before the Law should under it be thought so heinous that no Sacrifice no Lustration no Redemption no Expiation would be admitted but the person offending must without mercy without the least reprieve or respite of his sentence immediately suffer death I conclude therefore what I design to prove that the marriage of the Brother to the Brothers Wife and much more of the Brother to to the Sister German was forbidden and abominable in the sight of God before the promulgation of the Mosaick Law which is my first argument § 8. But then Secondly That the marriage of Brother and Sister Germans and consequently of the Brother to the Brothers Wife which I have already shewn to be the same is unlawful will be sufficiently proved if I can prove there was any such thing as an incestuous or prohibited mixture before that time which besides what has been said of the Amorites and other Nations the Ancient Planters of the Land of Canaan I can prove by other instances both before and after the Floud § 9. And First before it Gen. 6. 2. We find it thus writen The Sons of God saw the Daughters of Men that they were fair and they took them Wives of all which they chose that is they made Intermarriages among one another without any regard to the prohibited degrees of Consanguinity so that they made no scruple of marrying even their own Sisters if they were such as they could set their affections upon which practice of theirs was so provoking to Almighty God that it is said in the next verse And the Lord said My Spirit shall not always strive with man His days were immediately shortned upon it and very soon after upon the continuance of this and other as it seemeth to me somewhat less horrid impieties for this is only mention'd to set the more particular mark and brand upon it that fatal Deluge happened by which the Old World and all that was in it Eight Persons and the Creatures that were with them only excepted was destroyed Now that incestuous marriages and particularly those of Sister and Brother are here understood I prove thus § 10. First They took them Wives of all whom they chose therefore it must not be understood of any Rape or Violence but it was the effect of choice which is an easy and gentle as well as a deliberat thing Secondly They took them Wives which implyes not a sudden Violence but a lasting contract between the parties by which they were obliged mutually to enter into a Matrimonial estate and live at Bed and Board together And which is a mighty confirmation of this interpretation this is described as the state and condition of the World just before the coming of the Floud by St. Matthew and St. Luke Mat. 24. 38 39. Luk. 17. 27. They did Eat and Drink they married Wives and were given in marriage untill the day that Noah entred into the Ark and the Floud came and destroyed them all So likewise 2 Pet. c. 2. v. 5 6. God spared not the Old World but saved Noah the Eighth person a Preacher of Righteousness bringing in the Floud upon the World of the ungodly and turning the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into Ashes condemned them with an overthrow making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly What is meant most especially in the latter verse by the word ungodly we know very well from the History of those wicked places but the Old World not being charged with so unnatural a crime which yet it is very probable it would have been had it been guilty of it the best as well as the most charitable way of interpreting the same word in the former verse is by expounding it of incestuous mixtures which have always in the esteem of the World been accounted the next in guilt to it § 11. The same thing is likewise wonderfully confirmed from an expression in the story of Zelophehad Num. 36. 6. Let them marry to whom they think best which answers exactly to that other place in Gen. they took them Wives of all which they chose and is of the same import and signification Let them marry into their own family for the better preservation of the inheritance without regard to those restrictions within which the Law of Moses would otherwise have circumscribed them and accordingly they all married to their Cousin Germans which were yet in other cases prohibited by the Law of Moses and by the practice of the Jewish Church as I shall prove more largely in another discourse wherein I shall state that whole case and shew that as well by the Law of Christ as that of Moses and not only so but by the Law of nature too such marriages are ex antecedenti unlawful tho after they be consummated by fruition they are upon the same reasons valid upon which before it they are prohibited and void § 12. Thus much may serve for the first part of what I undertook to prove that the place in Genesis above cited is to be understood of Incestuous Mixtures I will now shew that the Marriage of Sisters and Brothers Germans is chiefly if not only pointed at in this place by this Syllogism Either the Marriages both of Mothers and Sisters with their Sons and Brethren is to be understood in this place or of Sisters and Brothers only But the Marriage of Mothers with their Sons is not at all pointed at in this place Therefore it must of necessity be meant of the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters only The Major I prove plainly from this that all other degrees of Consanguinity before the delivery of the Law were no obstruction to Marriage for of the Marriage of Cousin Germans we have an instance in Jacob who married Rachel and Leah his Uncle Labans Daughters of the Aunt in Amram the Father of Moses himself and of the half Sister by the Fathers side in Abraham the Father of the Jewish Nation It remains therefore since the very next degrees both in the ascending and in the collateral line were permitted that this Text cannot possibly be understood of any other Incestuous Marriages but those of Brothers and Sisters Germans or of Sons and their natural Mothers together but of the Marriage of Sons with their Mothers it is absurd to understand it for this reason that it is said the Sons of God saw the Daughters of Men that they were fair in which it is plainly implyed that they were young and Virgins at least thus much is true that the Epithet of fair is by no means sutable to Women in their declining Age as they must needs be who are the Parents of marriageable Children it is therefore evident that it must be meant of the Intermarriage of Brothers and Sisters Germans together which was the thing I undertook to prove § 13. And this being so great a provocation to Almighty God that it was one of the main causes of that dismal Floud with which the Old World
of the same signification with Miriam or Maria which was the Name of the blessed Virgin from Mar or Maran Dominus whence the Maronites in the East and that bitter form of Excommunication called by St. Paul Anathema Maranatha have their name likewise For as Isaac was A Type of Christ so what the blessed Virgin was to him that Sarah was to Isaac the respective Mothers of those two blessed offsprings the one an Old Woman with whom it had long ceased to be after the manner of Women the other a spotless Virgin that had never known man both of them in a manner equally miraculous as hath been said else where in the case of John the Baptist his forerunner The Result of all is this it hath been sufficiently proved that for Brothers and Sisters Germans to marry was all along accounted impious and unlawful it hath been proved likewise that the Marriage of the Brothers Wife in all but the case excepted is in the interpretation of Law the same thing as to marry the Sister German lastly by the express words of the Levitical Table of Marriage it appears that where the Brother dying left Issue at least Male Issue begotten in lawful Wedlock behind him such Marriages were punishable with death which Punishment was too severe for the breach of a Law that had not somewhat more than a positive turpitude in it or of such a Marriage as was till that time without scruple allowed and practiced in the World It is therefore clear upon more accounts than one that such marriages in general were always reckon'd incestuous and forbidden Onan therefore being put upon paying this service to the memory of his Brother so much against his own inclinations as we see by the story it was might have urged in his own excuse that it was an Incestuous Mixture forbidden by the Law of Nations and the constant practice of those and former times and that though there be an entire Obedience due to the Commands of our Parents as well as Politick Superiours so far as those Commands are in the matter of them Lawful yet that in this as in all other cases where the Divine and Human Authority interfere with one another it was better to obey God than Man which since he did not do but instead of that made a semblance of Obedience though he was resolved before hand not to do it it is a plain indication that this case had been excepted by the usage of those times neither is it likely that God would have punished this disobedience with that severity which he did if he had refused that service in compliance or at least in agreement to the Laws of God or the Usages though but reputedly sacred of those times The same is likewise further clear from the apprehension of Judah lest the same untimely Fate might likewise be the portion of his youngest Son Shelah if Tamar thorough his neglect did not continue in her state of Widdow-hood till Shelah was grown up to marriageable years v. 11. lest peradventure he dye also as his Brethren did which yet would have been no fault of his if through the negligence of the Father a sufficient restraint had not been laid upon his Daughter Tamar neither could Shelah have suffer'd any thing by it if it were not that God does often punish the sins of the Fathers in the Children which is no more than a proper exercise of his Soveraign Power and Dominion over men But Judah had been guilty of no sin in suffering her to marry abroad if the reason of her marriage to Onan First and of her being afterwards designed for Shelah had not depended on something else besides his own arbitrary pleasure Further we do not find that she was afterwards actually marryed to Shelah but it is more probable from the silence of the Scripture in it that she was not because by the Levitical Law which in this instance also seems to have been much ancienter than the time of Moses it was not Lawful for the same Woman to conceive by the Father and Son And though it be true that she did successively enjoy both Son and Father yet neither was this right in it self but only comparatively is somewhat excused from a sort of necessity that seem'd to attend it She hath been more righteous then I said Judah as much as to say she hath done an abominable thing but I that which was more impious than she by with-holding my Son Shelah from her embraces whom Custom and my Promise and the respect due to the memory of my deceased Son had given her for her Husband and whom she had purchased by performing the condition of Widdow-hood on her part and by patiently expecting the time beforehand stipulated between them Therefore he said rightly She hath been more righteous than I for Er the Eldest Brother was to raise up seed to the Family or to propagate the name of Judah himself he dying with Issue it was to be propagated by Onan and by Shelah his Proxies which since the one did refuse and the other did either refuse or was prohibited to do what remained but that either the memory of the Eldest Brother must perish or the Father himself perform the Husbands part and propagate his own memory and that of his Eldest Son deceased in his own person which though in it self detestable yet the sin was partly his own in putting something that looked like a kind of necessity upon the Woman and it being directed to an intention not only less culpable than the action it self but also such as was laudable and just though unjust to compass it by this means it is for this reason he saith She hath been more righteous then I. * Drus in loc Justa est quam ego quomodo justa quae se adulterio temeraverat Non dicit justa simpliciter sed justa quam ego est sensus magis quam ego i. e. justior Comparativè igitur justa erat Lastly the same thing is evident from this that till Judah was rightly informed of the matter he would have burnt his Daughter Tamar for an Adulteress as having after a promise not to do it by forsaking Shelah adulterously betray'd the Bed of her Husband Er by which you see likewise which is an other confirmation of what hath been said that Adultery long before the delivery of the Law was punished with Death but it does not seem that he would have punished this offence so heavily if the Custom and Law of that time had not made it Adultery to marry or enjoy another so long as any of the Brethren still remained alive and in a Condition or likelyhood of being so to propagate the name of their Elder Brother It remains then that this Custom must needs be ancienter than the time of Judah and since there is no instance of any such thing in all the Family of Abraham though you go as high as to Sem himself till you come
all his Family though at his death he must leave it as he found it and could not cut off the Entail from the Eldest Son of this imputative or adoptive Bed This might for ought we know be the reason why the Marriage of the Brother to the Brothers Wife was so severely forbidden by several Imperial Laws both in the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian and in the Theodosian Code which practice might perhaps creep though not for the same reason of raising up the name of the dead upon his Inheritance out of Judea into the Empire but if any man had rather think that this was an effect only of that Libertinisme and Licentiousness to which men are but too subject of themselves I am so far from contending that perhaps I shall be more inclinable to be of his opinion but it is certain that this practice so far as it was used among the Aegyptians was borrowed from the Jews or perhaps from those Elder times from whom the Jews themselves received it which may be plainly proved from the words of that Imperial Rescript by which it was at length forbidden by the Emperor Zeno they are these IMP. ZENO A. EPINICO P. P. Licet quidam Aegyptiorum idcirco mortuorum fratrum sibi conjuges matrimonio copulaverint quod post illorum mortem mansisse Virgines dicebantur arbitrati scil quod certis legum conditoribus placuit cùm corpore non convenerint nuptias non videri re esse contractas hujusmodi connubia tunc temporis celebrata firmata sunt tamen praesenti lege sancimus siquae hujusmodi nuptiae contractae fuerint eas earumque contractores ex his progenitos antiquarum legum tenori subjacere nec ad exemplum Aegyptiorum de quibus supra dictum est eas videri fuisse firmas vel esse firmandas Now that this custom among the Aegyptians was received from the Jewish I argue from these words quod certis legum conditoribus placuit which legum conditores are Moses and those other Lawgivers of Earlier times from whom he himself received it and though it be true that the Jews Married the Wife of their deceased Brother whether she were a Virgin or no in case she had no Male Issue yet it is every whit as true that there were those that would not allow this Law to take place but only in such as had never been touched by the deceased Husband of which number there is no meaner a man than R. Shammai himself the head of one of the two famous Pharisaick Schools as R. Hillel was of the other and the Samaritanes ad unum omnes but I take this only upon the Authority of Grotius who upon Deut. 25. 5. hath these words Vxor defuncti malè Sammai Samaritani hoc de desponsatâ tantùm interpretantur obstant tum alia tum Gen. 38. 6. and if this was the Opinion of the Samaritanes who yet certainly received their knowledge of this Law from the Jews why might it not be of the Aegyptians too Again if these matches were made by others up and down the Roman Empire as the same Edict does more than seem to insinuate ad exemplum Aegyptiorum then it is true what I have already hinted though I would not be very confident of it that the Romans themselves received it from the Jews Originally for causa causoe est causa causati Having thus proved that by the First-born is meant not the Levir himself but the Eldest Son of the Leviratical Bed and that by raising up the name of the dead by hindring his name from being blotted out of Israel is not meant that the adoptive birth was to be of the same name with the deceased Father having shewn that the Marriage of Ruth and Boaz was in consequence and pursuance of that Law in Deuteronomy whereby the Brother was authorized and obliged to raise up Seed to his deceased Brother Lastly Having demonstrated that by the Name the Inheritance is meant and given the reason why it is so because it was necessary the name of the dead should be continued for the asserting of the Title by the light of what has been said we may now discover two other Errors of Mr. Selden and his Rabbins his words are these p. 99 100. Consensu Magistrorum posteri à fratre fratriam ducente suscepti omnes pro vario jure in aliis speciebus successionis defuncti fratris haereditatem capiebant In which words there are no less than two very gross mistakes The First is this that this opinion supposeth all the Children begotten by the Levir or near Kinsman upon his Brothers Wife were accounted and looked upon as the Children of the party deceased and the Second which is expressly asserted that they had all of them a share in the Inheritance both of which must needs be false if by succeeding in the name of the dead Deut. 25. 