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
as indeed it deserves Jarchi's opinion being founded upon a supposition that Ruth was not yet naturaliz'd which I have already * And she is by Eusebius expressly call'd a proselite Hist Eccles L. 1. c. 7. where speaking of the burning the records or Tables of Genealogy by Herod he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disproved and he backs his own sentiments with the Authority of Abenezra and might have done with that of Joannes Drusius too Quest Hebra L. 3. Quest 16. But neither is this so right as it should be it not being likely that her love to her two Daughters in law should make her so far forget the Custom and Usage of her Country Therefore let us try some other way and see if that will succeed any better Are there any more Sons in my Womb that they should be your Husbands I am too old to have a Husband if I should say I have hope if I should have an Husband also to Night and should also bear Sons would you tarry for them till they were grown Would you stay for them from having Husbands Nay my Daughters For it grieveth me for your sakes that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me all which questions are nothing else but an enumeration of so many impossibilities to make them despair the more and to make them return back from whence they came As when God asks Abraham whether he could count the Stars or the Sands of the Sea-shore It was not upon supposition that this was a possible thing but to let him know that his seed should be as numberless as they or when it is said Can the Blackmore change his Skin or the Leopard his spots It is not that these things can be done but to shew how hard and in a manner impossible it is for habitual wickedness to be reclaimed And Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth i. e. thou wast not at all so here Are there more Sons in my Womb is as much as positively to affirm there are not Again that they may be your Husbands is as much as to say and if there were yet you could not marry them But then again I am too old to have an Husband If I should marry it would be to no purpose for I should have no Children again If I should have an Husband also to Night and should also bear Sons nay and put case it were lawful for you to Marry them which yet it would not be Would you tarry for them till they were grown Would ye stay for them from having Husbands As much as to say you would not or it would be in vain if you should For you your selves would be past Childbearing by that time and therefore she adds presently nay my Daughters and then concludes the hand of the Lord is gone out against me as much as to say it is impossible talk no more but leave me and go home again Against all that hath been said I know but two things remaining that deserve an answer the First concerns the main question whether the marriage of Boaz and Ruth were celebrated in consequence of that Law in Deuteronomy by which the Brother was to raise up seed to his deceased Brother and the Second that which hath been the particular subject of this last debate whether in this Law the Paternal Consanguinity were only to be considered Against the First of these Mr. Selden Argues thus c. 15. de successionibus Nec sane exutus hic Ruth 4. 7. Calceus ritus est qui ad fratris nuptias attinere potest nam is ubi ad eas spectabat renuntiationis duntaxat signum erat quod scimus ex Deuter. 25. 9. atqui hic nihil aliud innuit praeter solennem quae inoleverat traditionis seu acquirendi dominii formulam neque nuptiarum renuntiatio sed contrà ipsae nuptiae fiunt The meaning of which as plain as I can represent it is this Deut. 25. v. 7 8 9 10. we have these words And if the man like not to take his Brothers Wife then let his Brothers Wife go up to the Gate unto the Elders and say My Husbands Brother refuseth to raise up unto his Brother a name in Israel he will not perform the duty of my Husbands Brother then the Elders of his City shall call him and speak unto him and if he stand to it and say I like not to take her then shall his Brothers Wife come unto him in the presence of the Elders and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face and shall answer and say so shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his Brothers house and his name shall be called in Israel the House of him that hath his shoe loosed Again Ruth 4. 7 8 9 10 11. it is said Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing for to confirm all things a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbour and this was a testimony in Israel therefore the Kinsman said unto Boaz buy it for thee so he drew off his shoe And Boaz said unto the Elders and to all the People ye are witnesses this Day that I have bought all that was Elimelechs and all that was Chilions and Mahlons of the hand of Naomi moreover Ruth the Moabitess the Wife of Mahlon have I purchased to be my Wife to raise up the name of the dead upon his Inheritance that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his Brethren and from the gate of his place ye are witnesses this Day and all the People that were in the gate and the Elders said we are witnesses From these two places compared