves; 
 we beg leave, before the arrangement is permanently 
 fixed, to suggest the following considerations: Abra- 
 ham, when he married Sarah, was a heathen, and an 
 idolater, living in Mesopotamia, in the midst of heathens 
 and idolaters; who, if we may judge from the conduct 
 of their heathen and idolatrous neighbours, the Canaan- 
 ites, were far from being over-scrupulous on the subject 
 of marriage, and incest, and all the other varieties of 
 sexual intercourse. They profess to be Christians, and 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 173 
 
 live in a Christian community, the great body of whom, 
 even now, notwithstanding the influence of Levitical 
 example, still regard the marriage they have contracted 
 as incestuous.—Sarah, at the time specified, if we may 
 believe the testimony of one of her distinguished de- 
 scendents—the apostle Paul-—“ was very fair ;” so fair, 
 that, to this day, her singular beauty is celebrated in all 
 the East; so fair, that, even when the spring-time of 
 beauty was past, she arrested the practical attention of 
 powerful monarchs. Their wife’s sisters—far be it 
 from us to speak disparagingly of them, on a point of so 
 much interest—are doubtless beautiful also; but, their 
 husbands themselves being judges, can hardly challenge 
 this high pre-eminence.— Abraham and Sarah lived 
 together, before marriage, under one roof, and met 
 daily. They and their wife's sisters usually enjoy 
 the same dis-advantage. On the score of opportunity, 
 therefore, without which, it is well known no marriage 
 would take place, both parties are on a level.—Abra- 
 ham was a young man ; and his attachment to Sarah 
 had all the force and freshness of a first love. They 
 are widowers; and their attachment to their wife’s sis- 
 ters is, or ought to be, but a second love-—The Law of 
 incest, under which Abraham lived, was probably tra- 
 ditional, and therefore liable to indistinctness and un- 
 certainty. The Law, under which they live, is written, 
 and therefore distinct and certain.—The Jewish Com- 
 mentators agree that the Traditional law, under which 
 Abraham lived, forbad marriage with a sester, without 
 specifying a half-sister ; and that the Section, forbid- 
 ding marriage with a half-sister, was introduced into 
 the Levitical Code, to counteract the influence of Abra- 
 ham’s example; and the fact, that, in each of the four 
 passages, forbidding marriage with a sister, a half-sis- 
 15* 
 
” 
 
 174 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 ter is expressly specified,—“ thy sister, the daughter of 
 thy father, or the daughter of thy mother,”—gives strong 
 colour to this opinion. 'The Written law, under which 
 they live, on the contrary, does most clearly forbid the 
 marriage which they have contracted, as well as, most 
 expressly and explicitly, other marriages still more re- 
 mote.—Abraham never had a Law of the land, which 
 prohibited his marriage with Sarah. T'hey have al- 
 ways had a Law of the land, which, until it was gar- 
 bled a few years ago, to comport with the propensities of 
 certain of the Scribes and Levites, expressly forbad their 
 marriage with their present wives.—Let not, then, the 
 young idolater of Mesopotamia, because, in the intense 
 warmth of a youthful flame, he persuaded himself, that 
 a sister did not mean a half-sister, be too severely 
 handled by any modern Levite; who, under the impulse 
 of a cooler passion, has wrapped himself in that flimsiest 
 of all conclusions, ever woven in the loom of sophistry, 
 that a wife is more nearly related to her husband, 
 than a husband to his wife. If Abraham thus in 
 fact persuaded himself; it is only one instance out of 
 very many, in which men, by the aid of very slight ar- 
 guments, have concluded that that, which they very 
 much wanted to do, was not wrong. Painfully nu- 
 merous have these instances been, in every age; espe- 
 cially where Conscience has drawn one way, and the 
 Love of women, the other. Does the memory of the 
 objector here fasten on the cases of Lamech, and Jacob, 
 and Judah, and Gideon, and Samson, and David, and 
 Solomon, &c. &c. &c. as directly in point? Then I will 
 make no appeal to his consctowsness.—Among the 
 “three things,” which were “ too wonderful” for the Son 
 of Jakeh, “yea four, which he knew not,” there is one. 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 175 
 
 which, “even unto this day,” has received no satisfac- 
 tory solution. 
 
 What, then, if we could forget that he was at that 
 time an idolater, would be the argument ?—“ Abraham 
 was too good a man to do what was wrong: but he 
 - married his half-sister: (a clear case of incest :) there- 
 fore incestuous marriage is not wrong.”— We could wish 
 that the major of the syllogism had been true: 
 that he, with whom “God conversed face to face, as a 
 man converseth with his friend,’ who, at the call of 
 God, “ went out, not knowing whither he went,” who 
 offered his “only son, even Isaac, as a burnt offering,” 
 who had such influence on high, that not a flake could 
 drop from the fiery cloud, on Sodom and Gomorrah, 
 till his prayer was ended, and who heard from God’s 
 own mouth the sentence, “ Well done!” before he was 
 summoned to his trial:—we could wish, that even he 
 had been too good a man, to do what far humbler vir- 
 tue sees to be wrong. But what says the Record? 
 Moses was too honest an historian, to gloss over the 
 failings even of Abraham. A hero. and a saint, in the 
 battle with Chedorlaomer and the three associate kings, 
 he quailed in his courage and his faith, at the courts of 
 Pharaoh and Abimelech; and left us evidence, alas! 
 too convincing, that the conduct of no child of Adam is 
 an unerring rule of rectitude, except that of the Man, 
 Curist Jesus. 
 
 ‘It may be observed here, also, as at the close of the 
 last objection, that an Israelite, under the Levitical 
 Code, who wished to contract an incestuous marriage, 
 expressly forbidden in that Code, might have urged this 
 argument for breaking the law in his own justifica- 
 tion, with exactly the same force, with which it is urged 
 by the objector; and with exactly the same success. 
 
176 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 3. It is alleged that the advocates for an extended 
 Law of Incest cannot agree among themselves as to its 
 Extent; that the Papists forbid marriages with fourth 
 cousins ; and that some Protestants have held mar- 
 riage with a first cousin to be unlawful. Hence it is 
 argued, that it is impossible to ascertain with certainty 
 the degrees actually prohibited; and of course that we 
 may lawfully differ with regard to it. 
 
 We admit that the Popes did this. [Knowing that 
 the royal families of Europe were all related, and that 
 they would intermarry only with each other, they ex- 
 tended the Law of Incest to the degrees specified, for two 
 solid reasons: 'I’o secure a princely douceur for every 
 license: and to compel crowned heads to acknowledge 
 the supremacy of the Popes. While their hand was in, 
 they also sold licenses for marriages really and grossly 
 incestuous, and thus made it one great division of the 
 most profitable branch of their business—that of selling 
 indulgences to sin. We also admit, that some Protes- 
 tants have held the marriage of first cousins to be un- 
 lawful. Having made these admissions, we reply, 
 
 1. The want of agreement among the advocates of a 
 doctrine or duty can be no reason for giving it up. If 
 it were, we must give up the whole Bible. 
 
 2. The corruptions of Popery cannot nullify the 
 word or law of God. If they could, what part of either 
 would be left. 
 
 3. The only practical question, in this and every 
 case, is, What is the Law of God? The answer to 
 that question settles our duty. 
 
