express prohibition in Leviticus xviii. 6 and 16; the other rest theirs on the permission, implied, as they think, in Leviticus xviii. 18.
The principle, in either case, is, that, since God cannot contradict Himself, then, if He has clearly declared His mind in one place, any thing which may be alleged against it, even if it should seem at first sight plausible, cannot have any real weight.
Such paramount authority the Christian Church, of old, ascribed, I believe, to that plain prohibition in Leviticus xviii. 6. “ None of you shall approach to the whole flesh of his flesh ad retegendam nuditatem ejus.” It stands as one broad principle of Divine legislation, one all-comprehensive law, forbidding all carnal knowledge, whether under plea of marriage or out of marriage, of any who are near of kin. It stands as one great moral law, involving in itself the principle upon which it is founded, like those great moral laws of the Decalogue. It is a law of the same breadth and largeness and expansiveness, as, “Thou shalt not murder,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not steal.” There is no ambiguity in the prohibition. One only question can be asked, “Who is my near of kin ?” in analogy to that other question, “Who is my neighbour?” This question people have put in two ways:
1. Does the term, “near of kin,” include those “near of kin by marriage,” or only “those near of kin by blood?” The context itself decides the question. In itself “flesh of your flesh” may include the relations of the wife. The use of the word sheēr in this same context, and the context itself, determine that it does.
The two words sheēr and basar signify “flesh.” They are used then of that which is to us as our own flesh. Yet with this difference, that in the word sheēr the metaphor seems to have been more lost, and its secondary meaning of "relation" appears to have become more its proper meaning. At least, it is used to express, in unimpassioned language, relationship, whereas when basar is so used, it is always used emphatically,
