personæ citantur his nominibus, mater, noverca, . . . filia, filia uxoris, soror uxoris.' In the revision of Cranmer's Bible by Cuthbert, Bishop of Durham, and Ridley in 1541, the same translation is retained, and a reference given in the margin to Gen. xxix., showing that they understood it of simultaneous marriage with two sisters." Why, if any thing can be clear, it is that in the passage cited by Dr. M'Caul, Cranmer (fortified, as the Doctor says, by the other Reformers whom he refers to) places the wife's sister in exactly the same position as the mother, step-mother, &c., as I shall presently show, our Law, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, has never failed to do. It seems to me, however, that the fallacy running through the whole argument of Dr. M'Caul, and those who follow him, is this: that a special prohibition is a licence to do any thing not included within the special words of restriction. On this principle the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," would be a licence to commit fornication.
But the conclusive point on the view entertained by both clergy and laity, since the Reformation, is to be found in the fact that, though the 32 Hen. VIII. c. 38, authorizes interference by the Lay Courts of the realm with the Ecclesiastical Court, when that Court deals with questions of marriages beyond its jurisdiction, it expressly excepts the case of marriages either otherwise contrary to
