Supposing that the law in Leviticus is still in force, that marriage is the subject of it, and that it is to be applied constructively, a fourth question arises, which is, whether there is any fair construction of that law by which it forbids marriage with the sister or the niece of the deceased wife? Neither of them is near of kin to the husband; they are not the remainder of his flesh, as some translate the words, which in our version of the Bible, are translated near of kin. We believe that this application of the statutes proceeds on the ground, that a man is forbidden to approach to his own sister, his aunt, or the wife of his uncle; but how the former prohibitions can be inferred, from the latter, is quite beyond our comprehension.

We proceed to mention five circumstances to which the prohibitory laws in the 18th of Leviticus might have respect, if they related to marriage, which is very unlikely : 1st. There are some relations with whom no man ever desires to marry, as, for instance, his grandmother, greatgrandmother, &c. 2d. Some cases of consanguinity are regarded. 3d. Some cases of affinity. 4th. The law of primogeniture, which accounts for the directions respecting marriage to the widows of brothers. 5th. The prerogative of the husband to rule his own house, which may account for his being excluded from a greater number of females that are his seniors, than those that are his juniors. Mr. Dwight remarks that, were we to look for that 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 who have married young wives. If the author speaks of cases where the disparity of age is very great, he is probably right, for extremes meet. Old age is second childhood. But the registers of marriages will prove, that the average age of the husband in every country where registers are kept, is greater than that of the wife. This seems to be far more conducive than the reverse state of things, to good order in families and in society.

The title of any publication is expected to express the principal subject treated of; but other subjects may be discussed in it. The title to the statutes in the 18th of Leviticus is nearness of kin; but that does not prevent the writer from introducing various other subjects-various cases where there is no relationship. Mr. Dwight understands

the statutes in that chapter as extending to various cases where there is no nearness of kin, and indeed no relationship at all; of course he cannot reasonably object to our specifying a few apparent grounds of the prohibitions, besides the one mentioned in their title. We believe that if those statutes related to marriage, the five circumstances mentioned would account for them all, and would also show that the list is complete. But the difficulty with the author is, that if this list is complete, he cannot teach men their moral duties by mathematics. The ground over which the prohibitions extend will not form a circle. True it will not form a circle, but we see no necessity that it should, and we are willing to take Moses just as we find him. Those who differ widely from us on the question at issue will tell us, that they do not desire to add to the writings of Moses, but only to explain them. If they intend only to explain them, there can be no objections to that; but it appears that what they call an explanation of his laws is a constructive application, which will serve their purpose just as well as the prerogative of making additions to them. With the power of applying the statutes constructively, they are so far from requiring any more of them, that they could dispense with the most of those which Moses has left, and accomplish their purpose just as well by the few that would remain. If the constructive interpretation and mathematics ought to be used in explaining the laws of Moses, it was quite unnecessary for him to insert in his list two aunts, three sisters, and two granddaughters; since if he inserted one of each, by the prohibition on the constructive plan he would forbid all the rest.

The constructive plan makes the prohibitions expressed, and those not expressed, to form two circles, the man standing in the centre of the one, and the woman of the other; but neither of them is allowed to marry within either the one circle or the other. Now observe first, that the ground as measured out by Moses is not circular in either case, but forms quite an irregular figure; secondly, the parties do not stand in the centres. The ground in each case is an inclined plane; the man stands on his, one third of the diameter from the upper boundary; the prohibitory lines from him extend twice as far downward, among his descendants as upward among his ancestors. They extend back only to his mother, but they reach downward to his grand-daughter.

The woman stands on a similar plane, but just the reverse of the man: she stands two-thirds of the diameter from the upper extremity. The lines from her extend back to her grandfather, but not down to her grandson. Enough of this; so long as we have the Bible, we shall not try to teach people their duty by a pair of compasses.