together Mr. Selden Argues thus The pulling off the Shoe in the last cited place of Ruth cannot belong to the Law of Deuteronomy by which the Brother was obliged to raise up Seed to the Brother because in Deuteronomy that ceremony signified as much as the Womans renouncing and disclaimeing her pretensions to the Brother of her deceased Husband but in Ruth it is nothing else but a solemn right of taking possession or of acquiring a right or dominion in any thing or person and that this was the usual Formula traditionis seu acquirendi dominii he appeals to the Ancient Medrash upon Ruth that is he appeals to a Rablin or which is all one to a man that understands nothing of the Jewish Antiquities For by Mr. Seldens favour there is no manner of repugnancy or disagreement between these two places that of Deuteronomy I mean and that of Ruth only they are two partial or imperfect relations of the whole Ceremony or Formality of this affair From the place of Deuteronomy we learn what the Woman was to do in case the man refused to accept her challenge she was to pull off his shoe and spit in his face the latter of these in token of contempt and as a
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
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
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
House whether to give away or sell or what he pleased as any other dead or immoveable substance whatsoever Neither was this all but the Husband was an absolute Lord over his Wife and the Wife was in the Nature of a Servant to the Husband This is the reason why Sarah stiles her Husband by the name of Lord. And that not out of flattery or complaisance but privately to her self imagining that no Body heard her which shews it to have been the Language of those times Gen. 18. 12. After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure my Lord being old also Which subjection of the Wife to her Husband as her absolute Soveraign and Lord was as Ancient as the fall of Adam and was a consequent of it being part of the curse denounced against Eve as a punishment for Eating the Forbidden fruit and tempting her Husband to do the same enforcing so pernicious an example with arguments no less fatal to all the Posterity descended from her Loyns Gen 3. 16. Vnto the Woman he said I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception In sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children and thy desire shall be to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee But if they had such power and Authority over their Wives it is much more to be supposed that they were likewise invested with the same absolute and uncontroulable dominion over their Children so as to punish them if the fact should to them seem to require it with Death its self as has already been made probable by the Ancient Roman story which seems to have taken its Patern from elder times and from the example of Thamar who was by Judah being his Sons Wife considered as his Daughter all which is yet farther confirmed by the express testimony of the Law its self by which a rebellious and disobedient Son was upon the complaint of the Parents if there remained no hopes of amendment without farther process to be stoned to Death Deut. 21. 18 19 20 21. which was no doubt a remainder of that absolute right and power which Parents had over their Children before the Law and which was so far from being perfectly taken away by it that they seem rather to have been under an obligation to accuse them in cases of obstinate and refractory disobedience as the City or Congregation among whom the fact was committed were under another to Stone them till they died v. 20 21. They shall say unto the Elders of his City this our Son is stubborn and rebellious he will not obey our voice he is a Glutton and a Drunkard and all the men of his City shall stone him with Stones that he die so shalt thou put away evil from amongst you and all Israel shall hear and fear Much more then might they disinherit them and give the Birth-right from the Eldest to another and so downwards as low as they pleased either for a small crime or for none at all if it should so seem good which it is certain they actually did for to Jacob were born by his Wife Leah four Sons one after another without any other between them Reuben Simeon Levi Judah Gen. 29. 32 33 34 35. Reuben was the First-born to whom the natural right of Inheritance belonged but he for committing Incest with his Fathers Concubine Bilhah Gen. 35. 22. was disinherited and for that fact instead of a blessing received a curse from his Father Gen. 49. 4. Vnstable as Water thou shalt not excel because thou wentest up to thy Fathers Bed then defiledst thou it He went up to my Couch Simeon and Levi were likewise Disinherited for their Treacherous dealing with the Sechemites Gen. 34. which how heavily it was resented by Jacob is plain from v. 30. of that Chapter And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi ye have troubled me to make me stink among the Canaanites and the Perizzites And I being few in number they shall gather themselves together against me and slay me and I shall be destroyed I and my house which was the reason of that dreadful Curse he denounces afterwards against them Gen. 49. 