9
of my addressing you, and I shall shortly come to that part of my subject. But it may not be amiss here just to call attention to the fact that Dr. M'Caul himself (whom I think I may designate as the most learned and able of the advocates for the change of the law in question) seems to admit that, were there no other Scripture to override the law as thus proclaimed, he should acknowledge the force of this part of the xviii. chapter of Leviticus as conclusive on the unlawfulness of marriage with the deceased wife's sister; for he says expressly, in his first letter on the subject, addressed to the Rev. W. H. Lyall, "On some points, I think, we agree; as, for instance, that the final appeal in questions relating to marriage must be to the Word of God. . . . . . . . . . I also am convinced that the laws in Leviticus xviii. being a part of the moral law, stand on a totally different footing from circumcision, or the Jewish Sabbaths, or abstinence from meats. Indeed, I believe that this marriage law was given to the Gentile Churches in the famous decree of the Council of Jerusalem. On this ground, I believe that the prohibitions of Leviticus xviii. are binding on all Christians." That is, he believes, that the general law then given, as being of a moral nature, and intended for all men, was distinctly re-enacted, and re-decreed for the sake of greater perspicuity, by the Christian Church in the Council at Jerusalem. And he goes on—"I agree, further, with those who interpret 'woman' or 'wife' in these prohibitions as comprehending widowhood, so that these females are prohibited, not only during the lives of their husbands, but absolutely and forever." And he adds—"And, lastly, I admit that from the prohibited marriages enumerated, compared with other parts of the Divine legislation, others not enumerated may be pronounced unlawful." [1] Where we may see that, although with a certain
- ↑ Letter to Rev. W. H. Lyall, by Rev. A. M'Caul, D.D., pp. 1-4. Wertheim, Mackintosh, and Hunt. 1859.