 4. The whole Scriptural Law of Incest is given in 
 the preceding pages, and, from the very nature of the 
 subject, admits of being settled with mathematical cer- 
 tainty. It expressly mentions propinguity, as the rule 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 177 
 
 of the law; and the application of it is strictly mathe- 
 matical. 'Those who have read these pages will bear 
 witness, that, while it expressly forbids marriages be- 
 tween collaterals of the first and second degrees, both 
 by consanguinity and affinity, it contains no allusion to 
 marriages between collaterals of the third degree—i. e. 
 between first cousins,—either by consanguinity or 
 affinity. 
 
 5. If this be a good reason for dispensing with a part 
 of the Levitical Law of Incest, it is equally good for dis- 
 pensing with the whole. : 
 
 6. It charges the fault on the Law itself; and there- 
 fore, if valid, is a good reason, why such a law should 
 not have been given. 
 
 4. It is said that no person can be so proper a Step- 
 mother for the bereaved children, as the sister of their 
 mother. 
 
 To this I answer: 
 
 1. If the marriage were not forbidden, this would be 
 the case only, when the character of the aunt was equal 
 or superior, but never when it was inferior, to that of 
 any other lady whom the father could marry. 
 
 2. This consideration, if it had any weight, would 
 also authorize a man to marry his siséer, his aunt, or 
 his niece, his brother’s wife, his wifes aunt, his wife’s 
 niece, or his wife’s daughter by a previous marriage, 
 if they were of the proper age. Incest out of the ques- 
 tion, either of them would be a kind and suitable step- 
 mother, on the principles of the objector. 
 
 3. God knew the full force of this argument for the 
 marriage in question, when he forbad it under a dread- 
 ful penalty. 
 
 4. This suitableness did not prevent him from pro- 
 nouncing it “a sin,” “an iniquity,” “an abomination ;” 
 
178 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 nor from mentioning it as one among the sins, for 
 which he exterminated the Canaanites, and as one 
 among those, for which he threatened to drive Israel 
 out of Canaan. 
 
 Havine advanced thus far, we will review the 
 ground we have already gained, in a brief recapitula- 
 tion. We have seen, 
 
 1. That Polygamy, was forbidden, as immoral in its 
 tendency, under both the Patriarchal and the Levitical 
 Dispensations; and that under both it involved the 
 crime of Adultery. 
 
 2. That Leviticus xviii. 18, is merely a prohibition of 
 Polygamy under the Levitical Dispensation. 
 
 3. That Incest was a crime before the Levitical Law 
 was given. 
 
 A. That the Law of incest forbids all marriages both 
 of Lineals and of Collaterals of the first and second de- 
 grees, by Affinity and by Consanguinity; and of no 
 Collaterals of the third degree. 
 
 5. That Incest is pronounced by God, whether com- 
 mitted by Canaanites, who were Gentiles, or by Israel- 
 ites, “a sin,” “an uncleanness,” “an. abomination,” 
 “an iniquity,” “a wickedness,” “an unclean thing,” 
 ‘an abominable custom,” a sin provoking the divine 
 “ abhorrence,” and a “land-defiling sin,” causing it “to 
 spue out its inhabitants.” 
 
 6. That it is classed with adultery, rape, sacrificing 
 of children to Moloch, sodomy, bestiality, cursing of pa- 
 rents, idolatry, murder and assassination; and that he, 
 who commits it, is pronounced “ cursed.” 
 
 7. That it is mentioned as one of nine crimes, which 
 caused the extermination of the Canaanites; and one 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 179 
 
 of nine, for which the Israelites were threatened with ex- 
 termination. 
 
 8. That the Levitical Law punished the Israelite 
 who committed it with death, 
 
 9. That either the whole of the Law of Incest is in 
 force, or no part of it is-in force; and, of course, that, if 
 it is lawful to contract any one of the prohibited mar- 
 riages, it is equally lawful to marry an aunt, or a 
 niece, a sister, a daughter, or a mother. 
 
 10. That the Law of Incest was not a part of the 
 Ceremonial Law, nor one of the Local statutes of the 
 Levitical Code; that the fact of its being one of the Ge- 
 neral statutes of that Code furnishes no evidence, that 
 it is not still in force—they being just as much Moral 
 statutes, as those of the Duologue or those of the Deca- 
 logue—and that, if the Law of incest is itself binding 
 its Penalty is not therefore binding. 
 
 11. That the Law of Incest is absolutely binding on 
 the Gentiles; since the Levitical Code, as to its General 
 statutes, is binding on them; and the reason of the 
 Law is just as applicable, and the Law itself just as ne- 
 cessary, to them as to Israel; and is in its nature strictly 
 a Morallaw; and was in force before the Levitical Law 
 was published; and is directly recognized in the most 
 explicit and solemn manner, as in full force in the New 
 Testament, and under the Christian Dispensation ; and 
 because, if the Law of Incest be not binding on them, 
 neither is any part of the Old Testament. 
 
 12. That the binding force of the law of incest is not 
 impugned by the fact, that it is in one sense a Positive 
 statute ; nor by any arguments derived from the Practice 
 of incest among the Patriarchs, and Israelites ; nor by 
 any disagreement, among Papists or Protestants, as to 
 he Extent of the prohibitions; nor by any Fitness of 
 
180 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 a wife's sister or niece for the office of Step-mother to the 
 bereaved children. 
 
 THESE points being established, we call then distinctly 
 on the Great Ecclesiastical Bodies of our country, by 
 their solemn decisions, to condemn these incestuous 
 marriages; on the Ministers of religion to bear their 
 public and decided testimony against them, and to refuse 
 in all cases to celebrate them ; on the Churches of all 
 denominations to put away this iniquity from among 
 them; and on the Legislatures of the several States to 
 restore our American Statute-books to their pristine 
 purity. 
 
 Shall I be told that this wiil fasten a stigma on the 
 parties, who have contracted these marriages and on 
 their children?—This argument, if it were sound, 
 would have prevented God from giving a Law of incest, 
 and every country on earth from enacting one. It would 
 have had equal weight also in preventing the introduc- 
 tion of laws divine and human, against polygamy, for- 
 nication and adultery. Even a Turk,—were “His 
 Highness” in his zeal for reform, to enact Leviticus 
 xviii. 22,—might as well complain that a stigma was 
 cast upon himself and his young associate, in the prose- 
 cution of a favourite indulgence. Indeed, it would 
 always have been, and would now be, an equally valid 
 argument against the enactment of every new criminal 
 law. Let it be remembered that it is the Law of God, 
 which is in the possession of all the people, that is 
 chiefly to blame in this business; that the Law of God . 
 has branded so deep a stigma on Incest, that no human 
 laws can make it deeper , and that, had it not been for 
 the Law of God, and the testimony of conscience that 
 that Law was right, all the efforts of Man to fix such a 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 181 
 
 stigma would have been vain and powerless. But why 
 this Eeclesiastical and Legislative civility to this trans- 
 gression? If Incest be what God declares it to be, “a 
 sin,” “an iniquity,” “a wickedness,” “an abomination,” 
 ‘a land-defiling sin,” shall we not merely wink at it, but 
 solemnly pronounce it innocent. Was God thus civil to 
 the gentlemen and ladies of Canaan and of Israel, who 
 had contracted incestuous marriages? And shall we, in 
 our religious and civil parliaments, from an over-civility to 
 Incest, publicly tell our Maker that he was mistaken ? 
 “Who are we? When were we born? And what do 
 we know ?” 
 