6. nothing else can be meant as I have proved that nothing else is or can be but only that he was to Inherit the Estate and Patrimony of the deceased for this belong'd only to the First-born by the express words of that place and it shall be that the First-born which she Beareth shall succeed in the name of his Brother which is dead that his name be not put out of Israel now to attribute that in common to all which the Scripture so plainly appropriates to one what is it but to prefer the Authority of a Rabbin before that of Moses the Lawgiver himself Only thus much I believe to have been very true that in case the First-born died then the next Brother was to Inherit in the nature of an adoptive Son as the Eldest had done before him and so on if there was more Brothers and the Second died likewise as the First had done because without this there would not have been a sufficient provision made for that which was the declared end and design of the Law that his name be not put out of Israel and because it is certain if the Elder Brother I speak now of the Imputative Father died without Issue then the next was to succeed in his Bed and in his Inheritance as a kind of an adoptive Husband or an Husband in his Brothers stead as is evident from the story of Er Onan and Shelah and from the story or supposition of the Seven Brethren in the Gospel Now if Brethren were used to succeed one another in their course upon the decease of the Eldest the Second and so on in the quality of adoptive and vicarious Husbands it seems to me to depend upon the same reason and right that the Children begotten in such a Leviratical or Anchisteutical Bed should also succeed one another upon the decease of the Elder in quality of adoptive Sons or Heirs to the First Husband deceased But then if there were no Sons then the Daughter First Begotten was to Inherit for it is still a great mistake in Mr. Selden and his
as yet no partition made of the Land of promise yet they were notwithstanding heritable persons in the esteem of Law and they were going to the actual possession of such Inheritances which none of the Daughters of that time were But it is enough to say without all this elaborate canvaseing the business that the reason of the separation of the Levites instead of the First-born being to be the Priests and Clergy of the Jewish Nation in their stead and it being manifest by the excess of Two hundred and threescore and thirteen for whom a price of redemption was paid that every man had his particular representative assigned him at that time and it being ridiculous for a Levite to represent that person in the service of the Tabernacle which its self was excluded from all manner of intermedling in such affairs which I have shewn Women always to have been it is demonstration that not being represented by the Levites they were not reckoned in the number of the First-born Thus far therefore it is undenyably certain that by the First-born the Male and the Male only is to be understood This is the First Objection the Second is this There were First-born among the Levites themselves too how therefore shall we do in this case were they set apart for their own sakes and for the sake of others whom they represented also This seems to be not only needless but in a manner impossible for when you have done all they can be but set apart to such a service and that they are as effectually one way as the other And which soever of these you consider First the real or the vicarious person seems for that reason to exclude the other But to this I answer that whatsoever the Levites were with respect of their office was perfectly by way of representation they were nothing in themselves they had no inheritance neither were they considered as a part of the children of Israel Numb 1. 48 49. The Lord had spoken unto Moses saying thou shalt not remember the Tribe of Levi neither take the sum of them among the Children of Israel Numb 18. 20. The Lord spake unto Aaron thou shalt have no inheritance in their Land neither shalt thou have any part among them I am thy part and thine inheritance among the Children of Israel And ver 24. The tithes of the Children of Israel which they offer as an heave offering unto the Lord I have given the Levites to inherit Therefore I have said unto them among the Children of Israel they shall have no inheritance Lastly c. 26. 62. And those that were numbered of them of the Levites were 23000 all Males from a month old and upward for they were not numbred among the Children of Israel because there was no inheritance given them among the Children of Israel I shall conclude this discourse of the signification of the word First-born and of its being always restrained and confined to the Male issue with that place of Zech. 12. 10. They shall mourn for him as one that mourneth for his only Son and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitterness for his First-born where it is evident that the First-born in the latter clause being only exegetical of the onely son in the former and it being a proverbial speech expressive of the extremity of grief and sorrow which in all reason will and ought to be greater for the loss of a Male that might have continued the name and memory of the deceasing Parent than of a Female from whom this advantage cannot be obtained it is in both of these respects clear that the word there is restrained to the Male Issue and look whatever is the sense of a word in a proverbial way of speech as this is that is the general acceptation of that word in all examples of the same Language And indeed I think I may after all this safely challenge any man to shew me one instance where the word Bacor I do not speak because it is of the masculine gender for notwithstanding that its signification might be Epicaene in many cases I say I may and do challenge any man to shew me one instance where it is not restrained to denote only the Male kind How unreasonable then must it needs appear to Interpret it in this place of Deut. contrary to the whole Current of its acceptation in all the Bible besides Especially if you consider that it has ben immediately joyned with it in the former verse ov ben een Lo. And he have no Son which word as I conceive in the singular number is never so comprehensive as to denote both sexes though in the plurative sometimes it may as when they say bnei Adam or bnei Israel the Sons of Men or of Israel it is in these instances comprehensive of both sexes but in the Singular number I believe you will very rarely meet with it so though two instances indeed I do now remember as I am writing but then the word is in construction with a case it is not put alone as it is here God is not a Man that he should lye nor the Son of man that he should repent And again what is Man that thou art mindful of him or the Son of Man that thou so regardest him But this being not the case here and it being so nearly placed to another word which is never used but of the Male Sex which two words do plainly refer to one another Habecor v. 6. being as much as Ben habecor because the reason of the Womans Marriage to the Brother of the deceased was chi ben een Lo because her former Husband had no Son I think all this more than one demonstration that the Male is only to be understood in this place Thus have I done with my first argument taken from the signification of the word First-born in the Language of the Scripture to prove that Mr. Selden and those Hebrew Gentlemen whom he is pleased to follow are mistaken when they interpret those words ov ben een Lo and he have no Son indifferently to either Sex I will now confirm what I have said by a second consideration which cannot be resisted and which I have already mentioned in my discourse upon the former medium and that is that this Law was made in the Wilderness long before the delivery of that Law Num. 27. of which I have already spoken by which Women were first made capable of Inheriting if then Women could not Inherit when this Law was made if the design of the Law was to raise up the name of the dead upon his Inheritance And if by that nothing else be meant but that the vicarious Offspring should Inherit in his Right and Title then it is manifest that he who died leaving no Male Issue though he had Female had not yet made sufficient provision for the raising up his name upon his Inheritance or which is all one for hindring
none 2 Kings 1. 17 but his Brother for Jehoram is expressly called the Son of Ahab 2. Kings 3. 1. and v. 2. it is said that he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord but not like his Father that is Ahab and like his Mother that is Jezebel for he put away the Image of Baal that his Father had made that is again Ahab for so it is said of Ahab 1 Kings 16. 31. that he went and served Baal and Worshipped him and v. 32. He reared up an Altar for Baal in the House of Baal Jehoram was succeeded by Jehu the Son of Nimshi the Captain General of all Jehorams forces a man very famous for his exploits in War and particularly for the boldness and fury of his attacks in Battel who knowing very well that expedition is the very life of business when the messengers from Jehoram came one after another to ask him is it peace would not so much as stay to give them audience but with a military roughness what hast thou said he to do with peace turn thee behind me and so drove on with all the speed he could for Jezreel where Joram lay to be healed of the Wounds which he had received in a late Battel against Hazael King of Syria at Ramah and the Watchman that stood upon an eminence to observe what became of the messengers that were sent knew that it was Jehu by the fury of his driving though neither of the Messengers that were sent returned the driving said he is like the driving of Jehu the Son of Nimshi for he driveth furiously And though it cannot be denyed that Jehu was in a most especial manner appointed by God himself for the sins of Jehoram and the House of Omri to be King and was accordingly Anointed to the Kingly Office by the prophet as hath already been shewn yet this divine designation had its effect by natural and human means by the power and interest of Jehu in the Army under his Command as it was in the case of Omri the head of that Royal family which was extinguished in the person of Jehoram and of his Seventy Brethren the Sons of Ahab 2 Kings c. 10. For so it is expressly said when Jehu had acquainted the Captains of the Host with the subject of the Prophets message to him 2 Kings 9. 12. Thus saith the Lord I have Anointed thee King over Israel that v. 13. they hasted and took every man his Garment and put it under him on the top of the Stairs and blew with Trumpets saying Jehu is King and Jehu's party that had proclaimed him was so strong that the rulers of Jezreel and the Elders that brought up Ahabs Children being Seventy in number c. 10. saw it was in vain to insist upon their right against so powerful a pretender to the Throne v. 4. behold two Kings stood not before him that is Jehoram King of Israel and Ahaziah King of Judah how then shall we stand so that they were forced though as it seems contrary to their Inclinations to comply with the Conqueror in a very cruel and sanguinary Command v. 6. take ye the heads of the men year Masters Sons and come to me to Jezreel by to morrow this time and accordingly it came to pass v. 7. when Jehu ' s letter came to them that they took the Kings Sons being seventy persons which were with the great men of the City that brought them up v. 6. and put their heads in Baskets and sent them to Jezreel and as he had served his Sons so he served likewise all that remained of the House of Ahab in Jezreel and all his great Men and his Kinsfolks and his Priests until he left him none remaining v. 11. So that this is another instance of military revolutions and of the mischiefs and calamities to which that nation is exposed where Armies are in constant pay and are either divided among themselves in the consequences of which division the State cannot be unconcerned or acted unanimously by their own discontents or by the designs the ambitions or the private and concealed resentments of their leaders or when being at leisure from any Forreign service they are at leisure likewise to do the more mischief at home as it is morally impossible so great a body of men made up for the most part as it is in all the world besides of a mixt multitude of Knaves and Fools should not brew some mischief when they are out of Employment and the Commanders have little else to do but to lay out a Scheme of greatness for themselves and then pursue the means of compassing their designs Jehu Reigned Twenty and Eight Years and at length died in peace and slept with his Fathers and Jehoahaz his Son Reigned in his stead 2 Kings 10. 35 36. And in the line of Jehu the Kingdom of Israel continued during the Reigns of the four Immediatly succeeding Princes that is to say Jehoahaz Jehoash Jeroboam the second of that name and Zachariah against whom Shallum the Son of Jabesh conspired c. 15. 10. and that it was by a publick and formed conspiracy as well as any of those other changes in the Crown of Israel which have been mentioned appears by this that it is said that he smote him before the people and that he Reigned in his stead The first of which he would not have dared to do and the last he could not possibly have effected had he not had before hand a considerable power and interest in the people before whom he is said to have slain Zachariah But to see the inconstancy of disloyal Subjects who have once forfeited their Allegiance to their Lawful Prince they can be true to no Interest no Person or Estabishment as it proved by our own experience in the late giddy times when once they have prostituted that incommunicable fidelity which is wholly and entirely due to the rightful and Lawful King and to none else besides him for Shallum Reigned but One single Mouth and then gave place to Fate and to the more powerful interest of Menahem the Son of Gadi who went up from Tirzah and came to Samaria and smote Shallum the Son of Jabesh in Samaria and slew him and Reigned in his stead 2 Kings 15. 14. And with what cruelty he mannaged that power which he had gotten and the conquest which he and his party had made over Shallum and his adherents appears immediately in the next words and is a woful example as well as the story of Jehu of those unspeakable miseries and devastations with which all publick revolutions are generally attended v. 16. he smote Tiphsah and all that were therein and the coasts thereof from Tirzah because they opened not to him therefore he smote it and as if Tipsah and Tredagh had been the same he put all the Inhabitants and the Garison to the Sword And all the Women therein that were with Child he ript up and the cause of this cruelty being
