upon Since I wrote the above, I have looked into Bishop Patrick, on Ruth iv. 6. who mentions the paffage alluded to in the Chaldee paraphraft, and the Midrash; and fo far from their appearing to fay what the Dean would make them, there is not a word of any fuch thing; they put quite a different sense the words. As for Jofephus, I would almost venture to affirm, without looking into the book, that he cannot fo groffly contradict himself; for when he is writing that part of the Hiftory of David, where he speaks of his polygamy, he fays-δοντος δε αυτω καὶ γυναῖκας ὡς δικαίως και νομίμως ήγαγετο -(Gop) “ giving "him wives, which he justly and lawfully "married.". However, having confulted Jofephus on the fubject, I find no fuch reason affigned by the kinfman, for refufing to redeem Mahlon's land, and to marry his widow, as the Dean afferts.-Jofephus, Antiq. lib. ix. c. 5. § 4. fpeaking of the kinfman's refufal, fays, that he rejected the offerΕίναι δε καὶ γυναικα λεγων αυτω και παιδας ηδη "Saying, he had already a wife and chil"dren;" but not a word that it was "un "" lawful to marry another woman. Not that Jofephus reprefents the matter as the Bible does, any more than the learned Dean rightly represents the fentiments of Jofephus. It might not be expedient for the kinfman to marry Ruth, as he was circumftanced; but this has nothing to do with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the matter, with refpect to the the law of GOD. Lawfulness and expediency are very distinct and different confiderations. See 1 Cor. vi. 12. 1 Cor. x. 23. As for Mr. Selden, he, in the very paffage which the Dean quotes, refolves the kinfman's refufal to marry Ruth into a matter of prudence, and that for much the fame reasons which I have affighed above. The law itself on which we have been difcourfing, was only a local and temporary institution, and, in the very nature of it, could only concern the Jews, and that only with regard to their peculiar fituation before the coming of the Meffiah, when fo much depended on the clearness of family defient and inheritance. It is obfervable that this law, though not reduced to writing and publifhed till the time of Mofes, yet existed among the patriarchs, as we learn from Gen. xxxviii. 8. I now fhall obferve on fome laws of more extensive import, the obligation of which must concern every man, and that at all times and places, because the evident purpose for which they were ordained, and the reafons on which they are apparently founded, muft equally concern all mankind. The laws I mean, are those already spoken of, as made for the preservation of the female fex from ruin and proflitution, by compelling every man to marry the virgin he lies with. The first of them is to be found Exod. xxii. 16; the other Deut. xxii. 28, 29. Thefe laws muft must in some cases * command polygamy, and therefore, in fuch cases, make it a duty; for they are so framed as to admit of no other construction, confiftently with the terms in which Mofes hath recorded them. The terms in which these laws are enacted, with respect to the men feducing or taking virgins, &c. are as indefinite as words can poffibly be : If a man, fays our tranflation. This must, ex vi termini, mean any man whatsoever, be his fituation what it may-which is exactly the fenfe of the Hebrew -As the right understanding of this comprehensive and unlimited word is of the utmost importance to the point in question, I will lay a full and clear explanation of it before the reader. איש 66 "This word has no relation to kind or Species, though, according to its dif"ferent genders, it has to Jex ; but is applied to almost any diftinct being "or thing; as, for inftance, to man. "&c." See Parkhurft's Heb. Lex. fub voc. " which," faith he, "denotes existence, fubfiftence, reality." *Luther, de Digam. Epifcoporum, §. 65, faysNota funt jura Mofaica de fratris defuncti uxore, & filia corrupta invito patre, quæ cogunt plurium uxorum "effe virum." The Mofaic laws concerning the "wife of a deceased brother, and concerning a daugh"ter defiled against the father's confent, are well "known, which compel a man to have a plurality of " wives." I will next fubjoin the interpretation of Calafio, who, in his valuable Hebrew Concordance, gives us fome hundreds of texts in which this word occurs. איש איש. Perfona, creatura-nomen generale "quod effentiam rei non diftinguit" -A perfon, a creature-a general name, which doth not diftinguish the effence of the thing spoken of. "Homo generaliter complectens maf- gene "Quis-quilibet-aliquis-unufquifque -quifque-alter."-Who-whofo 66 ever * ·any one· every one man-any other איש איש unus fome one 'ullus' any one. "Sexus mafculus in qualibet animan"tium fpecie" cum "mentio fœminæ additur." Ut Gen. vii. 2. (xxiv. 16.) The MALE SEX in any Species of animals where the female is also mentioned. Vir-maritus-fi cum uxore confe"ratur." Gen. iii. 6. An HUSBAND, a MARRIED MAN, where joined with WIFE. Thus it is rendered, Job. xlii. 11. The The reader has now before him the meaning of the words, wherefoever it may be ufed, as applicable to, or fignificant of, mankind; and by this may fee the use of it throughout the Bible where man is mentioned. He may also see that the phrafe -If a man, &c. fo far from carrying any exception with it, as to a man's fituation of being married or unmarried, excludes all exception whatsoever wherever we meet with it; therefore as much in the texts of Exodus and Deuteronomy as elsewhere. Let the reader take the Hebrew, or even the English concordance, and try the experiment: he will find that in Hebrew, and If any man in English, are in the fcriptures, as in every other book I ever met with, as indefinite as words can be, with relation to the subject in question. But if no exception as to the fituation of the man is expressed, is it not implied?-So far from that, the Holy Ghoft (in this paffage particularly) has demonftrably guarded against any fuch implication, and this by adding the words not betrothed to the defcription of the virgin or damfel, which is done in both places. Expreffio unius eft exclufio alterius-the expreffing an exception with regard to the woman, but none with respect to the man, proves, as far as the foundest rules of construction of all laws can prove, that none was intended. Had any restriction of this law with regard to the fituation of the man been intended, it might easily have been expreffed, by only addVOL. I. S ing |