 Shall I be told, further, that if the Laws were to for- 
 bid the marriages now licensed, it would be impossi- 
 ble to execute them? In obeying God, we are not left 
 to the rule of Expediency. This argument, too, if 
 sound, would have prevented God from giving a Law of 
 incest and all other laws restraining impurity. How 
 rank was the hold, which Incest and its kindred crimes 
 had taken of Canaan, and which in the days of Ezekiel 
 they took of Israel. But it is not true. The first 
 inroads on our laws of incest were made at the instiga- 
 tion, and by the secret management, of some of our 
 “ prime nobles,” who had either seduced, or married, or 
 pledzed themselves to marry a wife's sister ; and who 
 wished by this finesse, to escape, at once, public odium 
 and personal responsibility ; just as the Arch-Chancellor 
 of Napoleon, following in their steps, when appointed 
 ’ by his master to draw up the “ Code Penal,” struck out 
 the sin of Sodom from the list of crimes; being himself 
 a notorious and infamous Sodomite. After this first 
 inroad, some other of these disinterested men, wishing to 
 marry his wife's niece, or brother’s wife, moved the 
 wires afresh, and the puppets legalized the already 
 
 16 
 
182 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 formed or proposed connéction. © At length a few of the 
 reverend clergy, being “ men of like passions with other 
 men,” took the double hint of inclination and example; 
 and, with a spirit equally disinterested} justified their 
 “civil fathers,” first by kindly writing’ in defence of the 
 marriage, which they had doubly sanctioned, and ‘imme- 
 diately afterwards by contracting it themselves. Many 
 others in humbler life, compared with none, and yet but 
 few’ on the whole, have formed similar’ connections. 
 But the great majority of the people of any or of all of 
 the States do not wish to contract the marriages in ques- 
 tion, and feel no interest in continuing their legislative 
 sanction. The common voice is not in their favour. 
 Nothing has prevented the prosecution of cases still pro- 
 hibited, but the consideration, that they had occurred 
 through the miserable interference of the Legislature, 
 and the ricketty state of the marriage-acts.. Were’ our 
 laws restored'to their fair form and comely proportion, 
 the practice would be right of course. No offence is so 
 easily detected, as an incestuous marriage ; none con- 
 fined within limits so absolutely definite. And it is’ a 
 gross slander upon the substantial yeomanry of our 
 country, to represent them as so little conscious of moral 
 obligation, that, when under the solemnity of an oath, 
 they will not, upon satisfactory evidence, convict trans- 
 eression. 
 
 Shall I be told, again, that Legislatures are not 
 bound to enforce the Law of God, any further than 
 the Good of the State requires ?—TIf this purely Infidel 
 objection be admitted in the very terms of it, it is easy 
 to show that Obedience to the Laws of God, which for- 
 bid sexual impurity, promotes the best and highest Good 
 of the State. Disobedience to those laws has been, 
 throughout all time, the great, the prominent sin of Man, 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 183 
 
 that, which more, than any other sin, has, corrupted and 
 putrefied the human character. ‘Lewdness,” said a. 
 Monarch,* who was neyer thought strait-laced, either in 
 principle or practice, “is the ruin of Europe ;” and no one 
 of the restraints, with which divine and human sanc- 
 tions have environed it, has ever proved supereroga- 
 tory. On the contrary, all united have not been suffi-’ 
 cient to prevent it from becoming, in any one Christian 
 country, rank and monstrous. The Law of incest, 
 when re-enacted in all its fulness, has not proved an 
 adequate safe-guard to the purity of families; but 
 “the beginning ” of licentiousness, made in the partial 
 repeals of that Law, has been “like the letting out of 
 water.” Were a prophet of God to disclose the facts, 
 he would show us, by a recital of instances tremendous 
 at once for their number and their guilt, that Incestuous 
 lewdness, between a husband and the female relatives 
 of his wife, has been the fearful consequence of this 
 daring inroad on the institutions of God; and that not 
 a few of the marriages between men and their wife’s 
 sisters have been the result of necessity rather than 
 election. 
 
 But I trust, [am not arguing with infidels. If the 
 men who urge this objection believe the Bible, then they 
 believe that Incest, in every degree of it, is “an iniqui- 
 ty,” “a wickedness,” “an abomination,” “a land-defil- 
 ing-sin,” a sin which excites “ the abhorrence,” and pro- 
 vokes “theanger of God,” and which, as existing in one 
 of its forms, an apostle styles a sin, “not so much as 
 named among the Gentiles.” Itis in vain to say, that 
 the guilt of an incestuous marriage is a point to be set- 
 éled between the parties and their God. So is the guilt 
 
 - 
 
 ¥* Louis XIV, wy J 
 
184 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 of adultery and of all the other crimes against good 
 morals; but does that justify the repeal of all laws for- 
 bidding them. Iam well aware that no Legislative 
 sanctions will shield the partiesin the day of trial. But 
 on the Legislators, who legalize Incest, will rest the 
 guilt of “the Son of Nebat who sinned and made Israel 
 to sin.” The Nation, also, which upholds rulers, who 
 thus “make evil, good, and good, evil,” will be sure of a 
 day of coming vengeance. On this point, God has 
 not left us without a witness. The Canaanites, in the 
 midst of palpable darkness, with only a taper to read 
 their unwritten law, were punished, for the practice of 
 Incest and other kindred crimes, with complete and 
 judicial extermination. Of how much sorer punishment 
 then shall we be thought worthy, who, under the blaze of 
 noon-day, publicly trample under foot the Law of God 
 written out in full on the pages of our Bibles, and do 
 despite to his authority as the holy and righteous Go- 
 vernor of the Universe! It is in vain to say that we 
 still forbid the most heinous cases, and permit only those 
 which are the least aggravated. Every one of those 
 which we permit, as well as of those which we forbid, 
 was forbidden to the Iraelites and to the Canaanites ; 
 and, as we have seen, is absolutely forbidden to us; 
 and for all of them, without distinction, the wrath of 
 God without mixture was threatened to the one, and 
 poured out to the uttermost upon the other.—-And why 
 as legislators, and as a people, do we thus venture ?—~ 
 For no earthly reason, but to yield to the wishes of here 
 and there a man of influence, who has contracted, or is 
 bent on contracting, an incestuous marriage. 
 
 Shall I be told, also, that it is in vain for any one 
 State to reform its Law of incest, unless the other 
 States will reform theirs? This is the hackneyed 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 185 
 
 plea, by which the seller of obscene books and pictures, 
 the retailer of strong drink, and the keeper of the 
 brothel, justify their conduct. “ Obscene books and 
 pictures will be sold, strong drink will be retailed, 
 and brothels will be supported, let me continue my 
 business or not; and why should not I,” says each 
 one of these miserable beings, “make a little money, 
 as well as my neighbours?”—Is a crime any the less 
 a crime because others commit it? Was it an excuse 
 to the Israelites for the practice of Incest, that the neigh- 
 bouring nations practised it? God himself answers 
 this question: “For all these abominations have the 
 men of the land done, which were before you; and the 
 land is defiled. ‘That the land spue not you out also, as 
 it spued out the nations that were before you. 'There- 
 fore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not 
 any one of these abominable customs, which were com- 
 mitted before you, and that ye defile not yourselves 
 therein: Iam the Lorp your God.”—-But the plea is 
 not true. Let the due efforts be made in each State, by 
 the men, who fear to sin against God; and the work 
 will be done. As the people at large did not bring about 
 these encroachments on the Law of incest, so they are 
 not anxious to continue these incestuous marriages. 
 They know that there is no such scarcity of females 
 in this country, as to compel its inhabitants to the prac- 
 tice of Incest. ‘They know that the Levitical Law of 
 incest, in its full extent, was quietly submitted to by the 
 nation of Israel, and by the nations of Europe, in- 
 cluding their own fathers, for more than three thou- 
 sand years; and they cannot divine why it has 
 lately proved a yoke, which we Americans are un- 
 able to bear. If, however, some of the States should 
 
 refuse to reform. their statute books, and to forbid inces- 
 16* 
 
186 THE LAW OF INCEST. 
 
 tuous marriage ; the plain Janguage of God to the sur- 
 rounding states is, “Come out from among them, and 
 be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I 
 will be a Father to you; and ye shall be my sons and 
 daughters, saith the Lorp Almighty.” 
 
