3.  It is written, he says, in Leviticus “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.” Lev. xviii. 18.  From this it is plain, he argues, that it is lawful to take her when the wife is dead.  To this my first answer shall be, that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law; otherwise we shall be subject to circumcision, the sabbath, abstinence from meats.  For we certainly must not, when we find anything which falls in with our pleasures, subject ourselves to the yoke of slavery to the law; and then, if anything in the law seems hard, have recourse to the freedom which is in Christ.  We have been asked if it is written that one may be taken to wife after her sister.  Let us say what is safe and true, that it is not written.  But to deduce by sequence of argument what is passed over in silence is the part of a legislator, not of one who quotes the articles of the law.  Indeed, on these terms, any one who likes will be at liberty to take the sister, even in the lifetime of the wife.  The same sophism fits in this case also.  It is written, he says, “Thou shalt not take a wife to vex her:”  so that, apart from vexation, there is no prohibition to take her.  The man who wants to indulge his desire will maintain that the relationship of sisters is such that they cannot vex one another.  Take away the reason given for the prohibition to live with both, and what is there to prevent a man’s taking both sisters?  This is not written, we shall say.  Neither is the former distinctly stated.  The deduction from the argument allows liberty in both cases.  But a solution of the difficulty might be found by going a little back to what is behind the enactment.  It appears that the legislator does not include every kind of sin, but particularly prohibits those of the Egyptians, from among whom Israel had gone forth, and of the Canaanites among whom they were going.  The words are as follows, “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do:  neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.” Lev. xviii. 3.  It is probable that this kind of sin was not practised at that time among the Gentiles.  Under these circumstances the lawgiver was, it may be supposed, under no necessity of guarding against it; the unwritten custom sufficed to condemn the crime.  How then is it that while forbidding the greater he was silent about the less?  Because the example of the patriarch seemed injurious to many who indulged their flesh so far as to live with sisters in their life time.  What ought to be my course?  To quote the Scriptures, or to work out what they leave unsaid?  In these laws it is not written that a father and son ought not to have the same concubine, but, in the prophet, it is thought deserving of the most extreme condemnation, “A man and his father” it is said “will go in unto the same maid.” Amos ii. 7.  And how many other forms of unclean lust have been found out in the devils’ school, while divine scripture is silent about them, not choosing to befoul its dignity with the names of filthy things and condemning their uncleanness in general terms!  As the apostle Paul says, “Fornication and all uncleanness…let it not be once named among you as becometh saints,” Eph. v. 3. thus including the unspeakable doings of both males and females under the name of uncleanness.  It follows that silence certainly does not give license to voluptuaries.