tained by the prohibitions, adds: "But how is this borne out by the subsequent verses? I agree with Dr. Hodge, that all that follows is only the amplification and application of this general rule, showing what degrees of nearness of kin constitute a bar to marriage. Hence, when there could be no possible doubt as to the meaning of 'flesh of his flesh,' no specification is given; as in the case of one's own daughter. But in cases where doubt could arise, or where there could be any possible evasion, a specific prohibition is subjoined; hence the wife's daughter is expressly prohibited in verse 17; because, although no one could doubt that my own daughter is 'flesh of my flesh,' yet it might be a question, whether my step-daughter is to be so regarded."
The following remarks on this quotation will test the correctness of Omicron's reasoning.
1. As his object is to prove, from the verses subsequent to the sixth, that they restrict the prohibitions to blood-kindred, he must mean, by "flesh of his flesh," and "flesh of my flesh," blood-kindred; unless he intends, very improperly, to shift his ground.
2. Omicron has been most unfortunate in his