 Shall I be told, finally, that there are so many, 
 who have contracted incestuous marriages, in our 
 churches, and in our pulpits, that it is not safe to 
 begin the work of reformation 2—What, in similar 
 circumstances, said Moses to Israel; and what, long 
 after, said Ezekiel to Judah ?—Is it then come to this, 
 that they, who.are set as watchmen, to hear the word of 
 God from his mouth, and to warn the people from him, 
 shall be afraid to tell them, that God, their King and 
 their Judge, declares Incest to be ‘‘an iniquity” “a 
 wickedness,” “an abomination,” “a land-defiling sin ;” 
 lest it should disturb the quiet in sin of here and there 
 a member of their churches, and of here and there an 
 associate in the ministry, and thus produce a momen- 
 tary agitation! Did Paul do thus to the Church at 
 Corinth ?— Did Ezra do thus, in a case of far less enor- 
 mity to the Jews, his countrymen, on their return from 
 Babylon ?—If the higher Ecclesiastical Courts would 
 publicly and formally condemn these incestuous mar- 
 riages, and those who celebrate them, in the very lan- 
 guage of that God, whose commission they bear; if the 
 Inferior Courts would resolve, that they would lay 
 hands on none, and associate with none as ministers, 
 who should henceforward, contract them ; if ministers 
 would resolve that henceforward they would celebrate 
 no such marriages; and if the Churches would also 
 resolve, that they would exclude those who hencefor- 
 ward contract them, from their communion, and dis- 
 own them either as ministers of religion, or as members 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 187 
 
 of the Church ;—even if our laws of incest were not at 
 once revised, still the great object in view would be 
 effectually secured. 'The Church of God would cleanse 
 » its own hands of all participation in the guilt of Incest ; 
 the people would see the sin in itself, by the strong un- 
 intercepted light of God’s word, in its true deformity ; 
 and the time is not distant, when the foul stain would be 
 washed from the pages of every statute-book.* 
 
 As to those who have contracted incestuous marriages, 
 under the sanction of anti-scriptural laws, their case is 
 unhappy. When God had commanded Joshua not 
 to spare the Canaanites, the men of Gibeon, terrified by 
 the fate of Jericho and Ai, came to the Israelitish Gene- 
 ral, and, by a gross deception, inveigled him into a so- 
 lemn covenant to spare them and their city. Joshua, 
 three days after, found out the deception, and was 
 wholly at a loss as to his own duty. Here was the ex- 
 press command of God directing him to destroy, and 
 there was the oath of God binding him to save. But 
 God directed him to regard the oath, and fulfil the cove- 
 nant. Plainly, therefore, the persons in question are safe 
 in the practice of Incest, from the Law of the land; and, as 
 the Ecclesiastical courts and the Churches have winked 
 long and hard, at the contraction of these marriages, we 
 
 * The higher Ecclesiastical Courts are bound by another considera- 
 tion to declare to their respective denominations what the Law of God 
 is on this subject, and to condemn most publicly those marriages which 
 are incestuous. Many conscientious persons of both sexes, who are 
 unable to examine the subject for themselves, are wholly at a loss, as 
 to a most important point of duty, and uncertain whether they may 
 lawfully contract certain legalized marriages or not. Some of the 
 Clergy contract them ; and the Courts, if they have not long slept over 
 the subject, have long shut their eyes upon it. To relieve the uncer- 
 tainty of such persons, is one design of these Essays. But the great 
 duty rests upon the Ecclesiastical Courts. 
 
188 THE LAW OF’ INCEST: 
 
 do not see but> that, in good faith, they-are safe from 
 their discipline also.—What an. exemption! What a 
 privilege !———As to their personal duty, “ Non nostrum 
 est tantas componere lites.”—-We do not venture to say 
 that:they can discover it, in the following narrative ;- for 
 the evil guarded against by the Law of incest is, in 
 their case, already done: 
 
 “Tt was the ninth month, and the twentieth day of 
 the month, and all the people sat in the Street-of-the 
 house-of-God, trembling because of this matter. And 
 Ezra the priest said unto them, ‘ Ye have transgressed, - 
 and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass 
 of Israel. Now, therefore, make confession unto the 
 Lorp God of your fathers, and do his pleasure, and 
 separate yourselves from the strange wives’—Then 
 all the Congregation answered:and said, with aloud 
 voice, ‘As thou hast said, so must we do. Let. now 
 our rulers of all the Congregation stand; and: let all 
 them, that have taken strange wives in our cities, come 
 at the appointed time; and: with them the: elders of 
 every city, withthe judges thereof; until the fierce wrath 
 of our God, for this matter, be turned from: us.’— 
 And the Children of the Captivity did so. And Ezra, 
 the priest, with certain of the chief of the fathers, sat 
 down, in the first day of the tenth month, to examine 
 the matter. And they made an end of all the men, 
 that had taken strange wives, by the first day of the 
 first month. And among the sons of the priests, 
 there were found, that had taken strange wives, 
 seventeen: and they gave their hands that they 
 would put away their wives ; and, being guilty, they 
 offered a ram of the flock for their trespass: and of 
 the Levites, six: of the Singers also, one: of the Por- 
 ters, three: moreover of Israel, eighty-five: all these 
 
THE LAW OF INCEST. 189 
 
 (one hundred and twelve) had taken strange wives; and 
 some of them had wives, by whom they had children.” 
 
 Leaving these individuals, then, to seek for better 
 counsel than we can give, we take our leave of the sub- 
 ject. We have stated and explained the Law of incest, 
 and proved its binding force. We have given the testi- 
 mony of God concerning it ; and, in doing so, have not 
 shunned to declare the whole counsel of God. We ap- 
 peal then to those who make our Laws, to those who 
 constitute our Ecclesiastical Courts, to those who minis- 
 ter at the altar, and to the Churches of Christ. We 
 call on them to purify the Church and the Country 
 from this sin. It is the work to which God calls them, 
 and to which in his providence they are appointed. If 
 they will not do it; God will charge on them—on each 
 according to his measure—the guilt, and the consequent 
 pollutions, of the sin of Incest. 
 
