11
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 But we should have deemed it strange indeed if the whole law enacted in one place were definitely repealed in another, whilst that law was in force among those for whom it was given and designed.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."[1] Now, I shall
- ↑ Dr. M'Caul's Letter to Sir W. P. Wood, 1860, p. 55.
