My Lord, I venture to think such account and application of the 18th verse there is; and though it has been touched upon by others, and Dr. M’Caul himself came very near it, yet it appears to have been too little dwelt upon by any, and strangely overlooked by him. {13a} Let me here bring the matter once more to the point of divergence. We have first the general law, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him” (v. 6). We have then the general catalogue of prohibitions which come under this head, and form the divine comment on the terms “near of kin:” and these dealing, with cases of affinity, in a majority of the prohibitions expressed, as compared with those of blood relationship (v. 7–17.) All these, moreover, be it observed, put in the statement as commands upon the _man_, leaving the obligation upon the _woman_ to be inferred. Upon this statement we have Archbishop Parker’s table of degrees, and of the forbidden unions, extending exactly to the parallel cases of all those named;—with the like witness also of the 99th Canon, declaring all such alliances to be incestuous;—and this table required by our law, both of Church and State, to be set up in all Parish Churches. {13b} But we have then the 18th verse making, as is alleged, not merely an exception, but a contradiction to the parallel case of what is forbidden in verse 16 as to the brother’s wife, and permitting the union with a wife’s sister, so that it be not in the lifetime of the former. We thus come to what Dr. M’Caul himself considers to be a case of _over-riding_, where we must determine whether (to use again his own words) “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.” {14} Now, what I am anxious to see is, whether there is any need to force upon us this _over-riding_ at all. I think not.