 Our work is done. 
 
eek ste set. ha 
 
 wu Pat deoe OF (fe “ eee" ay 5 
 Si ade W svat india okh) oe Siig dad ot orneth ibeua9 
 hie iis wind Y aitiepndttiliges file. dermis duarh BRE a, 
 pas oly suai ae | Fe ‘paibaig Jt hoieuneg eins 
 i Fad (ua gt oe ene; ; tiquidava oO hk? VV elerte 
 a's Nv heii | hoe iy atorbie ada orvahrod.ot Lravets taro 
 he aoiy GP, ae End sdare ode atiely o>: mary fhag 
 = -arattty Ni song) ssi } fa saybee iti aDOCE nia iffarde 
 a Bee, tor dds vie ebeaip be See only ane to) 
 isin Tae oth) oe dvi OY at ¥in ual reel hong PES 
 ATES tas | Hoh daistse or shiove oil of fhe. aisth (aon 
 YE* .Bbralogqar orm. vot a diverts ate aby choad ondute 
 
 ® s t = - 
 th ate ioal? ad ogo Hiv hohe gid ay fore Nie eed 
 i reith va Cie ity hare pitas S {) ) ue 4 mal wr oJ city “¥IGR 
 .. + 
 : ay nett i. } "obs arb 1 ‘anoldlog 
 sao vi dws yO 
 > a ite oe | ‘ 
 - - ‘< 
 & ; ye 
 = os J 
 ” ; ete */ Wa) 
 i fio 7.) LB Gy 
 a + ° a. Oe 
 £ * Das J he , owt ~ 
 Z - ; . ' < + wee 
 - : Wy ‘ a) 
 ee 
 i pie.) . 
 
iy 
 
: ee y Rie ‘) 
 Ta 24 Sie eka Be 
 
 ae ow a « \ y Sy ome , SPS ¢ 
 pier Bigs: ee Tee a Cree ; 
 
 A penta eae eile 
 
 : so ae AE A 
 , aly >t: repre ry rig ‘ie 
 Titles Wie a Tbe 
 ; ye ; Aten 
 te i ery ine ee; Seem 7 
 
 bh ae owl i A ; 
 he a +e y if eae AW 
 
 fey Ne Ra 
 
 j a.) : 5 a F : Hy ee ry ee MSD pee HF §. Lp LOE G, “ea: eat 
 P : aay in : , APs eee a oly ae PR rose ea 
 
 y ‘ ~ 
 vg 4 wee oA pate) A cb et ven 25 il ee ete oe, tosploey Me ant ete op ae mn sore 
 “ . sat. o Phew 3 ra bi i ’ 20 
 PTR apd MOREA Ce RRS chineiy WF a eee sete, 
 Ate en ‘te de tie dah ia Paar . Seated é 
 4 " « 4 -, 
 mi 34 ru4 A ee ~ beg SE 
 Ea ae +a hae at GES. Fas 
 be “ 
 a a bebe os YEP 2 Sng tr 0, satan 
 2 dy / 4 : mig® 
 ) heal ofl Pit ares Ct “hash apt? Aga ats BAP ds wie ak 
 } ‘ ‘le os | oxime Pe au 
 . : ‘apts SOUR nade mp y att hl Le ee Obey angles) e +i 
 ae’ fiver. > er er $- 4 ihe : = “é Se 
 é Gee eA f Re 4A ‘ . 
 PE Yar ee By, Re Ap 
 F S 7 3 rere if 2 
 ay oo BA suite 
 * Pid ee 
 | See ee ere ti, 
 ; Ar Mare 
 e; ine rr : LO, ane Le shfuasion 
 ¥ Pa ie 7 ay) i hr any. Bit F 
 in| yi , : WS ART ; aes 
 fe ae Ge Sot a Rey 
 ’ ‘. * 7 F 4 
 { ey as yh Whaat a veyed . i 
 ae 
 4 a Mt a Ad ea = pte, ta Oe: My oe Ws 
 e ¢ AS oe eek jf Aes te 
 } - ji = ; F pp 
 : b ’ "a. fy ai hy ie oo ae ie 
 4 \ ee ; J - 
 » rll 7 "4 oa 
 q o 
 p : ' 
 
* 
 *. 
 
 a 
 
 LEAVITT, LORD & CO. 
 PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS, 
 No. 180 BROADWAY. 
 
 NEW-YORK. 
 JONATHAN LEAVITT, 
 CHARLES AUSTIN LORD, 
 WIL! AM ROBINSON 
 
 A constant supply of all Books needed in a Theological, Classy 
 cal and Primary Education. Also, 
 
 BIBLES of all the different kinds, from PLAIN and POLY- 
 GLOTT 32mo., to BAGSTER’S elegant FOLIO, London Edition, 
 All the BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES, in common use; A va- 
 riety of HYMN BOOKS. 
 
 SCHOOL BOOKS, in every variety and quantity, at the lowest 
 Pearl-street prices. Country merchants and all wanting books, are 
 requested to call before purchasing elsewhere. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. An assortment of a Reli- 
 gious and Moral Character; with BIOGRAPHIES, MEMOIRS, 
 TRAVELS, &c. &c. 
 
 NEW AMERICAN PUBLICATIONS on every subject of 
 interest, regularly received. 
 
 Among many Valuable Works Published by L. L. & Co, 
 are the following : 
 
 CALMET’S DICTIONARY OF THE BIB” E REVISED, with large 
 nee By Prof. Rosrnson. With ma 3 and plates. Royal 8vo. 
 sheep. 
 
 Also, AN Asaipgment for young persons, wita maps. 12mo. sheep, 
 
 “A sufficient testimony to the excel .ncy of this great Dictionary 
 of the Buble is, that it has been trans atest into the Latia, Dutch, 
 lialian, and Spanish languages. This book is one which, to those 
 who are studying the Bible, it will be expensive not to purchase.”— 
 Spirit of Pilgrims. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PSALMS. No.1, Ps. 1—8, 
 [To be published in pericdical numbers.] By Gro. Busn, Professor of 
 Hebrew and Oriental Literature, in the New-York City University. 
 1834. No. 2 in Press. 5 p : 
 
 As the several Psalms have no special connection with each other, 
 and each of the numbers may be considered complete on the portion it 
 embraces, a periodical issue was thought preferable to a eth of two or 
 three years in publishing the entire work. The numbers will be publisa 
 
 ed at intervals of about three months, at 50 cents a number, and 1 35 
 
 extend to ten or twelve. 
 
 SCOTT’S FAMILY BIBLE, 6 Vols. 8vo. sheep. 
 
Ge 
 
 Works Published by Leavitt, Lord, & Co. 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS OF BARNES’ NOTES. 
 From Abbott’s Religious Magazine. 
 
 We ‘have previously, in a. brief notice, recommended to our readers 
 Barnes’ Notes on the Gospels. _ But a more extended acquaintance with 
 that work has very much increased our sense of its value. We never 
 have opened any commentary on the Gospels, which has afforded us so 
 much satisfaction. Without intending, in the least degree, to disparage 
 the many valuable commentaries which now aid the Christian in the 
 study of the Bible, we cannot refrain from expressing our gratitude to the 
 Author, for the interesting and profitable instructions he has given us.— 
 The volumes are characterized ed the following merits. 
 
 1. The spirit which imbues them is highly devotional. It is a devotion 
 founded on knowledge. It is a zeal guided by discretion. ; 
 
 2. The notes are eminently intellectual. Apparent difficulties are fairiy 
 met. They are either explained, or the want of a fully satisfactory expla- 
 nation admitted. There is none of that slipping by a knot which is too 
 common In many commentaries. " : , 
 
 3. The notes are written in language definite, pointed and forcible. There 
 ig:no interminable flow of lazy words. Every word is active and does its 
 work well. There are no fanciful expositions. There are no tedious dis- 
 Bey of learning. , i ; : 
 
 here may be passages in which we should diffe~ from the writer in 
 some of the minor shades of meaning. There may be sometimes an un- 
 guarded expression which has escaped our notice. We have not scruti- 
 nized the volumes with the eye of a critic. But we have used them 
 in our private reading. We have used them in our family. And we have 
 invariably read them with profit and delight. 
 