too especially where they grow Customary and habitual in us because these are so many willful tendencies to a dissolution and they are so much the more inexcusable because they are usually more deliberate then most of the instances of self-homicide are and are committed when we have or might have had a free use and exercise of our reason Eighteenthly If self-homicide be so Unlawful as it hath been represented how much more impious and guilty must it needs be to imbrue our Hands in the Blood of our Neighbour whose person is certainly less at our disposal then our own and with whom unless it be in our own just and necessary defence we have nothing more to do then only to help and assist him what we can I shall conclude this business with saying what I am sure is true that no affection of Novelty or love of Paradox drew me into a discourse of this Subject in the following Treatise but that I insensibly light upon it before I was aware and that I should be very sorry if any thing that I have said upon that occasion should give offence to any wise or good Man though I hope in this review of that whole matter which I have endeavoured carefully to consider I have made some amends for what is amiss in the body of the Book if any man shall happen to be displeased at it The other thing which I have in my mind and which I find my self obliged to Recant is concerning the Year of Numa which I was very confident I had discovered but I have made a new discovery since that and that is that I know nothing of it and I conceive at this distance of time it is impossible to be explained however upon the whole matter I hope you will not repent the perusal of this Book nor I that I have written it Farewell THE PRINCIPAL HEADS OF THE Ensuing Treatise OF the great Antiquity of the usage in the Text and of the cause wherein it was warrantably dispensed with From Page 1. to Page 60. Of the reasons upon which it was Originally founded From p. 60. to 79. Two mistakes of Mr. Selden and the Rabbins whom he follows From p. 79. to 83. That the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth was in consequence and pursuance of that Law of Moses whereby the Brother was obliged to raise up Seed to the deceased Brother against Mr. Selden and the Rabbins From p. 83. to 119. Two other mistakes of Mr. Selden and his Rabbins discovered From p. 120. to 124. Of the signification of the word First-born in this controversie From p. 124. to 138. Two objections against what was asserted under the last head concerning the signification of the word First-born proposed and answered From p. 138. to 147. Another Argument to prove that by the First-born the Daughter or Female was not understood in the Law of Moses and in what case a Woman was to inherit From p. 147. to 149 The Heiress obliged to Marry to some of the kindred and to the next of kin if he pleased p. 150 151. The Law of the Leviratus to be understood only of Brethren by the Fathers side and in this Mr. Selden and his Rabbins are in the right From p. 151. to 158. An Answer to an objection against the last position that this Law concerned only the Paternal consanguinity From p. 158. to 161. Two objections remaining against what hath been said the first an Argument of Mr. Seldens to prove that the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth was not in consequence and by vertue of the Leviratical Law which is largly answered From p. 161. to 183. Of the true time when this Custom came to be Antiquâ—ted viz. at the division of the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah of the nature of Jeroboams Priesthood and of the frequent revolutions that happened in the Kingdom of Israel after its division from that of Judah by reason of its Military Government and for want of a regular and subordinate Clergy From p. 183. to 237. That the Jews did not abstain from any thing meerly because the Zabii or any other nation round about them practised it and that this was no reason of any of their negative Precepts Proved largely against Dr. Cudworth and the Jewish Rabbins whom he follows From p. 237. to 292. Of the practice of Usury among the Jews and other nations and that the Romans borrowed most if not all their usages concerning it out of the East together with an explanation of many things in the Roman and Assyrian or Eastern Antiquities hitherto unknown which is concluded with two observations the First concerning the reason of Tithes being paid to the Priesthood the other concerning the Lawfulness of a moderate Usury in all but such polities as the Jewish was From p. 292. to 27. The whole is concluded with an answer to a second objection against the Paternal consanguity being only concerned in the matter of the Leviratus which is taken from the Account of our Saviours Genealogy as it is or seems to be differently Related by the two Evangelists St. Mathew and St. Luke BOAZ and RVTH Deuteronomy 25. ver 5. If Brethren dwell together and one of them dye and have no Child the Wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger her Husbands Brother shall go in unto her and take her to him to Wife and perform the duty of an Husbands Brother unto her c. THE reason of which is expressed in the next verse viz. That the name of the Brother might not perish For which cause it was that the first Child begotten in such Wedlock was not accounted the offspring of his or her natural Parent but of him whose person he did in this case sustain that is of his Brother or near Kinsman V. 6. And it shall be that the first born which she beareth shall succeed in-the name of his Brother which is dead that his name be not put out of Israel Which in the instance of a near Kinsman tho not of an immediate Brother was afterwards the case of Ruth and Boaz from whose Loins in a few generations K. David and in the fullness of time the Messias himself the Son of David was descended Which Custom tho it was afterwards as we see confirmed by an express Law of God yet it was in it self much ancienter than the delivery of the Law by Moses as is evident from the story of Er Onan and Shelah the Sons of Judah all of them successively married to Tamar for the reason already mentioned as is very plainly intimated I may say expresly asserted Gen. 38. v. 9. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his and it came to pass when he went in unto his Brothers Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For which fact of his it is said in the next verse And the thing which he did displeased the Lord wherefore he slew him also as he had done his Brother Er for some other wickedness which
was it seems no less displeasing to him v. 7. It is therefore very reasonable to believe since we see this custom to have obtained in the World so long before the delivery of the Law by Moses that it was the ancient usage of all those Easterly Countrys and constantly put in practice in the earliest times by the inhabitants of Syria Mesopotamia Palestine and Egypt Which is yet more probable if you consider that even in the Law it self there are several things both prohibited and commanded the Jews which were alike practised or disallowed by their neighbour Nations and in all probability by themselves long before only now they came to have the Authority of a divine Law which before they had not I will instance in the Egyptians abstinence from Swines Flesh and from Fish which tho it be ascribed by Porphyry and out of him by other Learned men to natural reasons for the avoiding of the Leprosy the common disease of those Countries yet it might be upon such Symbolical reasons likewise as were if I am not mistaken the ground of the Jewish abstinence And which I have in other Papers more largely insisted upon And tho it be not in other Instances so easy to prove that the same prohibitions did obtain among the neighbour Nations yet there are two things to be considered which will make it very probable that they did First That the distinction of beasts into clean and unclean is manifestly of greater Antiquity than the Floud as is evident by this that according to this distinction they were admitted into the Ark either by two's or Sevens and being spoken of there without giving any particular directions to Noah by which he should know the clean and unclean from one another It seems plain that he and his contemporaries were acquainted with this distinction and the bounds of it before and very probable that it had been constantly observed from the Creation until then there being no reason why it should not nor any time imaginable wherein it can be affirmed that it did not obtain You will say perhaps that before the Flood the Flesh of animals was not permitted to be eaten which is true and that the nature of this cleanness or uncleanness in animals consisted in this that the one were prohibited the other allowed in food which is true likewise but it is not the whole truth for they were allowed or prohibited respectively in Sacrifice as well as food therefore since men did sacrifice Animals before the Floud tho they did not feed upon them it is clear that this distinction might well enough obtain before that time which brings me to the Second thing by which will it appear highly reasonable to believe that the very distinction of clean and unclean Beasts and Birds and in the same instances was observed before the delivery of the Law as well as after and by other Nations as well as the Jews And that is That you no where meet with any instance as the common practice of a Nation at least for any so ancient I dare boldly challenge you that any of those either Birds or Beasts mention'd in the unclean Catalogue have been offered up for Sacrifice neither do we or any Nation that I know of use any or but very few of them to this day in our food The same may be said of Fishes of which those that want Fins and Scales are even amongst us accounted the most contemptible as they are certainly the most unwholsome kind and for the Sacrifice of Fish it will be as hard to meet with it unless it be here and there a particular and perhaps a fabulous instance in profane Authors as in the writings of the Jews And as the prohibitions so also the allowances for Food and Sacrifices are and have always been in almost all Nations and all times the same with those of the Ancient Jews themselves as is evident in part from the Sacrifices of Abel and of Balak from the Victims of the Priests of Baal being of the same kind with those of Elijah from the Historical and Poetical Writings of the most Ancient times In which you have frequent mention of Sheep Oxen Goats Turtles Pigeons Offer'd up in Sacrifice and of the same or very like sorts of Odours Incense and Perfumes in the Heathen Temples which were in use either in the high places Tabernacle or Temple of the Jews § 1. More instances of a like Nature may be produced but this being so remarkable and being a complication of so many instances in one is sufficient to justify what I have affirmed that many of those Rites among the Jews which had afterwards the Authority of a divine Law did prevail among themselves and other Nations long before the delivery of that Law of which nature this very usage of which we are now discoursing of the Brothers raising up Seed to the Brother seems to have been one since we see plainly that in the Family of Jacob that is in the Nation of the Jews it was in use from the very beginning of it and was put in practice by Judah his immediate descendant and that not as a new thing but as a known and common practice in such cases otherwise it could not be said of Onan v. 9. that he knew the Seed should not be his if he had not known this by former Precedents and examples of a like nature and by the design of such marriages in case the Brother died without issue The same thing appears likewise from that saying of Judah v. 26. She hath been more righteous than I. By which he plainly acknowledges a right which Tamar had to the enjoyment of his youngest Son Shelah which it was not in his power to deny her It must therefore of necessity depend upon some known Law or usage of those and former times which was the thing to be proved But you will say it depended only upon his promise v. 11. Then said Judah to Tamar his Daughter in Law remain a Widow at thy Fathers House till Shelah my Son be grown which words do manifestly contain an implicit Promise that when Shelah was come to mans estate he should be obliged to perform the Husbands part to raise up Seed to his Eldest Brother Er and Tamars performing the condition on her own part by puting on her Widows Garments the better to avoid all pretenders to her Bed as we see she did v. 14. makes this implicit obligation still more binding upon Judah so that he seems rather to be obliged by vertue of a voluntary restraint which he by his promise had laid upon himself than by any antecedent Law But to this I answer that though the instance of Shelah will not perhaps prove it to have been a Law yet that of onan the intermediate Brother between him and the Eldest will to which purpose it will be necessary for us to observe that in the 18th of Leviticus where the degrees prohibited in marriage are
recited that of the Brothers Wife is prohibited with no less severity than any of the rest the reason of which together with the prohibition it self is expressed in those words v. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Brothers Wife it is thy Brothers nakedness that is Man and Wife in the very first institution of God himself when our first Parents came together were to be one Flesh i. e. the union betwixt them was to be so strict and so inseparable as if they were both of them united into one and the same person from whence it came to pass that the Wise was accounted every whit as near in the interpretation and esteem of Law to all those to whom she was allyed by the affinity depending upon marriage as the Husband himself was by those degrees of Consanguinity in which he stood respectively to them before it § 2. This was the reason of all those Laws Levit. 18. 8. The nakedness of thy Fathers Wife shalt thou not uncover it is thy Fathers nakedness v. 14. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Fathers Brother thou shalt not approach to his Wife she is thy Aunt That is Uncles and Aunts great Uncles and great Aunts and so all along in the Collateral Line ascend as high as you will are in the interpretation of the Jewish as well as of the Civil Law Parentum loco in the stead of Parents and are to have the same or a like respect paid them by us the same or a like Authority and rule over us with our natural Fathers and Mothers which are the very reasons assigned for this and all further prohibitions in the directly or collaterally ascending Lines by the Civil Laws of the Empire which are neither of them any way consistent with the conjugal familiarities of Man and Wife so that to uncover the nakedness of a mans Uncle is the same thing as to uncover that of his Father and the Uncle and Uncles Wife being both by the primitive Institution of God himself considered as the same person to marry with his Aunt is to commit Incest with his Mother Again v. 15. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy Daughter-in-Law she is thy Sons Wife that is they are all one and 't is the same thing as if you should uncover the nakedness of your own Daughter and v. 17. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a Woman and her Daughter because the Woman is your self and therefore her Daughter is yours but then it follows Neither shalt thou take her Sons Daughter or her Daughters Daughter to uncover her nakedness because being united to the Mother from whom they are descended He is by interpretation a Common Parent as well as she to all that derive their pedigree from her Loyns § 3. This is sufficient to shew that by the first institution of things the Brothers Wife and the Brother are both of them consider'd as the same so that to uncover the nakedness of the Brothers Wife is as the Law expresses it to uncover the nakedness of the Brother himself and consequently the same thing as to marry a Man 's own Sister Sister and Brother Germans being tho in different Sexes the same degree of relation It is clear therefore that if to marry a Sister German or a Sister Uterine were prohibited before the Law then to marry the Brothers Wife unless in the case before excepted must be prohibited also because all these things depend upon that fundamental position that Man and Wife are to be considered as the same person which is as ancient as Adam and depends upon no less Authority than that of God himself § 4. Now that to marry a Brother or Sister German bateing the first intermatches between Cain and Seth and their Sisters which the same necessity that caus'd must excuse has been always look'd upon as unlawful even before the time of Moses and the delivery of the Law by him I will prove by several arguments § 5. First Because all the prohibited Marriages and Lusts mentioned in the Chapter of Leviticus above cited are reckoned amongst those sins which were the reasons of Gods wrath amongst the Amorites the Ancient Inhabitants of the Land of Canaan v. 27. 28. For all these abominations have the men of the Land done which were before you and the Land is defiled That the Lord spue not you out also when ye defile it as he spued out the Nations that were before you Again v. 30. Therefore shall ye keep mine Ordinance that ye commit not any of these abominable customs which were committed before you and ch 20. 23. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the Nations which I cast out before you for they committed all these things and therefore I abhorred them Wherefore there being no punishment inflicted but for sin nor any sin against God that is not a Transgression of some divine Law nor any divine Law but what is either Natural or Positive that is to say revealed it is manifest that the marriage of the Sister German was an offence against one if not against both these Laws before the Mosaick dispensation was of any force or Authority in the World § 6. And tho I am not ignorant that some of the instances mentioned as forbidden were notwithstanding allow'd and practised by the permission of God himself in former times as in the case of marrying the half Sister or the Sister by the Fathers side which was Abrahams case and yet is expresly forbidden Lev. 18. 9. yet that this of the Sister German was not of that nature I conjecture with great probability from the punishment annext to it as its sanction Lev. 20. 20. If a man shall take his Brothers Wife it is an unclean thing he hath uncovered his Brothers nakedness they shall be Childless that is not that God would visit them by a particular judgment of Barrenness any more than in the other instances mentioned in the same Chapter where all the punishments are all along inflicted by the hands of men but it is meant that they were immediately to be put to death without giving them so long a Reprieve as to prolong their memory by their issue they were to be utterly and totally cut off from their People both in their own persons and that of their posterity as it is v. 18. they were to die Childless as it is v. 20. and so the Seventy have likewise render'd it in this verse as well as in the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is the same thing with they shall surely be put to death v. 10. their blood shall be upon them v. 11 12 13. he or they shall bear their iniquity v. 17 19. That is there shall be no Atonement for them by any Sacrifice or sin Offering but they themselves shall bear their own iniquity and suffer death in their own proper persons § 7. But now it is not at all likely that that which was no offence
