29
ing, a narrowing, not an enlarging the liberty given under the exception in the previous clause and having no further bearing:—therefore having nothing to do with any entry in the schedule; nothing to do with the permission to take the brother's wife or the sister's husband, and, if so, nothing at all to do with the object for which that clause, so to speak, is used by the promoters of the change in our law, as proposed in the Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill.
Moreover, does not this account make it perfectly intelligible why the first section should remain in the integrity of its enactment, and all the entries find their place in the schedule, because no single entry is repealed even by the modification caused by section 2? But surely it would have been absurd to enact, or to retain in the table, the entry as to a brother's wife or sister's husband, if an almost immediately subsequent contradictory enactment were wholly to repeal it, as contended by the promoters of the Bill in question.
I do not know that I have more to add unless it be to meet briefly a possible objection from the law of the Levirate not being found in the same place with the other two passages, nor indeed in the same book of Leviticus, but in another book of Holy Scripture. It may, perhaps, be asked—Is it not strange and unnatural to find the exception to an exception entered where the first exception itself is not recorded, and perhaps even before that exception was made at all?
I would reply, first—
If this be an objection, it is one to which the Mishna, and the Jewish Rabbis, and Dr. M'Caul are open just as much as I am. For they all acknowledge and maintain that upon that 18th verse of xviii. Leviticus is founded the prohibition which they all claim as to the brother in the case of two brothers having married two sisters; of the one
