the next of his kin, she-êr, in his clan or division of the tribe. (Not in his family, as in the English version.) But inheritance went only by blood, never by affinity; and in this very instance it passed over all the nearest relatives by affinity to go to a blood-kinsman however remote. For a like reason, the daughters of Zelophehad first, and afterwards every heiress, was required to marry within her own clan or division of the same tribe; Num. 36, 1-10. This Hebrew word, therefore, did not of itself include even the nearest degree of affinity. The Seventy also understood it in the same restricted sense; and have always rendered it by some form of oixos, oxitios, and the like, implying a relationship in one's own house or family, that is, by blood; and not contracted from abroad by marriage. Further, the addition here of the other Hebrew word be-sa-ro," of his flesh," renders the expression still more specific, and ranks it as equivalent to " flesh of his own flesh."

But, it is said, this expression is not only used of those who are truly connected by ties of blood; but is likewise sometimes applied to the relationship of those who are merely of the same tribe; and further also to the relationship in which any one man stands to any other man. 2 Sam. 19, 12. Is. 58, 7. It is hence inferred, that "a word thus comprehensive cannot be tied down to indicate exclusively the near connexion between blood-relations. To say the least, it may include any relationship in which one man can stand to another. What it does mean in any particular case must be decided by the context."

To this last position all must assent. But in the objection which precedes, so far as it has any application to the point in question, there seems to be a fallacy. That a word is sometimes. figuratively used in a wider and more general sense, surely does not imply that the same word may not have its own fixed and definite meaning, which is not to be departed from unless the context requires it. Thus the term brother, than which no word in any language is in itself more definite and limited, is yet employed in the Old Testament to express the relationship of any blood-kindred, and also one of the same tribe, a fellow-countryman, an ally, a friend, and even a fellow-man. See the Lexicons. Yet, probably, no one will contend that for this reason the word "brother," in Lev. 18,

16, ought to be taken in any other than its primitive and most limited sense; and the very same principle must hold true in respect to the phrase "flesh of his flesh," in v. 6, unless there is something in the context to the contrary.

Philology, then, confines the prohibition in v. 6, in itself considered, to blood-kindred. But how is this borne out by the subsequent verses? I agree with Dr. Hodge, that "all that follows is only the amplification and application of this general rule, showing what degrees of nearness of kin constitute a bar to marriage." These verses are obviously not a definition of what is meant by "flesh of his flesh;" but rather contain specifications intended to cover the chief ground, and to remove doubt in cases where doubt could possibly exist. Hence, where there could be no possible doubt as to the meaning of "flesh of his flesh," no specification is given; as in the case of one's own daughter. In this way this otherwise inexplicable omission is readily accounted for. But in cases where doubt could arise, or where there could be any possible evasion, a specific prohibition is subjoined. Hence the wife's daughter is expressly prohibited in verse 17; because, although no one can doubt, that my own daughter is "flesh of my flesh," yet it might be a possible question, whether my step-daughter is to be so regarded.

In the subsequent verses, from v. 7 to 17 inclusive, which comprise all the specifications except the one mainly in dispute, we shall (I think) find the distinction above pointed out, between affinity through blood and affinity by my own marriage.

Verse 7.-The Hebrew reads thus: "The nakedness of thy father, and (i. e. even) the nakedness of thy mother, thou shalt not uncover." That this is the true rendering is obvious from the reason assigned, “she is thy mother;" showing that only the mother is meant. Compare also v. 8. This of course is bloodkindred; and the parallel by affinity would be the wife's mother. But is she also included in this prohibition? If so, why then the specific prohibition in verse 17?

Verse 8.-Step-mother; affinity through blood. Compare Lev.
Parallel, by affinity through marriage, is the wife's step-

20, 11. mother.

Verse 9.-Sister; blood. Parallel, by affinity, is the wife's sister; the very point in dispute."

Verse 10.-Grand-daughter; blood. Parallel by affinity, the wife's grand-daughter, specially prohibited in verse 17.

Verse 11.-Half-sister; blood. See under verse 9.

Verse 12.-Father's sister; blood. Compare Lev. 20, 19. Parallel, wife's father's sister.

Verse 13.-Mother's sister; blood. Parallel, wife's mother's sister.

Compare Lev. 20, 19.

Verse 14.-Paternal uncle's wife; affinity through blood. Compare Lev. 20, 20. Parallel, wife's paternal uncle's wife.

Verse 15.-Son's wife; affinity through blood. Parallel, wife's son's wife.

Verse 16.-Brother's wife; affinity through blood. Compare Lev. 20, 21. Parallel, not the wife's sister, as is often assumed; but the wife's brother's wife. That is, if affinity be the same with consanguinity, my wife's sister is as my own sister; my wife's brother as my own brother; and therefore, my wife's brother's wife, as my own brother's wife. But is this a forbidden degree? Had the Rev. Mr. McQueen, instead of marrying his wife's sister, married her brother's widow, would it have been thought necessary to prefer charges against him?