was overtaken and it being inconsistent with the Justice of God to punish an offence so heavily and so universally which they themselves who did it did not know to be a sin it follows plainly that before the Floud such Marriages were and were accounted in the esteem of the World unlawful § 14. Having thus proved that before the Floud there were prohibited degrees of Consanguinity and that the transgressing those bounds by Incestuous Mixtures which did then very frequently prevail in the World was one great cause of that universal calamity with which it was overtaken it may seem an unnecessary task to go about to prove that the same prohibitions were esteemed no less sacred and inviolable after it since Noah who together with his Sons were innocent of this sin and yet knew so well as they did by the punishment of others how heavily displeasing it was in the Eyes of God could not choose together with the tradition of the Floud it self but deliver down the causes of it to their Posterity together with a caution to avoid the same iniquities for fear of being visited tho not with the same for God had made a promise that he would not drown the World any more yet with some equally terrible and dreadful judgments § 15. But yet because nothing can be too sure I will prove it by a double instance by the first of which it will appear that the marriage of Parents with their Children by the second that that of Brothers and Sisters Germans or Uterines with one another was after the Floud and before the delivery of the Law look'd upon as detestable and unlawful § 16. The First is the case of Lot who lay with his Two Daughters from which incestuous Coitions the two great people of Moab and Ammon were descended but they despaired of prevailing upon him to gratify their wicked desires till they had made him so much more than mellow that it is said he perceived not when they lay down or when they arose Gen. 19. 33. which is a plain argument that a just and righteous man which is the Character of Lot would not in his right senses and while he continued to have a due exercise of his reason have been guilty of a Congression of that nature and consequently that in those times it was esteemed and looked upon by all as an abominable and accursed thing § 17. The Second instance is that of Abraham when being charged by Abimelech the King of Gerar for having deceived him under pretence that Sarah was his Sister when she was in reality his Wife says in excuse of himself Gen. 20. 12. She is my Sister she is the Daughter of my Father but not the Daughter of my Mother and she became my Wife by which it is plain that in the opinion of Abraham her being a Sister only by the Fathers side was not an hinderance to Marriage and this being spoken by way of appeal and in his own vindication to Abimelech who had indeed injured himself for want of duly considering the true meaning of Abrahams expression it is an argument that it was the Custom of those times and that the same degrees of Consanguinity were allowed and prohibited at Gerar as well as in the family of Abraham who probably if in these matters he had differed from his neighbours it would have been in this that the allowances would have been rather more narrow than more indulgent and licentious on his side § 18. I know very well that Josephus and out of him Bishop Taylor and out of him his Transcriber T. D. the Writer of a small Treatise in behalf of the Marriage of Cousin Germans will needs have Sarah not to have been Abrahams Sister in that sense in which we usually take the word but only his Niece the Daughter of his Brother Haran and the same with Iscah Gen. 11. 29. and this he tells us p. 84 of that little piece will appear to any one who rightly considers the place but indeed whether I have rightly considered it or no I am sure I have considered it as well as I can and I can find no such thing in it but Sarah and Iscah are both of them mentioned in the very same verse which it is not likely that it would have been done without any mention of the change of the name as is usually done or without so much as intimating that she was called by both of these names if they had been both of them one and the same person Besides if a man would be understood of his half Sister or his Sister by the Fathers side how could he express himself more clearly than thus She is my Sister she is the Daughter of my Father but not the Daughter of my Mother Again that very expression she is the Daughter of my Father but not the Daughter of my Mother cannot without granting many precarious assertions and such as can no way be justifi'd be understood of the Niece or Brothers Daughter so as the sense of the place must at that rate be this She is the Daughter or Grandchild of my Father Therah but not of my Mother but she is his Grandchild by some other Wife who was the Mother of Haran so that it is plain to make this interpretation good these two things must first be granted First that Therah had two Wives either together which cannot be proved of any but Lamech before the Floud or successively which cannot be proved neither and if it could be proved yet Secondly it must be granted likewise that of these two Abraham was the Son of the one and Haran of the other but that they were not both descended of the same Mother all which is not only a shameless but also a very needless begging of the question For the reason as I conceive why this opinion was First started in the World was out of a pious design to defend Abraham from the Obloquy of an incestuous Mixture whereas if a man would consider things aright the Niece or Brothers Daughter is rather more than less a kin than the half Sister by the Fathers side and that upon two several accounts both because the Father's is of the two the more uncertain side and because in the Niece or Brothers Daughter there is at one remove if he be Brother German as it cannot be proved that Haran was not the blood of both our Parents running in her veins besides that to such an one we are parentum loco which is another hindrance to Marriage in the Mosaick as well as the Civil Law I conclude therefore upon an impartial survey of the whole matter that this conjecture let it be supported by never so great names is not only precarious but improbable into the bargain Neither do we read of any other change of Name which Sarah ever suffered but only that of Sarai by a very light mutation into Sarah which is as much as Domina Ductrix Princeps Faemina to make it
clear from the instance of Ruth who first demanded a nearer Kinsman and then upon his refusal Boaz in Marriage the latter of which challenges was accepted And though it seems clear in the Law of Moses at least as to an immediate Brother that the Woman was bound to put in her Claim to him yet it was still at his liberty whether he would comply with it or no only it seems by the instance of the nearest of Kin in the family of Elimelech in the story of Boaz and Ruth that he was to give some tolerable reason of such his refusal But then again there be two reasons why such challenges as these were made The first was this That the Younger was considered in the Nature of a Servant to the Elder of which I shall speak more largely by and by but this did not hold in the collateral Relations who were not under the same subjection to the party deceased nor to the despotical Authority of the Pater-familias who was in the Nature of a common Soveraign to all the Sons but had no such power over the descending Relations in the transverse or oblique Line Secondly It was done for the better preserving the Inheritance in the Line of the First-born for which reason the First-born of this imputative Wedlock was to rise up in and inherit the name of the deceased that is not that he was to be called by the same name with his imputative Father for the Son of Ruth by Boaz was not called Mahlon which was the name of her deceased Husband but Obed only all the business was he was to inherit the estate of the deceased which it was not in the power of his real Father to alienate from him or divide among the Children of another Venter neither had he any right to such Inheritance but what was devolved upon him by his Elder Brother for the use of his Eldest Son by his said Brothers Wife begotten by him in his Brothers stead It is apparent therefore if there were no inheritance in danger of being alienated from the House of Judah or of his Eldest Son Er that she had no manner of reason why she should challenge the next of Kin upon the decease of the three Brothers and therefore clear that she did not do it much less would any of them be under any the least obligation to accept of any such challenge as that was For that Judah and much less his Eldest Son had yet no Inheritance of their own may seem probable from this that Jacob himself was yet alive besides that they shortly after were to part for Egypt bidding a long Adieu to the Land of Canaan and all their immovable Possessions in it However Judah himself being still as we see by the story in a condition capable of leaving a Posterity descended immediately from his own Loyns it was a preposterous way to have recourse to this artificial remedy in the transverse Line when Nature as yet was so vigorous and warm as to be able to propagate and continue its self so that it remains an undeniable truth that whether Shelah were alive or dead she was free from all manner of Obligation either to him or any other of that Family and therefore could not by this Action be said to have committed Adultery which was the thing to be proved But now after all it is certain that Shelah was yet alive Gen. 46. 12. The Sons of Judah Er Onan and Shelah Pharez and Zerah but Er and Onan dyed in the Land of Canaan Which is as much as to say that Shelah did not but went along with his Father Grand-father and Uncles into Egypt as it is also Num. 26. 19 20. The Sons of Judah after their Families were of Shelah the Family of the Shelanites c. 1 Chron. 4. 21. 22 the Sons of Shelah the Son of Judah were Er the Father of Lecah and Laadah the Father of Mareshah and the Families of them that wrought fine Linen of the House of Ashbea And Jochim and the men of Chozeba and Joash and Saraph who had the dominion of Moab and Jashubi-lehem For this reason it is that Josephus reckoning up the Sons of Judah does not mention the two Eldest Er and Onan because they dyed without Issue but only Shelah the Youngest of the Three by his Lawful Wife Shua and Pharez and Zerah begotten by him upon his Daughter in Law Tamar his words are these Antiq. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it seems from this place of Josephus very probable that such as dyed without Issue their names were blotted out of the Genealogical Tables of the Jews which is not only reasonable in it self to suppose there being no use of such names in Tables of Genealogy as do not spread themselves farther by a Posterity of their own but it will also if admitted give a marvellous light to several places of Scripture not yet sufficiently understood as that of Exod. 32. 32. Yet now if thou wilt forgive their Sin and if not blot me I pray thee out of thy Book which thou hast written Not that Moses supposed any such thing as that God kept a Scroul of Parchment or a material or literal Book wherein he did enter down the Names of those on whom he was pleased to bestow any mark of his favour but it is manifestly a Metaphorical expression and therefore must allude to some Custom or Usage of those times Now it is certain that Tables of Genealogy were constantly kept I will not say from the Creation when there were no letters but as soon as ever letters began this being the Principal if not the first use of Letters in all Nations To what wherefore can this expression better allude than to those Tables which being probably written over in every Family for themselves when the Family increased and consequently the Tables were to be enlarged and often-times Transcribed for the use of new descendants in every Generation they did not Transcribe any more than what was necessary to carry down the History of Succession so as if a man had Five Sons as Judah had Two of which dyed without Issue and ended in themselves they were omitted as useless out of this Table because the knowledge of their names was of no use to the Herauldry as I may call it of those times which could give a sufficient account of its self without them but could not make use of them in order to the setling any doubt that should arise in the History of a Pedigree in after times Of the same import is that of Psalm 69. 28. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the living and not be written with the righteous The Book of Genealogies is called the Book of the Living because in them their names abide for ever and they live in their Posterity though in their own persons they be dead and buried And not written with the righteous because fruitfulness was always look'd upon among the Jews and
that with good reason as an argument of Gods favour and of something commendable in those on whom this blessing was bestowed and the contrary as a curse of God for some one or more very heinous and provoking sins which was manifestly the case of Er and Onan who seem therefore to have been left out of Josephus his account as not worthy the notice of after times So also Ps 109. 13. Let his Posterity be cut off and in the Generation following let their name be blotted out i. e. when the next Generation shall come again to Transcribe the Tables of Genealogy for themselves let the names of this mans Posterity as dying without Issue be omitted And this no question is the true sense of that place Deut. 25. 