case the absurdity is involved of holding the general prohibition in verse 6, as to union between those who are "near of kin" (even confining it to consanguinity), to extend to a marriage of aunt and nephew, but not to that of uncle and niece, so that the relationship of the aunt to her nephew is to be held nearer than that of the uncle to his niece. If extended to affinity, then the wife's sister must be taken by them to be less near than the wife's grandchild or grandmother. In the other alternative, I again say, that which has been my argument from the first, you require a very clear permission to overthrow a series of strict enactments, all levelled against the iniquity of approaching to those who are "near of kin" to yourself or to your wife, and including prohibitions against union with relations, either by consanguinity or affinity, further removed than the wife's sister. If the permission be not clearly made out, either by a clear translation or a clear exposition of the 18th verse, then great is the hazard of those who would risk the denunciations contained in the 27th and 28th verses[1].
- ↑ I do not think it necessary to dwell on the direction (contained in another portion of Scripture) to many a deceased brother's wife, where the brother has left no child. Dr. M'Caul does not contend, nor would any sound expositor contend, that a distinct prohibition is revoked by an exception, beyond the extent of the excepted case. Now the prohibition as to the brother's wife is happily clear from all cavil, and the injunction in the excepted case is enforced by penalties, as if it were foreseen that it would be reluctantly and with repugnance observed.