5 6 7. Simeon and Levi are Brethren instruments of cruelty are in their Habitations O my Soul come not thou into their secret unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united for in their anger they slew a Man and in their self-will they digged down a Wall cursed be their anger for it was fierce and their wrath for it was cruel I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel Neither were these three only passed by but Judah also against whom no exception appears 1. Chron. 5. 1 2. Now the Sons of Reuben the First-born of Israel for he was the First-born but for as much as he defiled his Fathers Bed his Birth-right was given to the Sons of Joseph the Son of Israel and the Genealogy is not to be reckoned after the Birth-right For Judah prevailed above his Brethren and of him came the chief rulers but the Birth-right was Josephs v. 3. the Sons I say c. Now this if it were an Arbitrary thing as there is no reason assigned of Judahs being passed by then it appears plainly that the bare will of the Father with whom there was no dispute and from whom there lay no appeal was sufficient to justifie the disinherison of the Eldest Son for that Judah was after Reuben Simeon and Levi were discarded and it is by vertue of this paternal right that David placed Solomon in the Throne notwithstanding Adonijah was elder than he But it is most likely that Jacob had conceived some displeasure against Judah also as being concerned in the common hatred of all the Brothers to their Brother Joseph Gen. 37. 4 5. and was the adviser of his selling into Egypt v. 27. which being a temperament both of mercy and cruelty together for the others would have dispatched him outright It was from hence perhaps that the Jews have concluded that Jacob did not dispossess him of his whole Birth-right but gave only to Joseph a double portion of the Inheritance leaving all other things in their natural and usual state for to the Elder Brother the Masters tell us there belonged three things First he was the King of the Family to reign in his Fathers stead after his decease Secondly he was the Priest of it and Thirdly he was to enjoy a double share of the Inheritance which double share they affirm to have been given to Joseph and that his Birth-right which is said to have been given him consisted only in that And truly to give them their due something of this Nature is very reasonable to believe for its manifest not only from the place of the Chronicles above cited that Judah prevailed over his Brethren but he did this as the Rightful Heir by vertue of his Fathers blessing Gen. 49. 8 9 10. Judah thou art he whom thy Brethren shall praise thy Hand shall be in the Neck of thine Enemies
to the World This Dominion of the Elder over the Younger is as ancient as the two first Brethren that ever came into the World and was expresly warranted by God himself Gen. 4. 7. Unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him Now one great instance of that Subjection and Duty which was paid by the Younger to the Elder in those times was this that in case the latter died without Issue his Widow might challenge the former as her own and late Husband's Servant to perform the part and office of an Husband in his stead And that it was indeed nothing else but an acknowledgment of Servitude and Subjection will appear not only from the reluctancy of Onan of which I have already spoken but from the Stories of Sarah Leah and Rachel all of them Instances of the same nature who finding themselves barren appointed their respective Handmaids Hagar Zilpah and Bilhah to conceive by their Husbands in their stead all which Children so begotten were accounted in the esteem of those times Legitimate and looked upon as inheriting not in right of the Handmaids who were their real and proper but of their Mistresses the adoptive and reputed Mothers whose Children in the interpretation of Law they were accounted Gen. 16. 2. Behold now the Lord hath restrained me from bearing I pray thee go in unto my Maid it may be that I may obtain Children by her Gen. 30. 3. Behold my Maid Bilhah go in unto her and she shall bear upon my knees that I may have children by her Nay so great a propriety did they conceive themselves to have in the Children of their Handmaids that if they had been never so truly and properly their own they could not express a greater joy and satisfaction at it and it was they not their real Mothers who gave them their names Gen. 30. 6. Rachel said God hath judged me and hath heard also my Voice and hath given me a Son therefore called she his name Dan. So also v. 8. Rachel said with great wrestlings have I wrestled with my Sister and I have prevailed and she called his name Naphtali Though both of these were truly and properly not hers but the Children of her Handmaid Bilhah Neither was Leah less fond of her Adoptive Children by her Handmaid Zilpah v. 11. And Leah said a Troop cometh 70 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a fortunate time and she called his name Gad. v. 13. And Leah said happy am I for the Daughters will call me blessed and she called his name Asher This is the meaning of that expression She shall bear upon my Knees Gen. 30. 