6. And it shall be that the First-born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his Brother which is dead that his name be not put out of Israel Put out viz. in that manner which I have said and that in the Register of his Family his name may still stand over his imputative Offspring which it was necessary it should do because all the descendants from that adoptive Birth enjoyed the Inheritance only in right of him who himself died without any Issue of his own Body so that if his name were left out of the Tables the Estate would upon any controversy be adjudged to some Collateral pretender because his imputative descent in a right Line of adoption could not be proved therefore it was necessary it should be entered down thus Mahlon Boaz Ruth Obed. Or some such way as this to shew how he and his descendants came by that Inheritance which they enjoyed otherwise he that died unmarried or being married had no Inheritance nor Issue either of his own or his Proxy his name was omitted as useless in the Catalogues of Succession It is out of dispute then that Shelah was yet surviving it is likewise certain that he was now come to Marriageable Estate v. 14. She saw that Shelah was grown and she was not given him to Wife and v. 26. She hath been more righteous than I because that I gave her not to Shelah my Son So that all the remaining Question is why he did not give her which Question in all likelyhood must be Answered thus Onan had such such an aversation for the person of Tamar or rather for the thoughts of getting Children to propagate the name or enjoy the inheritance if he had any of another that we see what prodigious brutality he was guilty of to decline this ungrateful Service and it is not unlikely that Shelah when he came at Age might as to this matter have the same sentiments with his Brother Onan for it is natural to every man to hate Bondage and to loath every thing that bespeaks him a Slave which was the true reason of the Younger Brothers performing the Husbands part to continue the name and memory of the Elder as I shall prove more largely in its due place It is very likely therefore that knowing how severely God had punished the beastly dissimulation of his Elder Brother that very fact it self being made death afterwards by the Law of Moses which is a new argument of the great Antiquity of the Mosaick dispensation as to most of the things Prohibited or Commanded in it it is very likely I say upon this account that having the same aversion with his Elder Brother he would not yet be guilty of the same soul Hypocrisy and Dissimulation but declined this ungrateful office more openly than his Brother had done to which though his Father by his Arbitrary power might have compelled him as he seems to have done his Son Onan yet fearing to drive him to the same wicked extremity which had cost the other his life and would in conclusion rob him of all his Children he did so far at last yield to the fixt and immovable aversion of his Son as to suffer him to Marry another for Marry it is certain he did as I have proved already and from that match the Shelanires were descended Besides that Tamar would have had no reason to despair which yet it is certain she did v. 14. If Shelah had still continued perfectly disengaged for so long whatever his own inclinations were she had a reasonable ground of hope that he was still by his Father Judah designed for her in pursuance of the agreement made between them v. 11. The same is clear from v. 26. Because that I gave her not to Shelah my Son for if he had remained still unmarryed and had been firmly designed by Judah for her Bed it would have been no excuse for her that he had not done it yet so long as he had not violated his faith by giving him to another It is certain therefore that Shelah was not only alive at this time but actually Marryed and being so he had still a further excuse why he would not raise up Seed to his Brother Because besides his own aversion which would to be sure encrease with the love which he may well be supposed to have conceived for his other Wife the piques and animosities betwixt the two Women might make it a duty which he owed to the quiet of his Family and the comfort of his Life to continue with the same or greater obstinacy to refuse her than he had formerly done nay the rational prospect of those differences which do naturally arise in Families from Poligamy where there are more Women than one pretending at the same time to an equal or greater share in the affections of the Husband and in the Government of the House together with the quarrels and little janglings of the respective broods which might in time grow up to a mortal enmity betwixt them and their Families for ever in all which differences the Mothers would be sure to side with their respective Offsprings and would engage all the Servants under them to take their parts by which means the whole Family would be engaged in a kind of Civil War and would be embroyled in everlasting Tumults and Disorders this alone might be sufficient to deter him from admitting Tamar into the partnership of his Bed and much more would the experience which he might possibly have of the inconveniences that had actually happened scare him from admitting any rival in his love or partner in his conjugal embraces Though in truth whether it were from these unfortunate janglings or that in those times it was not looked upon as lawful the instances of Poligamy before the Law are very rarely to be met with I do not remember to have found above one before the Floud and that is of Lamech who had Adah and Zillah to his Wives at one and the same time and but two after it and before the delivery of the Law that is of Jacob who had Rachel and Leah the Daughters of his Uncle Laban and of his Brother Esau who had Three Wives but Two
agreement should ever have its effect which Moral Impossibility is a sufficient Vindication of Thamar from the charge of Adultery Besides that Judah having first violated his promise she would at the worst have been more righteous than he as he himself confessed But yet after all this though Shelah continued still averse and Judah in the same mind that he would put no arbitrary Violence upon his inclination yet it is certain he still continued to persuade him what he could to accept of Thamar for his Wife and that not without some though but slender hopes of prevailing upon him by his importunity though he could not as yet alter his inclination otherwise there could be no colour of condemning her for an Adulteress which yet it is certain he did for by Whoredom in the Text is not meant simple Fornication a very trivial crime in those days but Adultery or the betraying of a Conjugal and Lawful Bed As is manifest from this that Judah himself was guilty of the former and as it proved afterwards by the Story at the same time and with the same Person but it would have been a very unequal thing to punish that fault with death in another of which he himself was guilty I conclude therefore that he still continued to importune his Son to accept of her and that it was upon this account and no other he laid Adultery to her charge though when he more calmly considered the Circumstances on her side how much she had been abused by himself and how good reason she had to despair of ever obtaining Shelah he then withdrew his Action and acknowledgeth She hath been more righteous than I. Thus have I demonstrated my way by a very faint and dim light thorough all the dark passages of an ancient and obscure Story which whoever shall consider so well as I have done must be forced to acknowledge that I have not failed in any Circumstance of representing the very matter of fact as it stood in those times with relation to the parties concern'd I could now be glad having wash'd off the imputation of Adultery if I could wipe out that of Incest too not so much out of respect to the persons of Judah or Thamar considered by themselves as because our Saviour's Genealogy is so deeply concerned in it and yet Thamar is no where mentioned that I know of with any reprehension by any of the Writers either of the Old or New Testament neither is this all but there are other instances in the same Genealogy partly of an equally foul nature with this and partly of a nature something approaching to it Of the latter sort are the Matches of Abraham with his Half-Sister and of Jacob with his two Cousin Germans both of them Sister Germans to one another but of these I shall give a fair account when I come to speak of the Marriages of Cousin Germans which will be the subject of another Discourse Of the first sort is the incestuous congression of Lot with his two Daughters from whence Moab and consequently our Saviour himself by Ruth a Moabitish Woman was descended and the Marriage of David with Bathsheba the Wife of Vriah in which there was an horrid combination of Adultery and Murther together and yet from thence Solomon who was himself no very virtuous Prince and from him many very wicked Kings of Judah sprung in all whose Loins the Messias was contain'd so that it may be applied to this sense as well as any other in respect of his Genealogy as well as for any other reason what the Prophet Isaiah hath said of him Esai 53. 12. He was numbred with Transgressours But after all it is certain that the very worst of these Congressions had something in them which was Typical of that Messias who was to spring from them I will instance first in that of Lot with his Daughter the Mother of Moab from whom the whole people of the Moabites borrowed their Original and why was he called Moab I beseech you was it not Miab because he was descended of his and his Mothers common Father the Progenitor of him according to the Flesh who was begotten of his Father before all worlds begotten of him who was the Father of the World the Father of the Son and though not in the same immediate sense the Father of the Blessed Virgin his Mother I will instance likewise in the incestuous Mixture of Judah with his Daughter in Law Thamar betwixt whom Pharez another of our Saviours Progenitors was begotten and who was this Pharez is it not from Pharats rupit and does he not in his very name point at the Messias who was in the fulness of time to be descended from his Loyns by whom the Mosaick enclosure was to be laid open and the Partition Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile to be broken down Lastly in the Marriage of Boaz with Ruth which though it was not an incestuous yet it was possibly an unlawful Marriage First of Mahlon then of Boaz in his right to a strainge Woman and yet what more plain than that the Marriage of Boaz a Jew to Ruth a Moabitish Woman was Typical of that blessed Union betwixt Jew and Gentile and of their being one Sheep-fold under one common Shepherd to which the dispensation of the Messias is so Naturally fitted which was the design of his comming into the World and of his Suffering upon the Cross and which though not yet compleated yet the Completion of it is by all good Christians expected with a no less firm and consident assurance than that with which they embrace any other part of the Christian Belief He was to unite God and Man and therefore had the Humanity twisted into one common person with his God-head he was to unite men to one another and therefore his Human Part was in a manner equally divided betwixt Jew and Gentile he was by nature all things to all men that he might gain the more And being so nearly allied by the bands of Nature both to the Jewish and to the Heathen World it can be the less suspected that he had any design but what did equally concern the happiness of them both And now I am the less displeased with this conceit in that since I find Grotius a man of unquestionable judgment as well as Learning to concur with me in the same opinion His words are these upon Ruth 1. 4. Merito autem Rahabam Rutham in Genealogiâ Messiae ponit Matthaeus tanquam praeludia vocationis gentium quae per Messiam facienda erat But when all is done it neither is nor ought to be looked upon as any such disparagement that in our Saviours Genealogy there are incestuous Mixtures to be found For as Seneca saith wisely with relation to those who vaunt themselves too much upon the Antiquity and Splendour of that Family of which they are descended Omnibus nobis totidem ante nos sunt nullius non origo ultra memoriam jacet
thy Fathers Children shall bow down before thee Judah is a Lyons Whelp from the prey my Son thou art gone up he stooped down he couched as a Lyon and as an Old Lyon who shall rouse him up The Scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a Lawgiver from between his Feet until Shiloh come and unto him shall the gathering of the People be It is clear therefore that the Kingdom or Soveraignty over his Brethren was bestowed upon Judah and as for the Priest-hood it was after appropriated upon another occasion to the Sons of Levi not by the designment of Jacob but of God himself It is likely therefore that as Judah tempered mercy with his hatred and was in the midst of his Envy an Instrument of saving his Brother Josephs Life so Jacob mixed the Kindness of a Father with the Severity of a Judge and depriving him only of a part of what belonged to him as his Birth-right as a punishment for his offence left him the rest entire as being due to him as the Eldest and as the reward of his mercy But yet after all this he passed by not only Dan and Naphtali the Sons of Rachel by her Handmaid Bilhah as also Gad and Asher the Sons of Leah by her handmaid Zilphah but likewise Issachar and Zebulon the Sons of Leah her self all of them Elder than Joseph and all dispossessed of the Birth-right without any reason at all but only the Arbitrary power with which their Father was invested unless it were perhaps upon some Prophetick reasons which neither are or can be at this time known to us as it was in the case of Ephraim and Manasseh Gen. 48. 17 18 19. And when Joseph saw his Father lay his right hand upon the head of Ephraim it displeased him and he held up his Fathers hand to remove it from Ephraims head unto Manassehs head And Joseph said to his Father not so my Father for this is the First-born put thy right hand upon his head And his Father refused and said I know it my Son he also shall become a people and he also shall be great but truly his Younger Brother shall be greater than he and his Seed shall become a multitude of Nations But if no violence were done to the natural succession then the Elder Brother did in right of Primogeniture succeed he Grot. ad Gen. 4. 7. primogeniti per Patris aut mortem aut absentiam paternam quandam aut horitatem in fratres habebant was in his Fathers life time looked upon as Heir apparent to the domestick Crown and in his Fathers absence he was the Supream Lord and his Brethren were as much his Servants as he was his Fathers and how great Homage and obeysance the Younger Brothers of those times were used to pay the Elder will appear from the 33d of Gen. where Jacob meeting his Brother Esau and being fearful he would now take that opportunity to revenge himself for the wrong he had received pays him all the Submission and Duty which belonged to the Elder Brother as well in his own person as in those of his Wives Children and Servants from verse the 12 to the 16 in these words they are so remarkable I will Transcribe them all And Jacob lift up his Eyes and looked and behold Esau came and with him four hundred men and he divided the Children unto Leah and unto Rachel and unto the two handmaids and he put the handmaids and their Children foremost and Leah and her Children after and Rachel and Joseph hindmost and he passed over before them and he bowed himself to the ground seven times till he came near unto his Brother And Esau ran to meet him and they wept and he lift up his Eyes and saw the Women and the Children and said who are these with thee And he said the Children which God hath graciously given thy servant Then the handmaids came near they and their Children and they bowed themselves and Leah also with her Children came near and bowed themselves and after came Joseph near and Rachel and they bowed themselves And he said what meanest thou by all this drove which I met and he said these are to find grace in the sight of my Lord and Esau said I have enough my Brother keep that thou hast unto thy self And Jacob said nay I pray thee if I have found grace in thy fight then receive my Present at my Hand for therefore have I seen thy face as though I had seen the face of God and thou wast pleased with me take I pray thee my blessing that is brought to thee because God hath dealt graciously with me and because I have enough and he urged him and he took it And he said let us take our journey and let us go and I will go before thee and he said unto him my Lord knoweth that the Children are tender and the Flocks and Herds with young are with me and if men should out-drive them one day all the Flock will die let my Lord I pray thee pass over before his Servant and I will lead on softly according as the Cattel which goeth before me and the Children be able to endure until I come unto my Lord in Seir. And Esau said let me now leave with thee some of the Folk that are with me and he said what needeth it let me find grace in the sight of my Lord. But if thus much submission were paid on account of Primogeniture to a Fellow Twin born but just immediately before him an Inhabitant of the same Womb at the same time with himself then it is still the stronger evidence of that vast respect which was used by the Custom of those days to be paid to the same Primogeniture in others whose birth was at a greater distance from the Younger Brothers because in them the reason of this preferment of the First-born before the Younger Children was much more strong than it can be in Twins who are born in a manner together Which reason is assigned by Jacob speaking of his Eldest Son Reuben Gen. 49. 3. Reuben thou art my First-Born and the * Deut. 21. 15 16 17. If a man have two Wives one beloved another hated and if the first-born Son be hers that was hated he may not make the Son of the beloved first-born but he shall acknowledge the Son of the hated for the first-born for he is the beginning of Strength the Right of the first-born is his beginning of my Strength the excellency of Dignity and the excellency of Power he was therefore the excellency of Dignity and the excellency of Power that is he was to have excercised a Soveraign Rule and Dominion over his younger Brethren had he not forfeited this Right of his by uncovering the Nakedness of his Father in the enjoyment of his Concubine Bilhah because he was the beginning of his Strength the Son of his Youth the first and the most lively representation of his Father