 We have just opened the book to select some passage as an illustration 
 of the spirit of the work. The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus now 
 lies before us. The notes explanatory of the meaning of the parables, are 
 fall and to the point. The following are the inferences, which Mr. Barnes 
 
 educes. 
 
 ‘From tnis impressive and instructive parable, we may learn, 
 “1, That the souls of men do not die with their bodies. 
 “2. That the souls of men are conscious after death; that they do not 
 sleep, as some have supposed, till the morning of the resurrection. 
 "3. That the righteous are taken to a place of happiness immediately 
 at death, and the wicked consigned to misery. 
 “4. That wealth does not‘secure us from death. 
 ** How vain are riches to secure 
 Their saughty owners: from the graves 
 “The rich, tne beautiful the gay, as well as. the poor, go down to the 
 grave. All their pomp auu apparel; ali their honors, their palaces and 
 their gold cannot save them. Death can as easily find his way into the 
 mansions of the rich as inio the cottages of the poor, and the rich shall 
 turn to the same corruption, and soon, like the poor, be undistinguished 
 from common dust, and be unknown. f 
 “45. We should not envy the condition of the rich. 
 ** On slippery rocks I see them stand, 
 And fiery bilk ws roll below. 
 ii a should strive for a better inheritance, than can be possessed: in 
 this life. 
 
 ‘** "Now I esteem their mirth and wine, 
 Too dear. to purchase with my blood, 
 Lord ’tis enough that thou art mine, 
 My life, my portion, and my God.’” 
 
 ‘7. The sufferings of the wicked in hell will be indiseribably great. 
 Think what is represented by torment, by burning flame, by insupportable 
 thirst, by that state when a single drop of water would afford relief. Re- 
 member that all this is but a representation of the pains of the damned, 
 and that this will have no relief, day nor night, but will continue from 
 
 2 
 
Works Pubiashed by Leavitt, Lord, & Co. 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS OF BARNES’ NOTES. 
 
 year to year, and age to age, and without any end, and you have a faint 
 view of the sufferings of those who are in hell. 
 
 “8. There isa place of suffering beyond the grave, ahell. If there is 
 not, then this parable has no meaning. It is impossible to make anything 
 of it unless it is designed to teach that. 
 
 . “9. There will never be any escape from those gloomy regions. There 
 is a gulf fixed—fixed, not moveable. Nor can any of the damned beat a 
 pathway across this gulf, to the world of holiness. 
 
 10. We see the amazing folly of those, who suppose there may be an 
 end to the sufferings of the wicked, and who on that supposition seem 
 willing to go down to hell to suffer a long time, rather than go at once to 
 
 eaven. If man were to suffer but a thousand years, or even one year, 
 why should he be so foolish as to choose that suffering, rather than go at 
 once to heaven, and be happy at once when he dies? 
 
 ““I1. God gives us warning sufficient to prepare fordeath. He has sent 
 his word, his servants, his son; he warns us by his Spirit and his provi- 
 dence, by the entreaties of our friends, and by the death of sinners. He 
 offers us heaven, and he threatens hell. If all this will not move sinners, 
 what would doit? There is nothing that would. 
 
 “12. God will give us nothing farther to warn us. No dead man will 
 tome to life, to tellus what he has seen. If he did, we would not believe 
 him. Religion appeals to man, not by ghosts and frightful apparitions. 
 It appeals to their reason, their conscience, their hopes, and their fears.— 
 It sets life and death soberly before men, and if they will not choose the 
 former they must die. If you will not hear the Son of God, and the truth 
 of the Scriptures, there is nothing which you will or can hear; you will 
 never be persuaded, and never will escape the place of torment.” 
 ~ Tf we have any influence with our readers. we would recommend them 
 to buy these volumes. There is hardly any Christian in the /and, who will 
 not find them an invaluable treasure. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from a distinguished Divine of New England. 
 
 It (Barnes’ Notes) supplies an important and much needed desideratum 
 in the means of Sabbath School and Bible Class instruction. | 
 
 Without descending to minute criticism, or attempting a display of 
 learning. it embraces a wide range of general reading, and brings out the 
 results of anextended and careful investigation of the most important 
 sources of Biblical knowledge. | ha aie’ : 
 
 The style of the work is as it should be, plain, simple, direct; often 
 vigorous and striking; always serious and earnest. : 
 
 Tt abounds in fine analyses of thought and trains of argument, admira- 
 bly adapted to aid Sabbath School leachers in their responsible duties : 
 often too, very useful to Ministers when called suddenly to prepare for 
 religious meetings, and always helpful in conducting the exercises of a 
 Bible Class. r ; 
 
 Without vouching for the correctness of every explanation and sentiment 
 contained in the Notes, its author appears to have succeeded very nappily 
 in expressing the mind of the Holy Spirit as revealed in those parts of the 
 New Testament which he has undertaken to explain. | 
 
 The theology taught in these volumes, drawn as it Is from the pure 
 fountain of truth, is eminently common sense and practical. 
 
 It has little to do with theory cr speculation. y 
 
 The author appears not to be unduly wedded to any particular school or 
 system of theology, but co havea mind trained to habits of independent 
 thinking, readily submissive to the teachings of inspiration, but in isposed 
 to call any man master, or to set up anything in opposition to the plain 
 
 testimony of the Bible. 
 
 We would here say, once for all, we consider Barnes’ Notes the best 
 commentary for families we have seen.—N. E. Spectator, 
 3 
 
Works Published by Leavitt, Lord, & Co. 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS OF BARNES’ NOTES. 
 
 Ir the degree of popular favor with which a work of biblical instrue- 
 tion is received by an intelligent Christian community be a just criterion 
 of its value, the volumes which the Rev. Mr. Barnes 1s giving the Church 
 are entitled to a high place in the scale of merit.—_ N. Y. Evangelisé. 
 
 From Review of the Gospels in Biblical Repertory. 
 
 We have only to say further, by way of introduction, that we admire 
 the practical wisdom evinced by Mr. Barnes in selecting means by which 
 to act upon the public mind, as well as his self-denying diligence in labor- 
 ing to supply the grand defect of our religious education. Masterly expo- 
 sition, in a popular form, is the great desideratum of the Christian public. 
 
 The Notes are always readable, and almost always to the point. No- 
 thing appears to have been said for the sake of saying something. This is 
 right. It is the only principle on which our books of popular instruction 
 can be written with success. Its practical value is evinced by the exten- 
 sive circulation of the work before us, as well as by the absence of that 
 heaviness and langour, which inevitably follow from a verbose style, or the 
 want of a definite object. Se! 
 
 Mr. Barnes’ explanations are in general brief and clear, comprising 
 the fruit of very diligent research. : 
 
 We have been inuch pleased with his condensed synopsis of the usual 
 arguments on some disputed points, as well as with his satisfactory solu- 
 tion of objections. ee 
 
 But Mr. Barnes’ has not been satisfied with merely explaining the 
 language of the text. He has taken pains to add those illustrations which 
 verbal exposition, in the strict sense cannot furnish. The book is rich in 
 archeological information. All that could well be gathered from the coin- 
 mon works on biblical antiquities, is wrought into the Notes upon those 
 passages which need such elucidation. 
 
