Page images
PDF
EPUB

finned against light, knowledge, and law * with a witnefs! But it is tranflated in the textNeither halt thou take a wife to her fifter, to vex her, in her life-time. Lev. xviii. 18. First, I would obferve, that the marginal reading"one wife to another"-difunites entirely the 18th verfe from the preceding context to which it belongs; this only treats of marriages which are unlawful with respect to affinity and confanguinity. The brother's wife had there been spoken of, ver. 16; here, most naturally, as a neceffary part of the prohibition of inceft, the wife's fifter. Secondly, This rendering of the text is agreeable to the grammatical sense of the Hebrew, which the other is not. This is demonftrably

* Ipfos quoque Judæos hane legem de polygamia haud accepiffe, perpetua confuetudo plures fibi ex hac gente jungentium uxores oftendit. Non autem videntur tanto impetu per vetitum nefas ruiffe, præcipuè legis divinæ cætera ftudiofiffimi, fi expreffo hujufmodi mandato hac de re cautum fuiffet. Tympius in Nold. p. 30, note r.

"That the Jews themselves did not understand this "law as concerning polygamy, their conftant practice of "marrying a plurality of wives demonftrates; for it is "not probable that they should have rushed with fuch "violence into prohibited wickedness, especially those "who were moft obfervant of the divine law in all other refpects, if cautioned against it by fo exprefs a commandment."

This is certainly very improbable, yet not fo improbable, as that, if polygamy be against the original institution of marriage, and, as fuch, here forbidden by a pofitive law, GOD fhould no where appear to difapprove it, or enact any judicial law against it, on the fide of the man, as on the fide of the woman. See Lev. xx. 10. where the wife who is defiled, and the man who defiles her, are condemned to capital punishment,

Chewn

fhewn in Tympius's note on Lev. xviii. 18. in Noldius, Heb. Part. 8 p. 30. But as I find the meaning of this important paffage better explained by the learned Bishop Patrick on the place, than I can exprefs it in any words of my own, I will transcribe the Bifhop's note as it stands:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"There are a great many eminent writers, who, following our marginal translation (one wife to another) imagine that here plurality of wives is exprefsly forbidden by GOD, and they think there is an example to justify this tranflation, Exod. xxvi. 3. "where Mofes is commanded to take care "that the five curtains of the tabernacle were

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

coupled together, one to its fifter, as the "Hebrew phrafe is, meaning one to another; which, if it were true, would folve feveral difficulties: but there are fuch reafons against it, as that I cannot think it to be "the meaning. For as more wives than one "were indulged before the law, fo they were

[ocr errors]

after. And Mofes himself fuppofes as "much, when he provides, a man hould not prefer a child he had by a beloved wife, be*fore one he had by her whom he hated, if

he was the eldest fon; which plainly inti"mates an allowance in his law of more wives than one."

Here, by the good and learned Bishop's leave, I would obferve that he expreffes himfelf rather inaccurately; for by faying

MOSES himself fuppofes as much," and by calling the law he is mentioning," bis (MOSES's)

LO

[ocr errors]

"(MOSES's) law,"-it looks as if Moses was fpeaking by his own wisdom, and establishing fome law merely on his own authority; whereas MOSES, under the immediate infpiration of the Holy Ghost (Numb. xi. 17, 25. and 2 Pet. i. 21.) is the mouth of GOD Him felf to the people; to whom He says, Deut. iv. 5. Behold, I have taught you ftatutes and judgments, even as the LORD commanded me, that ye fhould do fo in the land whither ye go to poffefs it. The only inftance in which Moses acted by his own authority, was in the matter of divorces. When our SAVIOUR is mentioning this, Matth. xix. he does not fay

GOD fuffered, but MOSES, because of the bardness of your hearts, fuffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not fo; plainly intimating that fuch divorce was not of God's ordaining, but merely of MoSES's permiffion, as an expedient to obviate the mifchiefs of his enforcing the letter of the law in every inftance, by compelling them to retain their wives; thus fubjecting them to their ill treatment and brutality, even to the beating and perhaps killing them. So that, in this toleration of divorce for, or upon account of, the hardness of their hearts, Moses might fay as PAUL, I Cor. vii. 12. To fuch Speak I, NOT the LORD but as to other things, NOT I, but the LORD, ver. 1o.The Bishop proceeds" And fo we find expressly their

kings might have, though not a multitude, "Deut. xvii. 17; and their best king, who "red GoD's law day and night, and could

“ nat

1

"not but understand it, took many wives "without any reproof: nay, GOD gave him. "more than he had before, by delivering his (late) mafter's wives to him, 2 Sam. xii. 8. "And befides all this, MOSES, fpeaking all along in this chapter of confanguinity and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

affinity, it is reafonable, as Schindlerus ob"ferves, to conclude he doth fo here, not of "one woman to another, but of one * fifter to "another. There being also the like reason

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to understand the word fifter properly in "this place, as the words daughter or mother "in others, ver. 17, and chap. xx. 14. "where he forbids a man to take a woman "and her mother, or a woman and her daugh"ter, as Theodoric Hackspan fufficiently notes.

[ocr errors]

"The meaning therefore is, that though "two wives at a time, or more, were permitted "in those days, no man fhould take two fifters (as JACOB formerly did, before there

[ocr errors]

was any pofitive law against it) begotten of "the fame father, or born of the fame mother, "whether legitimately or illegitimately, "(which, though it may feem prohibited "before, because the marriage of a brother's wife is forbidden) yet it is here directly

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

prohibited, as other marriages are which "were implicitly forbidden before; for "ver. 7. the marriage of a fon with his mo"ther is forbidden, and ver. 10. the marri.66 age of a father with his daughter."

* It is to be obferved that N is ufed four times in other parts of the chapter, and neceffarily fignifies, as our tranflators have rendered it-a fifter. So Lev. xx. 17, 19.

Τα

To the above remarks of the learned and judicious Bishop Patrick, I will venture to add a conjecture of my own, the folidity of which must be fubmitted to the reader's determination. It is very certain that at ver. 16. the marriage of a brother's wife is forbidden, and as the wife's fifter is thereby virtually or implicitly forbidden to marry the fifter's husband, it might be fuppofed that there was little occafion to mention the wife's fifter in direct terms afterwards, ver. 18. But the neceffity of this is apparent,' when we recollect the precedent of JACOB, which the Jews would probably have urged against an interpretative prohibition of fuch a thing, at ver. 16. It was certainly no fin in JACOB, because there was no law against it; but after this pofitive law, it could not be done without fin, for-fin is the tranfgreffion of the law.

As there was but one man and one woman at first, the peopling of the world must have been carried on between much nearer relations, and therefore there could be no law to forbid marriages of this fort. So after the flood, when but eight perfons, and those all of one family, were left of mankind, we find, for many ages, no laws enacted against marrying within thofe degrees of relationship, which were afterwards exprefsly prohibited. But when the reafon ceased, the thing itself

*

was

* After the Exodus, the Ifraelites were reftrained from marrying within certain degrees of confanguinity, which had been, till then, permitted, to prevent their taking

« PreviousContinue »