waxen poor and hath sold away some of his possession and if any of his Kin come to redeem it then shall he redeem that which his Brother sold and if the man have none to redeem it then let him count the years of the sale thereof and restore the overplus unto the man unto whom he sold it that he may return unto his possession but if he be not able to restore it to him then shall that which he sold remain in the hand of him that bought it until the year of Jubilee And in the Jubilee it shall go out and he shall return unto his possession This was the Law of Redemptions among the Jews in case of a Morgage upon their own their Brethren or their Kinsman's Land and the reason why this is applied to the Case of Ruth and Boaz is because of the frequent occurring of the word redeeming in that Story v. 4. of that Chapter If thou wilt redeem it redeem it but if thou wilt not redeem it then tell me that I may know For there is none to redeem it besides thee and I am after thee And he said I will redeem it Having thus recited the words as they lie in the place of Leviticus above cited which words are pretended to be the only ground of the Marriage betwixt Ruth and Boaz. I will now impartially state the case and shew plainly how far this Law was concerned in this Marriage and how far it was not Ruth 1. v. 1 2. we have these words Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled that there was a famine in the Land and a certain man of Bethlehem Judah went to sojourn in the Countrey of Moab he and his Wife and his two Sons and the name of the Man was Elimelech and the name of his Wife Naomi and the name of the two Sons Mahlon and Chilion Ephrathites of Bethlehem Judah And they came into the Countrey of Moab and continued there An expensive continuance it was to be sure when they were forced to live wholly upon the Personal Estate what Mony they had or could get together while the real one lay wast and would not yield any thing at all Besides that there being so heavy a Famine in the Land of Canaan it is not to be supposed but that the same causes which had wrought this scarcity in Judaea did more or less prevail in Moab also as being a bordering Countrey as when the Seven years Famine was in Aegypt it raged no less in the neighbouring Countreys at the same time Provisions must therefore be very dear and they as being Strangers were probably more hardly used than the Natives and besides were continually subject to the Violence and Injustice of a Nation who had sufficient reason to be no friends to the Jews How long this famine lasted we cannot tell but the Aegyptian famine is an example that such Judgments in those Countreys were sometimes of a very long continuance and if you suppose it to have fallen upon the year before the Sabbatical as it might well enough do when the whole Land of Israel was at rest from all manner of Husbandry and Tillage it must be of three years continuance at least that is to say that year on which it began the Sabbatical year wherein the Land rested from Tillage and the year following till the time of Harvest for it is impossible both to sow and reap-together Well in process of time Elimelech he dyes and at his death divides his estate into three parts one part of it he gives to Naomi not wholly for that it does not seem to have been in his power to do by the Law of Inheritances Numb 27. but only till the year of Jubilee or perhaps by way of Jointure during her life the rest he divided after what manner is not said neither can we tell which was the eldest for one is named first Ruth 1. 5. the other Ruth 4th and the 9th between Mahlon and Chilion his two sons who the famine being not yet ended the better to secure what they had or perhaps to acquire more for their support married each of them to a Moabitish Woman Ruth 1. 4. but did not cohabit long with them before they dyed also as their Father Elimelech had done before them By which means it came to pass that the whole estate which seems to have been passed over and consigned to Naomi in case the two Brothers dyed without Issue was now actually in her possession and this is the meaning of that appeal of Boaz to the Elders Ruth 4. 9. And Boaz said unto the Elders and to all the People ye are Witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's i. e. Naomi's proper share and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon ' s of the hand of Naomi From whence it will be easie to discern how far the Law in Leviticus concerning the redemption of the poor Brother's Inheritance was concerned Elimelech's estate upon the decease of himself and his two Sons was now wholly in the Possession of Naomi either till the year of Jubilee or for the term of her natural life for the reasons already mentioned this the next of Kin to whom the Inheritance after the expiration of this term would of it self devolve might redeem at his pleasure to re-unite it to the Inheritance of his Family and that either by allowing so much as a valuable consideration for the Interest of her life in it or by setting an equal value upon her Right in the time to come from the date of the purchase to the year of Jubilee be it more or less according to the manner prescribed in that Chapter of Leviticus if he would not redeem it then the next of Kin might do the same yet so as he was only to enjoy it till the said year of Jubilee and then it must of course fall to the share of the first refuser as being nearest of Kin according to the Mosaick Platform of Successions This was Boaz his case who could not redeem the Inheritance of Elimelech till he that was nearest of Kin had first refused Ruth 3. 12 13. Now it is true that I am thy near Kinsman howbeit there is a Kinsman nearer than I tarry this night and it shall be in the Morning that if he will perform unto thee the part of a Kinsman well let him do the Kinsmans part but if he will not do the part of a Kinsman to thee then I will do the part of a Kinsman to thee as the Lord liveth Again Chap. 4. v. 3 4. And he said unto the Kinsman Naomi that is come again out of the Countrey of Moab selleth a parcel of Land which was our Brother Elimelech's and I thought to advertise thee saying buy it before the Inhabitants and before the Elders of my People if thou wilt redeem it redeem it but if thou wilt not redeem it then tell me that I may know For there is none to
redeem it besides thee that is you are by Law to have the first refusal and I am after thee as much as to say and the next refusal is mine But now whereas I said that the Estate of Elimelech was bequeathed to Naomi till the year of Jubilee or during her Life the latter of these seems to me the more probable of the two in that it is but reasonable the Widow should be always considered out of the fortune of the deceased for the tearm of her own Natural and proper Life which in many cases would in all rational probability extend farther than the next year of Jubilee and was to be sure the most certain way to make a provision for her neither could this be look'd upon as any Alienation when the Estate after her decease was to return into its proper channel besides that Naomi for ought we know might be an Heiress which was the case of the Daughters of Zelophehad Numb 27. and 36. and of the Daughters of Sheshan 1 Chron. 2. 34. of Eleazar 1 Chron. 23. 22. and as I shall make it very probable in its due place of Achsah the Daughter of Caleb Josh 15. 16 17. and Jud. 1. 13 14 15. in which case it would be very unreasonable they should be left destitute themselves who had brought an accession of power and riches unto that part of their family unto which they were matched Who they were that in cases of this nature had a right of redemption we find particularly set down in the Chapter of Leviticus so often mentioned in the case of the poor Brother who had sold himself to the stranger for I suppose the redemption of Inheritances is but one part of that Law in which the redemption of persons is included and that the right of redeeming is in both cases invested in the same persons the words of the Law are these Levit. 2. 47 48 49. If a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee and thy Brother that dwelleth by him wax poor and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee or to the stock of the strangers family After that he is sold he may be redeemed again one of his Brethren may redeem him Either his Vncle or his Vncles Son may redeem him or any that is nigh of Kin unto him of his family may redeem him or if he be able he may redeem himself It is certain that the Jewish commentators are of Opinion that the same persons had a right of redemption in the case of Inheritances as well as this in that some of them not by any tradition but by the authority of this text have determined Boaz to be Uncle to Mahlon the deceased Husband of Ruth and others would have him be his Cousin German But I am rather for the latter of these because for the Vncle to Marry the Niece which is the same thing with the Nephews Wife is forbidden by parity of reason at least Levit. 18. 14. Neither is there any one instance to be found after the delivery of the Law where it was ever dispensed with but now there are instances in the Daughters of Zelophehad and of Eleazar wherein the Marriage of Cousin Germans and a Cousin Germans Wife is the same thing has been dispensed with it is therefore much safer to conclude on that side which has precedents to favour it than on that which has none besides that the nearness of Kin being in a manner the same between two Cousin Germans and an Uncle Marrying with his Niece yet there is an equality in the former which is one predisposition to Marriage which in the other there is not but instead of that he is to his Neice as hath been said Parentis loco which bar to Matrimony has always been so sacred not only in the Mosaick but also the Roman Law that it has never been broken down without the disgrace and infamy of those that gave the first example of so fowl a crime But that which will put the matter out of all controversie it this that the reason of dispensations in Marriages of this nature being founded in that Servitude or Subjection which the Younger ows to the Elder it is manifest that a Cousin German that is the Son of a Younger Brother might properly enough marry the relict of him who was the Son of the Elder he does in this perform a service to his Uncle the Father of the deceased who was by interpretation of Law a kind of Father to him as well as the other but the Uncle himself being to the Niece in the stead of a Parent it being impossible that Superiority and Subjection can consist together in the same person with respect to the same and so the reason of the dispensation ceasing the dispensation its self must of Necessity cease together with it But yet after all I will not be too positive in this case which seems to be something extraordinary if the Uncle would decedere de suo jure if he would submit himself to his deceased Nephew whose person he did in this case sustain and equal himself in a manner to his Niece to whom he is by Law and by Nature in the stead of a Parent volenti non fit injuria Therefore I leave this business as I found it without determining any thing either way But either way it is a very great mistake of Mr. Selden and those of the Jewish Writers whom he follows to think that this match was not made in pursuance of that Law of Deut. 25. by which the Brother was to raise up Seed to the deceased Brother and to propagate his name and memory in his stead The business in short is thus Naomi had passed over her Title to the Inheritance of Elimelech to her Daughter-in-Law Ruth upon condition that he of the Kindred who would accept of her Daughter for his Wife should have the Inheritance together with her upon this Ruth challenges Boaz for her Husband which challenge he did not refuse but only said there was one nearer of Kin than he being as I conceive his Elder Brother who was in this case always to have the first refusal and she must first apply her self unto him it being not in his power to accept of what she proposed till the other had refused to do it it is therefore agreed that in the presence of the Elders and the People she shall make her application to him Naomi saith Boaz in behalf of Ruth selleth a parcel of Land which was our Brother Elimelech's you are the first person who by our Law have a right of redeeming it say therefore whether you will redeem it or no I will said he but did not think at the same time that he was to purchase a Wife into the bargain wherefore being better informed of the true state of things he relinquishes his right to Boaz who immediately takes Ruth to Wife in the presence of the whole Assembly to raise up the name of the dead
for all this of the same meaning with that of Deut. that his name be not put out of Israel and with a like expression of the Daughters of Zelophehad Num. 27. v. 3 4. Our Father dyed in the Wilderness and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord c. why should the name of our Father be done away from among his family because he hath no Son give unto us therefore a possession among the Brethren of our Father Where it is plain that a name 's being done way from a Family and a man 's not leaving a possession to some Body to inherit in his right so as it was necessary the memory of his name should be continued for the asserting of the Title are exactly the same thing For Women could not continue the memory of their Parents in all the old Testament you scarce ever find them inserted in the Genealogies they have their name from oblivion as men have theirs from remembrance because they carry on and continue the Pedigree of their Fore-Fathers but the Women are reckoned only as a part of their Husbands and their Children as the Posterity not of theirs but of their Husbands Fathers and are distinguished from the Posterity of their own to which we have a manifest allusion Psalm 45. 16. Instead of thy Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou mayst make Princes in all Lands It was necessary therefore that to propagate the memory of the Father by the Daughters when he had no Male Issue they should be considered as Heiresses and the estate descending from them to their Posterity in right of their Father his name and memory was by this means continued which otherwise would have perished as effectually as if he had had no Children at all From all which it is plain that for a mans name not to be put out of Israel not to be done away from among his Family and to rise up upon his Inheritance are all of them the same thing Lastly To put the matter yet farther out of question Ruth 3. 13. the redemption of the Inheritance and the Marriage of the Woman to whom in right of her Husband it belonged as being intimately connected with one another are both of them expressed by the same word of redeeming if he will redeem thee let him redeem thee both in the original Hebrew and in the Greek we render it if he will perform unto thee the part of a Kinsman well let him do the Kinsmans part and the Vulgar Latin singularly well si te voluerit propinquitatis jure retinere bene res acta est si autem ille noluerit ego te absque ullâ dubitatione suscipiam Where it is certain that the Verb Gaal in this place is exactly the same with Jibbem in Deuteronomy though the first be of a more extensive signification than the latter as likewise what our Interpreters do here call performing the Kinsmans part is there by them Stiled performing the Husbands part All which is mightily corroborated by the Testimony of Josephus Antiq. L. 5. XI who telling this very story mentions together with it the loosing of the shoe and spitting in the face of the refuser in pursuance of the Law made in that behalf Deut. 25. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Selden reads rightly after Drusius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Boaz appealing to the Assembly of the Elders bad them take notice of the refusal of the nearest Kinsman and then instructed Ruth in pursuance of the Law of Moses to take off his Shoe and spit in his Face which done he immediately Marryed her in the presence of them all But Mr. Selden will not allow this to be any thing better than a mistake of Josephus Confusio saith he planissimè binarum legum quarum altera de haereditate alienatâ seu emptores invitante redimendà altera de fratriâ ducendâ est But I think I have made it pretty plain already that it is Mr. Selden himself is in the mistake not Josephus and I cannot but observe that it is that Learned Gentlemans misfortune to side with Josephus only in his Errors as when he tells us the adoptive Child was to be of the same name with his imputative Father but when he speaks reason as he does certainly in this case to oppose him For Josephus does not deliver this out of any Authentick record as is apparent by this that we have already found him in several mistakes but it is only his own opinion or perhaps the sense of the Learned men of his time that this place was to be referr'd to the Law of the Leviratus and so he added the description of this Ceremony de suo as being a part of that Law and which he thought was never omitted in case the person to whom the challenge was made refused to accept it only this indeed is much to be wondred at as a very great inconsistency in Josephus that he should acknowledge the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth to have been made in consequence and pursuance of that Law of Moses by which the Brother was to propagate the name and memory of the Brother and yet understand that expression that his name be not put out of Israel as if the Child was to be of the same name with his adoptive Father when as it is clear that the Son of Ruth by Boaz was not called Mahlon but Obed which name is from habad servivit and was given him as I conceive for this reason to denote that he was a Servant to Mahlon to continue his name upon his Inheritance and propagate his memory by a new succession of descendants from his Loyns to after ages which is still a further confirmation of what I have endeavoured to prove But it may be still objected that Ruth being a stranger a Moabitish Woman neither Boaz nor any other Jew could Marry her it being so far from being agreeable to any Law that it was expressly contrary to the Law of Moses Deut. 7. 3. neither shalt thou make Marriages with them thy Daughter thou shalt not give unto his Son nor his Daughter shalt thou take unto thy Son But this if it had been a good objection might have been urged by him that was nearer of Kin to the Family of Elimelech than Boaz was and since it was not we have more reason to conclude that she was then proselyted and naturalized and become as one of the Jews themselves which it is certain she did passionately desire Ruth 1. 16. And Ruth said intreat me not to leave thee or to return from following thee for whither thou goest I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge thy people shall be my people and thy God shall be my God And in this case there was no reason why he might not take her to his Wife especially if you consider that such Marriages were
