him his widow to wife, if the brother have died childless, that “the first-born which she beareth” may “succeed in the name of his brother, which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel” (v. 6.)  But I feel justified in saying that this alone would have been no difficulty to Dr. M’Caul (nor to any man of his reasoning powers), as to the prevalence of the general law in all cases but the special one excepted, and that but for the 18th verse of the xviii. chapter of Leviticus, our 99th Canon and the table of prohibited degrees would have been almost or quite universally accepted as the true enunciation of the will and law of God in this matter of unlawful marriages.

It is, then, to that particular passage of Holy Scripture that it is necessary to draw attention.  And here, my lord, I must take up a word, which I find in your speech before referred to, which seems to me to be emphatically a word “of truth and soberness.”  You say, “To over-ride a command, which is distinct and precise, you must have a very clear verse and a very clear interpretation.” [10]  Dr. M’Caul quotes these words, with a distinct approval of their statement, though with exactly the converse of their application.  “You believe,” he says, “that a very clear verse and a very clear interpretation might over-ride a command, even though it be distinct and precise, and you are right.”  He goes on, “Lev. xviii. 16, the verse on which you chiefly rest your Scriptural arguments, is, so far as relates to marriage with a brother’s wife, distinct and precise, and enunciates a command absolutely and without any limitation; and yet it is over-ridden by Deut. xxv. 5.”  He means, of course, over-ridden as to the particular case of “a man’s raising up seed unto his brother;” but not so as to sanction the brother taking the brother’s wife in any other contingency.  And this we, as well as he, allow and admit, for who shall limit the Almighty’s right, and power to grant or make any special exceptions to His general laws, which He may think fit?  But we should have deemed it strange indeed if the whole law enacted in one place were definitely repealed in another, whilst that law was in force among those for whom it was given and designed.  But so far we can well go with Dr. M’Caul.  He proceeds, where, as I hope presently to shew, we have no need to follow him, and where, indeed, if his view were correct, there would be the total repeal of what is stated as the law in one verse, in the second verse after it.  However, to go on,—Dr. M’Caul adds, “And therefore, a fortiori, your inferential prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister may be over-ridden also by a clear verse and a clear interpretation.  If weight of authority is to decide, Lev. xviii. 18, is just such a verse, and its interpretation has the required condition.  Here, then, the controversy narrows itself into that which is the common and popular view of the matter: whether the inferential prohibition from verse 16 is to over-ride the expressed command of verse 18, or the plain letter of this latter verse to over-ride the inference from the former.” [11]  Now, I shall have something further to say presently as to “the expressed command,” and the “plain letter of this latter verse;” but at present let me merely remark, that we have, at any rate, Dr. M’Caul’s admission that between these two verses there is a conflict and an over-riding.  In his view even, there is discrepancy.  What is, in the one, he tells us, at least inferentially prohibited, is, in the other, expressly commanded; and this, not in a case or manner parallel to the variation between the 16th verse, prohibiting as the general law, and the passage in Deut. xxv. 5, enjoining in the exceptional contingency named, but, on the contrary, in a case of a universal negative met and confronted, two verses afterwards, by a case of a, not exceptional, contradictory affirmative.  And the only palliation of such a startling discrepancy in Holy Scripture is, we are to understand, that it is inadmissible to draw the inference from the woman being forbidden to marry two brothers, that the man is forbidden to marry two sisters.  Although throughout the restrictions this principle is necessary to prevent the most revolting permissions under the law, and although, but for the 18th verse, no one, we believe, would have dreamed of questioning it in the particular of the man and two sisters, yet here it must be at once ignored, or you have an absolute contradiction of commands, in the same enunciation of law, within two verses. [12]  I notice this point expressly, because I think we cannot too strongly entertain the conviction of the unlikelihood of such a thing occurring thus in the word and law of God; and therefore, as a reason for the most careful examination, whether we may not have overlooked the real scope and object of this 18th verse, even if we admit the correctness of the translation and of the sense.  Observe, there is a great distinction between the sense and the application.  Admitting the sense, I must deny the application, as I shall presently shew.  But here let me repeat, if there be but a fairly reasonable account to be given of the existence and application of the 18th verse, without its running us into the difficulty of this over-riding, and collision with itself of God’s law, and if we hereby avoid the gross unlikelihood which I have mentioned, then surely such account and such application ought to commend itself to every candid mind, as at least worthy of the most serious consideration.

My Lord, I venture to think such account and application of the 18th verse there is; and though it has been touched upon by others, and Dr. M’Caul himself came very near it, yet it appears to have been too little dwelt upon by any, and strangely overlooked by him. [13a]

Let me here bring the matter once more to the point of divergence.  We have first the general law, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him” (v. 6).  We have then the general catalogue of prohibitions which come under this head, and form the divine comment on the terms “near of kin:” and these dealing, with cases of affinity, in a majority of the prohibitions expressed, as compared with those of blood relationship (v. 7–17.)  All these, moreover, be it observed, put in the statement as commands upon the man, leaving the obligation upon the woman to be inferred.  Upon this statement we have Archbishop Parker’s table of degrees, and of the forbidden unions, extending exactly to the parallel cases of all those named;—with the like witness also of the 99th Canon, declaring all such alliances to be incestuous;—and this table required by our law, both of Church and State, to be set up in all Parish Churches. [13b]  But we have then the 18th verse making, as is alleged,