13. with allusion to as I conceive and in imitation of the Stools mentioned in Exod. 1 16. When you do the office of a Midwife to the Hebrew Women and see them upon the Stools if it be a Son then you shall kill him but if it be a Daughter then she shall live In the Hebrew it is hal haabuaim 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sense is the same in both but not so accurate in the version of the Seventy for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is about to bring forth but they could not yet make a judgment whether it was a Boy or Girl nor consequently whether they should kill the Infant or save it alive in pursuance of the instructions given them by the Aegyptian King It would therefore be better to keep exactly to the Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it shall be when they have brought forth But though this be right as to the sense yet it is not Verbum verbo which though a fault in some translations is a Virtue in this For Haabnaim is certainly a Noun the He emphaticum in the beginning and the Jod Mem which are the formative Letters of the Plural Number or by adding a Kametz to them if the present punctation be true of the Dual are plain demonstrations of this that it is a Noun and cannot possibly be a Verb. It must therefore of necessity be that when it is said when the women shall be upon the haabnaim that by that word some Instrument or Utensil made use of in the Midwifery of those times must be understood and indeed it is not likely to have been any thing else but a Stool of parturition where the Woman in Labour was placed by the Midwife which answers most naturally to the signification of the Preposition hal upon which is added to a word of the Dual Number to shew that it was a folding Stool such as are usually in the Isles of Churches both for the more easie setting and for the more easie placing and removing But we might judge with more certainty of the goodness of this punctation if the Hexapla or Octapla of Origen which are unhappily lost could be retreived The Seventy by translating it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are thus far useful to us that they have pointed out the Etymology of that Word which is not from Eben Lapis but from Banah aedificavit with the addition of an Aleph as in Aben for Ben. In Aben Ezra Aben Melech Aben Tibbon and from thence also though that be not so commonly known the Two Famous Arabian Physicians and Philosophers Averroes and Avicenna have their names The same word occurs likewise Jer. 18. 3. and with the same Praeposition hal haabnaim But there the Seventy have render'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Eben Lapis though in truth Eben it self is from Banah too because of the use of such Materials in buildding And so is Boun intellexit because of the progression of all Human Sciences from one Proposition to another in the nature of a Foundation with sundry Superstructures upon it and so Abnaim in the place of Exodus is from Ben Filius or which is all one from Banah aedificavit because Generation or Posterity is a kind of Super-structure upon former Ages and because of the use of the word Banah in matters of this kind As Gen. 16. 2. That I may obtain Children by her In the Hebrew it is Oolai Ibaneh Mimennah Perhaps I shall be built up by her And so also Gen. 30. 3. and Ruth the 4th 11th which is to this day a part of the Jewish Litany in all their Marriages The Lord make the Woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah which two did build the House of Israel Where you see likewise that there is no mention made at all of the two Hand-maids Bilhah and Zilpah Notwithstanding they were the natural and proper mothers of Dan Naphtali Gad and Asher but the whole business of building up the House of Israel is ascribed perfectly to Rachel and Leah the reason is because the others did but supply their places and conceive in their stead and because in such cases they were used to bring forth upon the Knees of their Mistresses which did in this case supply the Office of those Maieutical Stools mentioned Exod. 1. 16
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
allowed after some Ceremonies there mentioned in the case of a Captive of whom yet it was not required that she should be so much as a Proselyte to the Religion of the Jews Deut. 21. v. 10 11 12 13 14. the same was the case of Jarha the Aegyptian Servant 1 Chron. 2. 