case of redeeming the Inheritance or the Person of the poor Brother who had sold himself Since therefore the word in the Hebrew is the same since the rendition of the other Interpreters does all along restrain it to one of the Kindred of the deceased Party since the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Seventy are the same what can be more manifest than that as well in the Opinion of the Seventy Interpreters as of others whose Authority because not so ancient and because derived only from them is of less Credit the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the degrees of Proximity in respect of blood in all three cases that is to say in the redemption of the Person of a Brother who had sold himself or of the Inheritance of the same Person who being reduced to extream Poverty was obliged to sell it and in the avenging the blood of him who was unwillingly slain were all of them the same being either the Brother or the Vncle or the Vncle's Son or any that was nigh of Kin to the Family of the Person concerned Levit. 25. 48 49. Neither does it appear only from the Identity or Sameness of the word in the Hebrew in all these cases and from the agreement of the Seventy in their Version in every one of the cases now insisted upon that the word Goel which we render the Revenger is to be understood in this last instance as well as in the other of somebody that was nigh of Kin but it is no less evident from the express words of the Original Text it self Deut. 19. 5 6. He shall fly unto One of those Cities and live lest the Avenger of Blood pursue the Slayer while his heart is hot and overtake him because the way is long and slay him whereas he was not worthy of death insomuch as he hated him not in time past Now in the first place it is a very wild piece of extravagance to suppose that a man having killed another by a perfect chance should for this reason lie exposed to the fury of every man who had the power or opportunity to revenge it without any process or formality of Law that it might be seen first whether he deserved such punishment or no. In the second place there was no reason why every mans heart should be hot or swell'd with a tumultuous appetite of revenge as fast as any other whom perhaps they never knew or heard of before should come to an untimely death it seems therefore most reasonable to confine it only to the relations or friends of the party deceased who may well enough be supposed especially those that are so very near to have had the greatest friendship for him and the deepest share in that loss which is sustained by his death Thirdly We must not Imagine that the Law did countenance revenges of this Nature but it did only pardon the infirmity of men whose heart was hot i. e. overpowered with an excess of grief and a masterless desire of revenge which passionate concern may well enough be suppos'd to enter into the breast of a Brother Vncle or Vncles Son or any that is near of Kin especially if to the nearness of Consanguinity a strict friendship and a necessary dependance be joyned but cannot reasonably be pretended by any in his excuse whose circumstances of Birth and Fortune are at a farther distance from the person slain The use which I make of these things is this that all these three instances do mutually confirm and strengthen one another the right of redeeming the person of the poor Brother has been shewn to belong only to the near Kinsman by the express words of the Law its self that is to say to the Brother or Vncle or Vncles Son or any that is near of Kin that is at the least a degree farther than this the same is likewise agreed by all the Jewish Interpreters of the redemption of Inheritances and is in it self very reasonable to believe it being mentioned in the very same Chapter with the other without any particular mention who are the persons in whom the Right of Redemption is legally invested unless the persons who are specified in this latter case be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to belong to them both besides that the case of Ruth and Boaz in which the redemption of Inheritances was no question concerned shews it without all controversy to be extended farther than to the immediate Brother though not further than to such as were near of Kin. Lastly The revenging the Death of him that was slain by chance has been shewn to belong likewise to the very same persons and that not only from the sameness of the word 〈…〉 three cases and from the 〈…〉 the Ancient Interpreters 〈…〉 â—xpress words of the Law and from the reason of the thing it self If then whoever redeemed the person of a Brother that had sold himself might also avenge his blood in case he were slain by chance and might redeem his Inheritance when through poverty or want it was encumbred or alienated from him and if the reason of that Vicarious Wedlock which is usually but falsely confined to the Brother of the deceased was for the redemption of the Inheritance and to hinder it from going to any other Tribe or as nigh as might be into another House then it follows plainly that whoever might redeem the Inheritance might Lawfully Marry the Wife of the deceased which had no other end but this which was the thing to be proved And now if it be asked why in the Law of Deuteronomy the Jabem or deceased Husbands Brother is only mentioned notwithstanding so many of the Kindred might Marry to the Widow I answer it was for these three reasons First Because the first refusal of the Widow and of the Inheritance was his Secondly Because he was under the strictest obligation to propagate the name and memory of his deceased Brother in the nature of his Servant whereas though the other relations might if they pleased do it upon the refusal of the Brethren yet not standing in the same relation of servants to the deceased they were not as I conceive under the same obligation Lastly Denominatio sumitur a parte potiori because it did actually so come to pass for the most part that one of the surviving Brethren did accept of the Challenge made by the Woman in behalf of her deceased Husband and there was good reason why he should if he were not Married before because by this means there was as I have said one Child provided for and that very plentifully for there was a double portion in the case which belonged of right to the Elder Brother Deut. 21. 17. and it is not improbable that he received likewise into the bargain this farther advantage that during his own life he had the entire management and disposal of this estate for the support of himself and for the benefit of
Ministry of the Tabernacle either by themselves or by their Proxies the Levites which was that they were to pay Five Shekels apiece after the Shekel of the Sanctuary each Shekel consisting of 20 Gerahs for the use of Aaron and his Sons v. 47 48. which was accordingly done and distributed after the manner aforesaid as the Lord had commanded Moses v. 49 50 51. From whence it is very plain not only that none of the Levites were reckoned but the Males but that they represented none but such in the other Tribes For if you consider that the Tribe of Levi was one of the Thirteen all the Males of the Tribe of Levi will be in a manner of an equal number with the First-born being Males of the other Tribes for the excess of Two hundred seventy three is only accidental in its self one way or other and is not much either way in so large an account as this But you will say it is an equal chance take one with another whether a Male or Female be Born first in any house or Family and therefore if only the First-born were represented by the Males of the Levites and the Females were not taken into the account nor had any to represent them then the number of the Levites would be in a manner double to the number of the First-born in the other Tribes But to this I Answer that in such cases the Female indeed was omitted out of the account but the next Male to her was taken in as the First-born and so the Account will be adjusted again If you ask me how I prove this have a little patience and I will tell you You must know therefore that the First-born of all Beasts as well clean as unclean were to be set apart as well as the First-born of Men the clean for Sacrifice and the unclean to be redeemed with Mony Now it is expressly asserted in the Law it self as hath been already shewn that none but Males were either to be Sacrificed or Redeemed what therefore if the First-born of any Beast whether clean or unclean shall prove a Female shall not the next Male be esteemed as the First-born in this case And is not this much more reasonable to suppose than that God should lose his Sacrifice or the Priests their portion Nay is it not expressly asserted that it was to be so Numb 3. 40. The Lord said unto Moses Number all the First-born of the Males of the Children of Israel now he might be the First-born of the Males the First-born in suo genere who was not so absolutè or the First-born of all the Children It is clear therefore that in case a Daughter were really the Eldest yet she was not included in the notion of the First-born which belonged only to the First of the Males i. e. to her next Brother or to the Eldest Son that should be born after her now the same was the case both of Cattel and Men and for the same reason so that these things do mutually strengthen and confirm one another v. 41. of the same Chapter And thou shalt take the Levites for me I am the Lord instead of all the First-born among the Children of Israel and the Cattel of the Levites instead of all the Cattel of the Children of Israel All which will be yet further evident from Deut. 21. v. 15 16 17. If a Man have two Wives one beloved and another hated and they have born him Children both the beloved and the hated then it shall be when he maketh his Sons to Inherit that which he hath that he may not make the Son of the beloved First-born before the Son of the hated which is indeed the First-born but he shall acknowledge the Son of the hated for the First-born by giving him a double portion of all that he hath for he is the beginning of his strength the right of the First-born is his From which place I argue thus Whoever had the right of the First-born and was to receive a double portion of all that the Father possessed he or she was in the Interpretation of the Law and consequently in the Language of Moses and in all those Laws where mention is made of the First-born the First-born but this was not the First-born Child but the Eldest Son Therefore in case a Daughter were born before him it is necessary according to the true intention of the Law and the practice of those times that she should be omitted out of the account for a Female in case there were any Male surviving at the death of the Parent was so far from having a double portion which was the right of the First-born that she was not to Inherit at all Numb 27. 8. If a man die and have no Son then shall he cause his Inheritance to pass unto his Daughter But in no other case unless you suppose this Law to be in vain It is manifest therefore all along that by the First-born the Eldest Son is meant again for he is the beginning of his strength which is the very expression of Jacob concerning his Eldest Son Reuben Gen. 49. And the meaning of it is this that the Eldest Son was in the nature of all primitiae or first Fruits dedicated unto the Lord only with this difference that all other first Fruits were dedicated in the nature of Sacrifices but he in the quality of a Priest Now as I have said it is plain that Women were never admitted into the Priest-hood either before the Law or under it and before it as hath been said the Eldest Brother was both the King and the Priest of the Family for these two characters were of Ancient time commonly united in the same person as Melchisedeck was King of Salem and Priest of the most High God As is evident from the Accounts of Numa and Tullus Hostilius in the Roman story and from this that after the expulsion of their Kings they had their Reges Sacrificuli whose business it was to execute those parts of the Priestly Office which belonged formerly to the Kings of Rome And as has been a thousand times observed out of that known Verse Rex Anius Rex idem hominum Phaebique sacerdos Upon which place of Virgil Servius hath these words Majorum enim haec erat consuetudo ut Rex esset etiam Sacerdos Pontifex undè hodiè quoque Imperatores Pontifices dicimus And upon the very next Verse to it Vittis sacrâ redimitus tempora lauro saith thus Vittae Sacerdotis sunt laurus etiam Imperatoris victoris For which reason it is that when Jacob calls Reuhen the beginning of his strength he adds to it after an exegetical or explanative manner the excellency of Dignity and the excellency of Power in the former of which expressions the Priest-hood and in the latter the King-ship of the Family though Reuben had forfeited them both for a reason already mentioned seems to have been contained And that this