Thus far the lawgiver has reference specifically to degrees of kindred by blood, and to those resulting from the marriage of my blood-relatives. He now turns to those arising out of my own marriage.

Verse 17.-Wife's mother, daughter, and grand-daughter; that is, the blood-kin of my wife's own body. Compare Lev. 20, 14.

We have then six degrees of blood-relationship specifically prohibited, viz. mother, sister, half-sister, grand-daughter, father's sister, mother's sister. The omission here of the daughter is striking; but is to be accounted for as above. We have also four forbidden degrees of affinity through blood; that is, the wives of four near blood-relatives, viz. father's wife (step-mother), paternal uncle's wife, brother's wife, son's wife. The ground of the prohibition is here expressly given, viz. that they belong to my blood, and their nakedness is the nakedness of my blood-relatives, father, uncle, brother, son. There are also three degrees of the wife's

kindred forbidden, (omitting verse 18 for the present,) viz. her mother, daughter, and grand-daughter; and the reason assigned is, that they are her "flesh," the blood or fruit of her own body, with whom I have cohabited. There is here no allusion to her collateral blood-kin of any degree; but only to that blood ascending and descending, of which her own body is the centre,-that of which her body is the fruit, and that which is the fruit of her body.

Now in all these specifications, we may trace one general principle, forming the rule of prohibition on the ground of blood, under three aspects. Thus, I may not cohabit:

1. With my own female blood-kin in the six nearest degrees, besides my own daughter.

2. With that with which my own male blood-kin of the four nearest degrees has cohabited; because it is the nakedness of my own blood.

3. With the three nearest of the blood of my wife's own body, with whom I myself have cohabited; because it is through her my own nakedness, as in the case of my own grand-daughter, v. 10.

In these last two series of prohibitions, I find just the amplification of the general rule spoken of above; and nothing more. I may not only not uncover the nakedness of my nearest female blood-kin, but also not that of my nearest male blood-kin, nor that of the blood and fruit of my wife's own body. Through her union with me in marriage, her body has become to me as my own body; and the fruit of it, whether arising from my cohabitation or otherwise, is to me as my own blood.

Of the preceding prohibitions, the first two categories all bear, in their full force, upon the man who has never yet been married; and therefore they can have had primarily and per se no reference to the question concerning a wife's sister.

But the man has married; his wife has died, or he has divorced her; and he desires to marry again. The former prohibitions as to blood and blood-affinity all remain; but his marriage has brought him into a new affinity with the female relations of his late wife. Do the same prohibitions pass over now upon and include all these new relatives? He consults the law, and finds himself forbidden to marry either his late wife's mother, or her daughter, or her grand-daughter. Is there any other prohibition speci

fied? None, unless it be, that he might not marry the sister of his wife during the life-time of the latter. What then is there, to cause him to look further? What is there in the law itself, or in the nature of the case, to compel him to apply all the former prohibitions to the like degrees of his wife's kindred? None of them are comprised in the letter of the law; and if any of them were meant to be included in the spirit of those prohibitions, then certainly her mother, daughter, and grand-daughter, must have been so. As to just these three, there could have been the least possible doubt of all. Why then are these thus separately and distinctly prohibited; while those more distant, and of course more doubtful, are left without the slightest specification? This is certainly not in accordance with the usual distinctness and explicitness of laws, whether divine or human.

We have then ten degrees of blood and blood-affinity prohibited, by laws which were binding on all Hebrew men, whether once married or not. On the other hand we have but three or at most four prohibitions referring at all to the kindred of a former wife, or affinity by marriage. And when now we regard the uncertain and depressed condition of the Hebrew wife, and the high account made of blood kindred in all the civil and social relations of the Hebrew people, these considerations and this inequality seem sufficient to render the position at least doubtful, “that affinity as well as consanguinity, is included in the general prohibition."

We arrive at the same conclusion from another point of view. If, as is often asserted, affinity by marriage be the same with blood in the eye of the divine law, where is the limit to be drawn? Must we stop short at the express specifications, from which alone the principle is inferred? If we go beyond them in one instance, must we not also in another? or if we feel ourselves restricted by them in one case, may we lawfully step over them in another? Thus, if it be argued, that because a brother's wife is forbidden, therefore also a wife's sister is forbidden; why must we not likewise apply the same principle of inference throughout? If my wife's sister be to me in this respect as my own sister by blood, then why does she not also stand in just the same relation to my own brother? Yet I am not aware, that a charge of wrong is ever brought, where two brothers intermarry with two sisters.