34 35. who yet not withstanding was Married to an Heiress although it be the express Law of God by Moses that the Inheritance should be so far from going into the hand of a forreigner that it was not to remove so much as from Tribe to Tribe nor if it could be avoided out of one Family of the same Tribe into another and though it were equally forbidden to Marry a Servant as a Stranger so that here was a double incapacity and yet this was it seems no hindrance to the Marriage neither is the thing mentioned as irregular or taken notice of with the least degree of reprehension We may therefore very probably conclude that he was first manumitted or set free then adopted not by Sheshan the Father of the Damsel for this could not be for no man can adopt a Nephew or Niece but only a Son or Daughter and this would be for Sister and Brother to match together but he was adopted by the Brother or Uncle of Sheshan and so Married to his Daughter in the Nature of one that was nearest of Kin to her as in the Instance of the Daughters of Zelophehad and Eleazar Further That it was Josephus his deliberate opinion that the Marriage between Boaz and Ruth was in pursuance of the Leviratical or rather the anchisteutical sanction in Deuteronomy and that they were not words spoken aliud agendo and by chance when he tells us of Ruths taking off her Kinsmans Shoe and Spitting in his Face will appear plainly from other words in the same paragraph importing and inculcating the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But what are these Laws which he speaks of so often are they not the Laws of the Leviratus or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 search all the Law of Moses from one end to the other and you will find no other Law to which this can refer It is manifest therefore that Josephus has not only plainly but with some seeming sollicitude delivered his opinion that the Marriage of Ruth and Boaz was in pursuance of that Law and I think it is equally clear from all that has been said that he does not confound two Laws together as Mr. Selden has represented him to have done Before I leave this I will observe that Josephus though he have made some unwarrantable additions of his own of which I have carefully taken notice yet that he took his relation out of that very Book of Ruth which is now received among us and out of those very Greek Interpreters which are now in use which I will shew plainly from two things First he tells you though falsly that he who was nearer of Kin than Boaz to Elimelech was in actual possession of the Inheritance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. now this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Law of redemption or that Law which permitted the next of Kin to Marry the Wife of the deceased and possess himself of the Inheritance into the bargain for which reason Boaz who is by the Hebrew called Goel or the redeemer is all along by the Greek Interpreters called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the near Kinsman and their translation of c. 4. v. 6. is very remarkable the words of the Hebrew are these Vajomer Hagoel Lo oucal Ligeol li phen Ashchith eth Nachalathi Geal atta eth Geulathi chi lo oucal legeol In the Greek these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second thing by which this appears is this that he who is in the Hebrew rightly called Elimelech is by Josephus all along called Abimelech and this he had also out of the Greek Translation though not out of that reading of it which the Vatican preferrs but the Alexandrine Ms will both shew you that it is a corruption and by what degrees it proceeded to be what it is for Ch. 2. v. 4. that copy reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 4. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All this may be yet farther strengthened from the Law mentioned in the Book of Numbers c. 35. concerning Chance-Medly or Vnwilling Slaughter in which case if a man could first fly to One of the Six Cities of Refuge and when his cause came to an hearing it appeared that there was no evil intention nor any malice fore-thought in him that had committed the fact he was safe so long as he continued within the Pomoeria of the said City during the life of that High Priest in whose Pontificate the thing was done and after that he might repair to his own home and enjoy all the freedom of an innocent and guiltless Person but in case the Revenger of Blood should overtake him before he could get to one of these Cities or if after he had made his escape thither he should afterwards at any time within the time prefixed be found any where without the Bounds or Pomoeria of the said City then it was lawful for the Revenger of Blood to exact one life for another and avenge the Death of the Deceased Party with that of him who did tho' never so unwillingly slay him Now who was this Revenger of Blood Josephus tells you it was any of the Kindred l. 4. c. 8. his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Moses built Ten Cities being parcel of the Fourty eight assigned to the Levites of which Three were Sanctuarys for such as unwillingly had slain a Man The time of their consinement to any of the said places was during the life of that High Priest in whose time such an accident fell out But after his decease he was at liberty to return home or go whither he pleased in safety But in the mean time if he were taken without the bounds of the said Sanctuary to which he was consin'd it was lawful for any of the Kindred and none else to kill him Now if you ask what Authority Josephus has for this the Answer will be that he took this as he does every thing else from the Seventy Interpreters For that which we call in our Translation the Revenger of Blood is in the Hebrew Goel Hadam And in the Seventy all along in Numbers Deuteronomie and Joshua it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As out of them the Vulgar Latin renders it propinquus cognatus and proximus occifi and with them Onkelos in his paraphrase upon the Book of Numbers and Deuteronomie does exactly concur the Hebrew Word to render it exactly is as much as the Redeemer of Blood and so it is taken by Jonathan in his Targum upon Joshua it is the same word used in the case of Ruth and Boaz and in the