his name from being blotted out of Israel or being done away from his Family or from the gate of his place therefore the reason of this Law still remaining notwithstanding the Female Issue the relict of the deceased might still demand his Brother or near Kinsman in Marriage for the aforesaid end And if the true and real Daughter of the deceased was not to Inherit much less was the First Child of the Leviratical or Vicarious Bed if it proved a Daughter likewise because it could have no right but what it received from the adoptive Father and he that gave no right of Inheritance to his real must much less be supposed to have done it to his imputative Offspring It is true indeed that by the Law of Num. 27. a Daughter was afterwards made capable of Inheriting but in regard there were great inconveniences attending inherisons of this nature the Estate by this means going out of the direct line into a collateral House of the same Family or Tribe all which was directly contrary to one of the main designs running through the whole tenor of the Jewish Laws which had so particular respect in many cases to the preserving the Inheritance in the same House and Line that I conceive the Daughter did never legally Inherit but in one of the following cases First If the Wife deceased before her Husband who left only Female Issue behind him Secondly If at her Husbands decease she were past the years of Child-bearing Thirdly If Marrying again in pursuance of the Leviratical Sanction she had no Issue or none but Female or if upon the refusal of the Kindred she Married into another House In all these cases or the like if any more can be thought of the Female was to Inherit and in none else as I conceive because the Law in Numbers was not certainly intended to invalidate or weaken those other Laws by which the continuance of the Inheritance in the same house was so carefuly provided for Wherefore if they refused to Marry into their own Family or Tribe they were in such case to leave the Inheritance behind them and suffer it to go to the next of Kin to whom upon their death without Issue it would have descended Joseph L. 4 Antiq. c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For indeed all those Laws of settlement mentioned Num. 27. seem to me to be only an addition or an explanatory Act added to that of Deut. by which as in the first place there is no manner of care taken for the Inheritance of Daughters so only the Husbands Brother properly so called is expressly there warranted to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife whereas in the Law of Num. it is provided if a man had no Brethren that the Inheritance should go to his Fathers Brethren and for want of such to the next of Kin of the same Family and the reason of the Brothers Marrying the Brothers Wife in an imputative and adoptive way being only for the preservation of the Inheritance in the same House or Line it seems reasonable to believe that all who had a legal right to the Inheritance had also the same right to Marry the Widow of the deceased for though none were so much obliged to perform this part as the Brother himself yet the Marriage of the Brothers Wife being death in other cases by the same Law it is clear it is a less dispen sation or a less violence done to the ordinary course of things to suffer a Kinsman farther off than an immediate Brother to Marry the relict of the deceased notwithstanding he being most obliged the first challenge was to be made to him and there being somewhat of a priviledge in it by Inheriting the double portion he as the very next of Kin had the first right of refusal From all which I conclude that this was the true reason why the 70 make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of Deut. it self to shew that this right was afterwards extended farther than the words as they are set down in Deuteronomy may at first view seem to allow and that it was in pursuance of this Law in Deuter as it is explained and enlarged by that of Numbers that the march between Ruth and Boaz was afterwards made But that I may not seem to oppose Mr. Selden and his Rabbins in every thing they say as it were out of a Spirit of contradiction which no man is more naturally averse from than my self being always a favourer of that side where I see the greatest appearance of truth I will now acknowledge that in one thing they determine with great probability of reason and that is when they tell us that the Law of the Leviratus was to be understood only of the Brothers Germans or of the Kindred of the Fathers side but that the Maternal Consanguinity was not at all concerned in it the words of Mr. Selden are these p. 100. De fratribus autem uterinis Lex haec non intelligenda est sed tantum de Germanis nam ut ad invicem minimè succedunt uterini ita nec hac lege tenentur And of Maimonides cited in the same place by Mr. Selden Achin Min Haeem eenan chashoubin Achin c. that is Brothers by the Mothers side are not in the Interpretation of Law looked upon as Brothers either with relation to the Inheritance or to the Marriage of the deceased Brothers Wife but they are as to both these matters as if they were not Brothers at all neither is there any Brotherhood but what is from the same Father Which things are all clear and certain beyond all colourable ground of contradiction for if the Inheritance descend legally from Father to Son or Daughter or in defect of such pass on to the collateral Relations obliquely ascending or descending on the Fathers side then it is clear that they whose blood does not center in the same Paternal Consanguinity cannot have a Title to the same Inheritance and the intention of Marryings of this nature being to raise up the name of the dead upon his Inheritance there is no reason why the Widow might not be at liberty to Marry whom she pleased to this end if she might Marry him who had no relation to the Inheritance its self which was the case of a Brother by the Mothers side Again upon supposition that the Brother of the deceased by the Mothers side did Marry this Widow either this Marriage did bar the paternal Kindred from a legal Title or Claim to the Inheritance or it did not if it did not then the design of this Marriage was in vain for he would not raise up the Name of the dead upon that Inheritance which was not in his possession and with which he had nothing to do if he did then the Maternal Kindred had a better Claim to the Paternal Inheritance than those who were descended of or were by Consanguinity related to the same Father upon whose Title
all other claims must depend which is absurd it being as much as to say they had and they had not a right at the same time but then if he could not bring the Inheritance along with him it was unlawful for the Widow to Marry him at all as appears by undeniable consequences from Levit. 18. 9. the deceased Husbands Brother Uterine being considered as her own half Brother which is the same thing as for a Brother to Marry his half Sister which was forbidden by the Law Again if none could Marry the Widow for the purpose aforesaid of hindering the name of the deceased from being blotted out and of raising up the name of the dead upon his Inheritance but he that had a right of redeeming the said Inheritance and if none had a right of redeeming the inheritance but the Kindred descending from or centring in the same paternal Consanguinity then it is manifest that this Law could not be extended to the half Brother of the deceased by the Mothers side But the connexion of these two is acknowledged by Mr. Selden himself when he gives this as a reason why the Brother of the deceased by the Mothers side could not Marry his Widow Nam ut ad invicem minime succedunt uterini ita nec hac lege tenentur And Maimonides also acknowledgeth the same by putting them both together Fratres uterini saith he non censentur pro fratribus Lehinjan jeroushah ou Lehinjan jibboum vechalitsa vel in causâ haereditatis vel in leviratu And though Mr. Selden and Maimonides and a thousand more should not have granted this yet the Scripture it self would sufficiently have proved it for I have shewn Levit. 25. 48. 49. to belong as well to the redemption of Inheritances as persons and in that place we have these words After he is sold he may be redeemed again one of his Brethren may redeem him Either his Vncle or his Vncles Son may redeem him or if he be able he may redeem himself where that only Paternal Kindred is to be meant may be proved by undeniable arguments As for the signification of Echad Meachau v. 48. unus ex fratribus ejus though nothing can certainly be inferred from it if nothing else were to be considered yet when in the next verse we are told that either Dodo or ben Dodo his Vncle or his Vncles Son may do the same there are these two things to be observed First That Dod does properly signifie the Vncle by the Fathers side not Avunculus but Patruus and so the vulgar Latin renders it the 70 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ben Dodo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so also Jerem. 32. 7 8 9. neither do they render it in any place whatsoever of any but the Kindred of the Fathers side Now if the Vncle and the Vncles Son must both of them be understood of the Fathers side then it is but reasonable to conclude that the Brother also in the former verse must be understood the same way Secondly or any that is nigh of Kin to him of his Family may redeem him Here there are two things to be observed First any that is nigh of Kin to him Hebrew Misheer Besaro 70 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any of his near Flesh or any of his own Flesh now the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mans own Flesh is not that of his Mother but his Father with whom his Mother by Marriage is made one and his Family is looked upon as hers and if after his decease she shall marry another then that Child which she shall conceive and bear by the second Husband is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Son or Daughter of the First no more than her second Husband is to whom she is now united having forsaken her former Family and is become one Flesh with him Secondly he was not only to be near of Kin i. e. of the same Flesh as both the Original and the 70 more exactly speak but it is added likewise any that is nigh unto him of his Family may redeem him Now a man is of his Fathers Family not his Mothers who quits her own Family and her Fathers house by Marriage It is plain therefore that none had a right of redemption nor consequently of Marriage with the deceased but only the Kindred of the deceased by the Fathers side But this is not all there was another reason as I have often said of performing the Husbands part to the Widow of the deceased besides the redemption of the Inheritance and that was the servitude or subjection under which the Younger was in ancient time to the Elder but this subjection began first in the same common Father who had a despotical power over all his Sons and under him the Eldest had a dominion over the rest as representing the person and Inheriting the fortune of his Father but now he that is born of a distinct Father though of the same Mother it is manifest he belongs to another House and is to be looked upon as a subject of a different Kingdom so that it cannot be in either respect either with relation to the Inheritance of the deceased or in regard of that Duty and Subjection which the Younger ows to the Elder that the half Brother by the Mothers side should raise up Seed to the deceased Brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But notwithstanding the plain evidence and down-right conclusiveness of what has been said the speech of Naomi to her two Daughters in the story of Ruth seems at least to be a supposition of the legality of a contrary practice c. 1. v 12 13. Turn again my Daughters go your way for I am too old to have a Husband If I should say I have hope if I should have a Husband also to night and should also bear Sons would you tarry for them till they were grown would ye stay for them from having Husbands nay my Daughters for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me This difficulty has very much baffled the endeavours of Learned Men. Mr. Selden upon this occasion hath these words Ruth 1. 11. Vbi Naomi ad nurus suas Orpha Ruth viduas nec prole beatas An adhuo inquit intra me in utero meo sunt filii qui fiant mariti vestri perinde ac si non solum ad fratrem uterinum sed etiam ad eum qui mortis fraternae tempore nondum in lucem fuerat editus quod itidem uno ore negant Magistri jus hoc spectâsset atqui non ex hujusce juris obtentu sed ex ingenti erga Nurus amore a Naomi hoc dictum volunt ao si tantum innuisset tanto erga eas se amore flagrare ut si fieri posset futuris siqui sibi essent filiis eas in uxores traderet Mr. Selden in the same place takes notice of another opinion of Solomon Jarchi but he seems to favour this more
to the Sons of Judah in this Chapter since all the Sons of Noah were actually married at one and the same time to several and distinct Wives Since Noah himself is no where taken notice of as the beginner of any such practice or as an example of it it seems most reasonable to go yet further backwards and place the first beginnings of this Ancient usage in the ante-noachioal or ante-diluvian times I will not desend this fact of Tamar from all suspition of guilt when it may seem to be at first sight not only a very unlawful but a very detestable practice and when at this distance of several Thousand Years being in a manner perfectly unacquainted with the usages of those times it is utterly impossible to make such a Judgment of the case as may be reli'd upon for truth in all its parts But thus much I will say she was not by so doing guilty of Adultery though whether she were of Incest or no will require some further consideration for either Shelah the Third Son of Judah was alive or he was dead if he were alive it is true she was engaged to expect the years of his Maturity that he might perform the Husbands part in raising up Seed to his deceased Brother and by not expecting that appointed time she did in effect betray the Bed of her first Husband Er whose person Shelah was in this case to sustain But if after she had staid thus long which was all that she was obliged to do she did then demand him in Marriage according to the contract and agreement formerly made between them if Judah who was to receive all the benefit of this agreement which was the propagating of his own and his Sons name and the continuing the Inheritance in the line of the First born would not stand to the contract into which he had entred for his own advantage by all the Law and all the equity in the World the party to whom no benefit accrews is free of any further obligation which was exactly Thamars case to whom it might be indifferent whether she continued in the same house or married into another and who might perhaps fancy some other person for her Husband more than she did Shelah in which case it is altogether unreasonable she should be under any restraint when the parties on whose side all the advantage lies will not make good their own part of the bargain It is clear then she could not be guilty of Adultery upon supposition that Shelah being alive had himself refused or had by some external force been hindred from performing his part of the condition which it was impossible for him at that time to do without his Fathers consent who had as it seems according to the Ancient practice of the first mortals jus vitae necis an absolute and despotical power over all his family and dependants as appears by the sentence passed upon Tamar without any other Process or Formality of Law but his own Arbitrary decree Gen. 38. 24. bring her forth and let her be burnt Of which despotical power of Parents over their Children and such was Tamar in this case being still considered as the Wife of her first Husband Er the Son of Judah so long as Shelah lived who was when he came to Age to sustain his person and propagate his name we have two known instances in the Ancient Roman story the first is that of him of the surviving Horatii who killed his own Sister for bewailing the Death of her Lover an enemy of Rome who being for this fact arraigned and about to receive sentence of Condemnation from the Duumviri who sat in Judgment upon him was thus defened and interceeded for by the miserable old man his Father who was now in danger of losing all his Children though not many hours before the happy Parent of a numerous and hopeful Offspring Se Filiam jure caesam judicare ni ita esset patrio jure in filium animadversurum fuisse Liv. lib. 1. The Second is of Sp. Cassius in the Second Book of the same Author who being accused of aspiring to be King a name so hated at that time by the Romans among other accounts given of his punishment is said to have been sentenced to Death for it by his Father and executed at home by vertue of that Sentence Livies words are these Sunt qui patrem auctorem ejus Supplicii ferant eum cognitâ domi causâ verberà sse ac necâsse peculiumque filii Cereri consecravisse signum inde factum esse inscriptum EX CASSIA FAMILIA DATVM And not unlike to this and the former instance is that of L. Virginius in the 3d. Book of the same Writer who as it may seem by vertue of this paternal power slew his own Daughter to free her from the Lust of Appius the Decemvir but as for the story of Manlius it being rather an effect of Military Discipline than his Authority as a Father it is not here to be accounted for Neither is it to be doubted but the Romans were beholding for the exercise of this Paternal Right to some other People both more Ancient and more Easterly from whom they were descended both because we have here a plain instance of the same Authority invested in the person of Judah and because in the beginning of things when almost every distinct Family was a little Kingdom by it self of which the Paterfamilias was the Supreme Lord from whose determinations there was no manner of Appeal it must needs be for the keeping this Family in due Order there must be the same distinction of punishments according to the different natures and differing aggravations of Offences as are to be met with in greater Bodies and in truth when matters are examin'd to the bottom it will be found that the Original of all Justice as well as Goverment is from private Families but enough of this From hence it appears that whether Shelah refused to comply himself or whether an outward restraint were laid upon him by his Father the first of which seems to have been the very truth it is the same case and she is either way freed from all manner of obligation and consequently could not be guilty of Adultery by the enjoyment of another Or else Secondly if you suppose Shelah to have been dead before this happened then she seems still to be more excusable in that all the Brothers being dead one after another there was no body now left to raise up Seed to the Eldest therefore he was perfectly dead to all intents and purposes both in himself and in his Proxies and so there was no possibility of committing Adultery with relation either to him or them It is true indeed according to the practice of after days which seem to have taken their Coppy from these and those that went before them in default of a Brother the Widdow of the deceased might challenge the next of Kin as is