 In general we admire the skill with which he sheds the light of arche- 
 ology and history upon the text of scripture, and especially the power of 
 compression which enables him to crowd a mass of knowledge into a 
 narrow space without obscurity. 
 
 While the explanation of the text is the primary object kept in view 
 throughout these notes, religious edification is by no means slighted. 
 a pee devotional and practical remarks bear a due proportion to 
 the whole. 
 
 From what we have said it follows of course, that the work before us 
 has uncommon merit. Correct explanation, felicitous illustration, and 
 impressive application, are the characteristic attributes of a successful 
 commentary. Thou h nothing can be added in the way of commendation 
 which is not iivolyed! in something said already, there are two detached 
 points which deserve perhaps to be distinctly stated. We are glad to see 
 that Mr. Barnes not only shuns the controversial mode of exposition. but 
 often uses expressions on certain disputed subjects, which in their obvious 
 sense, convey sound doctrine in its strictest form. What variety of 
 meaning these expressions may admit of, or are likely to convey, we do 
 not know; but we are sure that in their simple obvious meaning they are 
 strongly Calvanistic in the good old sense. 
 
 The other point to which we have alluded is Mr. Barnes’ frankness 
 and decision in condemning fanatical extravagance and inculcating Christ- 
 ian prudence. 
 
 With respect to Mr. Barnes’ style we have little to say beyond a gene- 
 ralcommendation. The pains which he has wisely faken to be brief, 
 have compelled him to write well. 
 
 4 
 
Works Published by Leavitt, Lord, G Co. 
 , 
 THE SOCIAL FIRE-SIDE LIBRARY. 
 FIRE-SIDE SERIES. A series of 18mo volumes, (of a popular and 
 practical character,) of original and select works prepared expressly for 
 it, illustrating the religious and moral duties of life, family duties and 
 responsibilities, especially those of parents to children, and children to 
 parents, &c. The plan, in a word, includes all those subjects which 
 may afford useful interesting family reading. Severa! volumes, embel- 
 lished with steel engravings, are already publishcu, others are in press, 
 from the pensof Rev. Messrs. H. Hooker, T. H. Gallaudet, (late Prin- 
 cipal of the American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb,) Jacob Abbott, 
 (author of the Young Christian,) and others, equally distinguished for 
 their success in writing for children. _ These volumes consist of 250 
 pages, retail at 50 cents, and are sold singly or in sets, as preferred. 
 Vol. I.—Fire-Sive Piety. 
 Vol. II.—Tue Moruer’s Frienp. 
 Vol. II.—Cuina ano THE Enauisu. 
 Vol. IV.—Reat Diatocues on THE Evipences or CurisTIANITY. 
 
 JUVENILE SERIES.—A new series of small volumes, designed for the 
 moral and religious improvement of children, has just been commenced. 
 
 Vol. I.—Way ror A CuiLp TO BE SAVED. 
 Vol. I1.—Every Day Dury. 
 CHILD’S BOOK on the Sabbath. By Rev. H. Hooxer. Giving in an 
 
 intelligent but interesting style an account of the institution of the Sab- 
 bath, its change, design, 1nieans of observance, &c. &e. 
 
 BIBLE STORIES for children. By Rev. T. H. Gattacpet. 
 
 CHILD AT HOME, or the principles cf Fihal Duty familiarly illus- 
 trated, By J.S. C. Assorr. 
 
 With man~ other valuable and interesting books suitable for childrer: 
 and youth, and for Sabbath School Libraries., 
 
 THE EVERY DAY CHRISTIAN. By Rev. T. H. Gatravuper. 
 
 MOTHER AT HOME, or principles of Maternal Duty familiarly il- 
 lustrated. By J. S.C. Assorr. 
 
 FAMILY AT HOME, or familiar illustrations of the various Domestio 
 Duties. By G. D. Assorrt. 
 
 PIKE’S GUIDE TO YOUNG DISCIPLES. 
 
 PIKE’S RELIGIOUS AND ETERNAL LIFE, or Irreligion and Per 
 petual Ruin. 
 
 DAILY DUTIES. By A Married Lady. 12mo. 
 
 PAYSON’S FAMILY SERMONS. Sermons for Caristian Families, 
 by Epwarp Payson, D. D. 18ma. 
 
 EVENING EXERCISES for the Closet, for every day in the year. 
 By Wm. Jay. Stereotype edition. The superior excellence of this 
 work is universally admitted. Several thousand copies have already 
 
 been circulated. 
 PORTER’S RHETORICAL READER, 16th edition. 
 
 PORTER’S ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF RHET RIC.AL 
 DELIVERY. 
 
 STONE’S CHILD’S READER, on anew and popular plan, 18n°0, 
 
Works Published by Leavitt, Lord, & Co. 
 
 MEMOIRS OF HARLAN PAGE. 
 
 ‘BIOGRAPHIES OF DR. PAYSON, MRS. HUNTINGTON, BURDER, 
 HALYBURTON, J.B. TAYLOR, &c. 
 
 MEMOIR OF Mrs. MIRON WINSLOW, late Missionary to India. 
 By her husban1, Rev. Miron Winstow. Ina neat 12mo. with a Por- 
 trait. 
 
 WILBERFORCE’S PRACTICAL VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY, with 
 an Introductory Essay, by the Rev. Danie, Wuitson, D. D. 18mo. 
 . new edition, with a steel portrait. 
 
 DR. PAYSON’S SELECT THOUGHTS. 32mo. 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS OFFERING. Here the religious portion of the 
 reading community are presented with a book, that will carry to their 
 children and friends, in as attractive a form as possible, those great 
 truths that relate to man as a moral, responsible, and religious being. 
 
 POLYMICRIAN TESTAMENT. 32mo. This Testament contains a 
 very copious selection of really iets passages, being, with some ad- 
 ditions, the same as are found in the English Polyglot. It has the 
 varioug readings in a centre column, and short explanatory notes, that 
 will be acceptable to a numerous class of readers—besides 5 maps illus- 
 trative of the holy theatre of Christ’s and his apostles’ labors. This 
 multum in parvo book is ornamented by a page exhibiting specimens 
 of 48 different languages. 
 
 BARNES’ “SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT OF EPISCOPACY” EX- 
 AMINED. 1Smo. 
 
 BUTLER’S ANALOGY OF RELIGION, with an Essay by Rev. A. 
 Barnes. Stereotype edition. 12mo. ; 
 
 ELEMENTS OF MENTAL AND MORAL SCIENCE, designed to 
 exhibit the Original Susceptibilities of the Mind, and the Rules b 
 which the Rectitude of any of its states of feeling should be judge 
 By Georce Payne, D. D. Second American edition, in one volume, 
 i2mo. 
 
 ZINZENDORFF, A New Onicinat Porm, by Mrs. Sigourney, with 
 
 minor Poems. In a neat 12mo. volume. . 
 
 LECTURES ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION. By Rev. C. G. Frx- 
 ney, of Chatham-street Chapel, New-York. 1 vol. 12mo. 
 
 FOREIGN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 
 By ‘“ Brutus.” 2d. edition. 
 
 JUDGE JAY ON COLONIZATION AND ANTI-SLAVERY. 12ma, 
 2d. edition. 
 
 BIOGRAPHIA LITERARIA, or Sketches of my Literary Life and Opin- 
 ions. By S. T. CoLterines. New edition.  8vo. 
 
 NATURAL HISTORY OF ENTHUSIASM, 4th edition. 
 