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
separating of the First-born was in the nature of First-Fruits in Ancient times as well as it was afterwards for another reason likewise will appear from Exod. 22. 29. where the separating the First-born and of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or First-Fruits are evidently compared together Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe Fruits and of thy Liquors the First-born of thy Sons shalt thou give unto me If then the beginning of the Fathers strength and the First-born were all one and if the beginning or Primitiae of the Fathers strength neither was nor could be a Daughter but must always be a Son then it is manifest that the same thing must be understood likewise of the First-born which was the thing in question There are two things I foresee may be objected against what has been said the first is this Suppose a man had but one Child and that a Daughter whether this were to be taken into the list of the First-born to which I answer in the negative that she was not and I give this reason Either he had an Inheritance to bestow or he had not if the latter then it is manifest the Woman was not considered as of that Family of which she was descended but was to pass into another by Marriage or dye useless and unregarded in a single life from whence it came to pass that Women as I have observed already had their names from oblivion and were called Nashim as on the contrary the men are Zecarim from remembrance because they carry on and continue the memory of their Fore-Fathers in their Inheritance and in their persons But then upon Supposition that there was an Inheritance left behind to be enjoyed by some body after his decease yet it would not have fallen to his Daughter at that time when the Levites were set apart instead of the First-born but to the next of Kin the Daughters of Zelophehad being the first instance of Womens inheriting in the sacred story and it appears that at that time it was a new thing and never heard of before therefore they apply themselves to Moses for a remedy of this grievance to the Female Sex and complain of it as a very unreasonable thing Num. 27. v. 2 3 4. And they the Daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses and before Eleazar the Priest and before the Princes of all the Congregation by the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation saying our Father died in the Wilderness and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah but died in his own sin and had no Sons why should the name of our Father be done away from his Family because he hath no Son Give unto us therefore a possession among the Brethren of our Father Which petition of theirs however reasonable it might appear in its self yet Moses could not grant it till he had first brought their cause before the Lord v. 5. from whom he received this answer v. 6 7 8 9 10 11. in which the Mosaick platform of Successions to the Inheritance or goods of the deceased is contained And the Lord spake unto Moses saying the Daughters of Zelophehad speak right Thou shalt surely give them a possession of an Inheritance among their Fathers Brethren thou shalt cause the Inheritance of their Father to pass unto them and thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel saying if a man die and have no Son then he shall cause his Inheritance to pass unto his Daughter and if he have no Daughter then he shall give his Inheritance unto his Brethren and if he have no Brethren then he shall give his Inheritance unto his Fathers Brethren and if his Father have no Brethren then he shall give his Inheritance to his Kinsman that is next to him of his Family and he shall possess it and it shall be unto the Children of Israel a statute of Judgment as the Lord commanded Moses By which words it is manifest as well from the expostulation of the Daughters of Zelophehad as from the answer of God to the remonstrance of Moses made in their behalf that Daughters before that time were in no case to Inherit the Land of their deceased Fathers for it would have been a very Idle question why should the name of our Father be done away from his Family because he hath no Son and as needless a demand give unto us therefore a possession among the Brethren of our Father if the Daughters by the custom and usage of these times had had in default of Male Issue a true and proper right of Inheritance to the estate of the deceased Which is yet farther plain from this that Moses durst not of himself adventure to assign them a possession among the Brethren of their Father till he had first consulted God what was to be done in a case in which he had no Law nor any example but what would be to the prejudice of the Petitioners to govern himself by and by the answer of God to Moses it appears plainly that the Inheritance of Sons was then