the customs of the one, and the worship of the other, and thus prepared the nation's mind for such future impressions as God designed to make upon it.

After the mind of the Hebrews was thus disenchanted from the worship of the gods of Egypt, which, in effect, resembled the sorcery of the fabled Circe, whose enchantments turned men into swine, they are thus introduced to and made acquainted with the holiness of the true Lord:

"In the out-set, the animals of Palestine were divided by command of Jehovah into clean and unclean. From the class distinguished as more pure than the other, one was selected to offer as a sacrifice. It was not only to be chosen from clean beasts, but as an individual, it was to be without spot or blemish. This sacrifice the people were not deemed worthy in their own person to offer unto Jehovah; but it was to be offered by a class of men who were distinguished from their brethren, and set apart for the service of the priest's office. Thus the idea of purity originated from two sources, the purified priest and the pure animal purified entered into the offering of the sacrifice. But before the sacrifice could be offered, it was washed with clean water, and the priest had, in some cases, to wash himself and officiate without his sandals. Thus, when one process of comparison after another had attached the idea of superlative purity to the sacrifice; in offering it to Jehovah, in order that the contrast between the purity of God and the highest degrees of earthly purity might be seen, neither priest, people, nor sacrifice, was deemed worthy to come into his presence, but it was offered in the court, without the Holy of Holies." pp. 75-76. Thus was the idea of holiness conveyed into minds before destitute of it, and therefore incapable of attaining to it.

And thus the whole "Mosaic machinery," so wearisome in its details, to the young, in the hands of our author becomes a mighty moral engine, every part of which is instinct with a living faculty, working toward some grand moral end. And precepts, and promises, and altars, and sacrifices, and priests, and statutes, and purifyings, and sprinklings of water and of blood, appear one vast system of moral screw-blocks, and cords, and pullies, to raise the human character from the slime-pits of Egypt, where it lay among the pots, a thing of brute passions, intent on their gratification, to the summit of

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

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

ARTICLE VII.

THE LEVITICAL LAW OF INCEST.

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

EDITORIAL REMARKS.

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

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

༣

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

viz. :

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

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

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