The tremendous discipline which the author would inflict on some good Christians, ought to be vindicated by very strong arguments. Now let it be observed that a conclusion may be supported either by a number of independent arguments, or by a number so united as to form one chain: and whether a chain be formed of argument, or of steel, its whole strength is exactly the strength of its weakest link. If we suspend a body of a thousand pounds weight upon four separate links, each of them of strength sufficient to support two hundred and fifty pounds, the whole mass is supported but if we suspend the whole on one chain, the weakest link must either be of strength sufficient to support a thousand pounds weight, or, whatever the number and strength of the other links, the whole body must fall. The arguments used by the author and his fellow labourers to justify the church in giving over to Satan all those who have entered into the marriage relations which he objects to, form only one chain, and suspended from the 18th of Leviticus. The first link in it is, that the statutes in that chapter are laws to the Christian world; the second, that the subject of them is incestuous marriage; the third, that they are to be applied constructively to cases which they do not specify; and the fourth, that by fair construction they forbid a man to marry the sister or niece of his deceased wife. We have no confidence in the strength of any link in this chain; but though there were three of them of the greatest strength imaginable, yet if there is one of them too weak, the whole argument fails, and the supposed offenders have a right to remain in the church, or to enter into it, if otherwise worthy. We have endeavoured to try the strength of all these arguments in the course of this review, and are convinced that every one of them fails.

In addition to the principal arguments employed by the author, he has a few remarks which claim a passing notice. He tells us that Herod was reproved by John the Baptist for having his brother Philip's wife; but he forgets to tell us, that Philip was then alive, that consequently Herod was

living in open violation of the seventh commandment. He notices the case of the Corinthian who had his father's wife, but does not tell us, that his was another case of adultery. The apostle mentions him that suffered the wrong, as well as him that did the wrong; hence it seems the father was a living sufferer from the wicked conduct of his son. It is granted that adultery is aggravated by relationship, and by various other circumstances, even when there is no relationship.

To reconcile the public to his views, the author remarks, that there is no scarcity of females. In most parts of the world this holds true. But does this justify us, in casting people out of the church for acts that are not contrary to any law of God, nor to the peace and order of society. It was not ungracious in God to forbid the use of one tree in paradise, but it would not have been well for a fellow creature, even though an angel, to forbid the use of a few more, and say to our first parents, "Ye have enough without them." Our author's reasoning here is the same which is often used by the aged miser, when from pecuniary considerations alone, he crosses the affections of his children.

In page 51, Mr. Dwight asserts that the law of incest had remained unaltered under the care of the Jewish church for fifteen centuries, and under that of the Christian church for more than seventeen centuries. On the other hand, the learned Selden, who flourished about two hundred years ago, affirms that marriage with one's wife's sister was practised among the Jews. Only one sect (the Karats) condemned such alliances, and their other rules on the subject of marriage are such that they cannot be regarded as any authority. They even forbade marriage between two whose parents had married together. It would seem that the first instance of opposition to marriage with a sister-in-law was in the reign of Constantine, when marriage came to be in a measure discouraged, as it ever since has been in the church of Rome.

If the incest law which Mr. Dwight contends for had been acted on by the apostles, they would have had immense trouble with their converts previously married according to the customs of the countries where they had lived. But we cannot find that they or the primitive Christians ever had any difficulty with that subject. It would seem that

If

they respected as valid the marriages contracted according to the different laws of the countries whither they went. Mr. Dwight were to go out as a foreign missionary we believe that his views of the marriage question would bring him into some difficulties which the apostles never encountered, and difficulties which would impede the progress of the gospel.

The desire of confining this review within moderate bounds has led us to pass over in silence several parts of this volume, in which the author successfully replies to some of the more absurd arguments of his opponents, or laughs them down as they deserve. Though generally speaking we agree not with his views, and are not convinced by his arguments, we can freely recommend his volume for good suggestions to all who wish to investigate the subject. We applaud his zeal for moral purity, according to his own views of it. We return him our thanks for his labour in the cause; and though differing widely from his principles of interpretation, we think we have profited by his learned and laboured researches.

ART. VI. MOURNING APPAREL.

No usage prevails more widely, than that of employing rites in the deploration and commemoration of the dead. These rites, indeed, take different forms according to national character. In the East, they, in common with all things else, are marked by passion and excess; and hence, as would be anticipated, occupy a briefer period of time. Among occidental nations, they continue longer, and have more of sobriety and moderation. Those of savage tribes often embody much that is gross, and much that is foreign to their design; while those of civilized nations participate in the general purity and delicacy of cultured feeling. But there is, nevertheless, in the midst of this diversity, unity