 SATURDAY EVENING. By the same author. 4th edition. 12mo, 
 
 FANATICISM. By the same author. 
 
 POLITICAL DESPOTISM. By thesame. Just Published. 
 
 HEBREW GRAMMAR. By Geo. Busn, Professor of Oriental Lan 
 ~ guages in the New-York University. 
 
 MOTHER’S PRIMER, to teach a child its letters, and how to read, By 
 Rev. T. H. GaLtaupet. 
 
LEAVITT, LORD & CO’S LIST 
 
 of some of the more important 
 
 STANDARD WORKS, 
 
 On various subjects, which may always be obtained at the lowest prices. 
 
 1. COMMENTARIES 
 On the whole Scriptures. 
 
 SCOTT, in 6 volumes or 3. FAMILY COMMENTARY, 1 volume, 
 HENRY, in 6 volumes or 3. COMPREHENSIVE do. 
 
 CLARKE, in 6 volumes or3. MANT & D’OYLEY, 2 volumes. 
 GILL, 9 volumes 4to. 
 
 On: the New Testament. 
 
 BARNES’ NOTES. ON THE GOSPELS, in 2 volumes. 
 
 Do. do. ACTS, in 1 volume. 
 
 Do. do. ROMANS, in 1 volume. 
 BURKITT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 DODDRIDGE’S PARAPHRASE, &c. in 1 volume. 
 MACKNIGHT ON THE EPISTLES, in 1 volume. 
 STUART ON THE HEBREWS, in | volume. 
 
 Do. ON THE ROMANS, in 1 volume. 
 BLOOMFIELD’S CRITICAL DIGEST, in 8 volumes. 
 
 German Authors. 
 
 CALVIN, HEGSTENBERG, NEANDER, 
 
 DE’ WETTE, HUG, ROSENMUELLER, 
 EICHORN, KUINOEL, TITTMANN, 
 FLATT, KOPP, THOLUCK. 
 GESENIUS, LUCKE. 
 
 2. THEOLOGY AND DIVINITY. 
 The Complete Works of 
 
 BARROW, 7 vols. FOSTER. LIGHTFOOT, 13 vols. 
 BAXTER, 23 vols. FULLER, 2 vols: MASON, 4 vols. 
 BERKELEY, 3 vols. GURNALL, 4 vols. NEWTON, (Bp.) 1 vob 
 BEVERIDGE, 10 vols. HENRY, 1 vol. NEWTON, (J.) 2 vols 
 BICKERSTETH, 1 vol. HERVEY, 6 vols. OWEN, 21 vols. 
 BUTLER, (Bp.) 1 vol. HOOKER. PALBY, 6 vols. 
 BUNYAN, | vol. HORNE, (Bp.) 1 vol. SECKER, 6 vols. 
 CAMPBELL, 3 vols, HORNE, (T. H.) 4 vols. SMITH, (J. P.) 4 vols. 
 CALMET, 1 vol. HALL, (Bp.) 2 vols. SHERLOCK, 5 vols. 
 DICK, 4 vols. HALL, (Robt.) 3 vols. SIMEON, 21 vols. 
 DODDRIDGE, 1 vol. HORSELEY, 1 vol. TAYLOR, (Jer.) 5 vols 
 DWIGHT, 4 vols. HOWE, (Jno.) Ivol. TOPLADY, 6 vols. 
 EDWARDS, 10 vols: JAHN, 1 vol. WARBURTON. 
 ERSKINE. JAY, (Wm.) 3 vols. WARDLAW. 
 
 FABER. LARDNER, 10 vols. WATTS. 
 
 FLAVEL, 6 vols. ~ LEIGHTON, 1 vol. 
 
Leavitt, Lord, & Cos s Catalogue. 
 
 3. ETHICS, MORALS, ELOQUENCE, &c. 
 
 ABERCROMBIE, COLERIDGE, LOCKE, 
 ALISON, COMBE, PAINE, 
 BACON, DEWAR, REID, 
 BROWN, DEGERANDO, SPURZHEIM, 
 BURKE, DYMOND, STEWART, 
 EURTON, GOOD, WAYLAND 
 
 4. HISTORY. 
 
 UNITED STATES.—Bancroft’s, 5 vols.—Grahame's, 2 vols.— 
 Holmes’s, 2 vols.—Pitkin, 2 vols. 8vo.—Ramsay, 3 vola.— 
 Willard’s, 1 vol. 
 
 ENGLAND.—Goldsmith—Hume, Smollett, ¢- Miller, 4 vols.— 
 Hallam, 3 vols.—Lingard, 12 vols.—Mackintosh, 1 vol. 8vo. 
 
 SCOTLAND.—Scott, 2 vols.—Robertson, 1 vol. ‘ 
 
 EUROPE, (Mopern. )—Russell G- Jones, 3 vols.—Robertson’s Charits > 
 V.—Heeren’s Polit. System, 2 vols.—Crowe’s France, 3 vals.— 
 Sismondi’s Italy, 1 vol.—Grattan’s Netherlands, 1 vol.—Fletch- 
 er’s Poland, 1 vol.—Mills’s Chivalry and Crusades, 4 vols.— 
 Venetian History, 2 vols.—Florence, 2 vols. 
 
 ANCIENT, (Universat.)—Rollin, 2 vols., 4 vols. or 8 vols.— 
 
 Heeren, 1 vol. 
 Greecr.— Gillies’, 1 vol.—F'rost, 1 vol.—Heeren, 1 vol.— 
 Mitford, 8 vols. 
 
 Romr.—F'erguson, 1 vol.—Hooke, 3 vols.—Livy, (by Ba- 
 ker,) 2 vols.— Tacitus, 1 vol.—Gidbon’e Decline 
 and Fall, 1 vol. or 4 vols. 
 
 Arrica.—Heeren, 2 vols.—As1a.—Heeren, 3 vols. 
 Eeypt.—Russell, 18mo.—PALEsTInNE.—Russell, 18mo. 
 Tue Jews.— Millman, 3 vols. 
 
 UNIVERSAL.—Frost, 1 vol.—Muller, 4 vols.—Robbins, 1 vol.— 
 Tytler, 1 vol.— Whelpley, 1 vol. 
 ECCLESIASTICAL.— Goodrich, (Elements,) 12mo. 
 
 Marsh, do. 12mo. 
 
 Milner, with continuation, 1 vol. 8vo. 
 Mosheim, do. 3 vols. or 2 vols. 
 Waddington, do. 1 vol. 
 
 Burnet’s Reformation in England, 4 vols. 
 Eusebius’s Ecc. Hist. First Six Centuries, 1 vol. 
 Scott’s Lutheran Reformation, 2 vols. 18mo. 
 Smedley’s Reformed Religion in France. 
 
 Winslow's Sketch of Missions, 12mo. 
 
 History of Popery, 12mo. Of the Inquisition, 12mo. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 Vv 
 = hi 
 a a ee 
 
 $i WV 4 "3 
 
 etéa Og iL, 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 PRINTEDINU. SA 
 
ene’ 
 
 ty i MIN 
 | fe iin tl 
 
 : i ‘ i 
 u i Ui 
 
 / ; f 
 
 ) 
 | 
 i 
 | 
 
 ——————— 
 ——=> 
 ——S—= 
 
 | 
 ‘ 
 
 SS ——————————— 
 = 
 i 
 
 f 
 I, bos 
 
 —— 
 
 = S—OOSSS=—__ <= a 
 
 Ss