sufficiently provided for v. 8. If a man die and have no Son in which words the Inheritance of the Son is supposed in case the deceasing party left any but for that of the Daughter and of the collateral relations it was not yet setled as is plain from that express provision which is here made in that behalf and from those words at the close of this provision v. 11. And it shall be unto the Children of Israel a statute of Judgment Which words might well enough have been spared as well as the scruple the consultation the answer and all that went before if these things had been unto the Children of Israel a statute of Judgment before that time Now if you examine at what time this Law was made the Chapter wherein it is contained will tell you that it was after fourty years sojourning in the Wilderness when all that Generation which came out of Aegypt Caleb and Joshua and Moses himself only excepted were actually dead and gone and when Moses himself was about to follow the rest and to resign up his Government together with his life into the hands of Joshua the Son of Nun. Which being long after the Levites were set apart to the Ministry of the Sanctuary instead of the First-born it is plain that in those lists of the First-born which were then taken there was no mention made of any Daughter though the only Child she being neither the beginning of her Fathers strength in that sense in which those words are to be understood as has been shewn neither did the double portion which was the right of the First-born or indeed as it must be in the case of an only Child all the estate belong to her And though it be true that the First-born themselves had at that time being in the Wilderness no Inheritance there being
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
Rabbins when they Interpret those words If Brethren dwell together and one of them die ou ben een Lo and hath no Son so laxly as if it were indifferent either to a Son or Daughter neither is it any argument for him in this case that the 70 and the Vulgar Latin have rendered it in such general words by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by liberi or that St. Matthew and St. Mark speaking of this very thing use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For general Words as they are in themselves extended to a greater latitude of signification so they may be restrained when the nature of the Subject treated of does require it as if a man who had no Daughter should use the word Liberi or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of his own Children it is manifest that in this case these words however extensive their full signification be must be restrained to signifie only the Male Issue because we suppose him to have no other So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly only Sons or Male Children and yet when Josephus makes the nearest of Kin of the Family of Elimelech say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing hinders but that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place either Boys or Girles in common or perhaps only Girles if the man had none but such notwithstanding in propriety of speech it be restrained only to the Male Issue might be understood From both which instances it is plain that words may be and are frequently extended beyond or restrained within a much narrower compass nay sometimes taken quite contrary to their natural signification in compliance with the Nature of the Subject about which the discourse is made and I appeal to any man upon supposition that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that was nearest of Kin to the Family of Elimelech had only Girles for his Children whether it would not have been better Greek to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than any thing else that could have been said for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense is not Greek and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresses the Sex but does not so plainly represent the relation as his Children But at the worst it is but the Opinion of the Seventy and those that follow them that the word Ben in this place was indifferent to a Son or a Daughter but I will now shew if that were their Opinion that they are by no means infallible though their Authority as Interpreters be for the general the most Sacred and the least subject to exception of any For First I affirm that when it is said Deut. 25. 6. And it shall be that the First-born which she beareth c. that this by the propriety of the Sacred Language is to be understood only of the Male issue As it is Exod. 11. 5. And all the First-born in the Land of Aegypt shall die from the First-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his Throne even unto the First-born of the Maid-Servant that is behind the Mill and all the First-born of Beasts Ch. 12. 29. And it came to pass that at Midnight the Lord smote all the First-born in the Land of Egypt from the First-born of Pharaoh that sat on the Throne unto the First-born of the Captive that was in the Dungeon and all the First-born of the Cattel Now that by the First-born who were Smitten by the destroying Angel only the Males are to be understood I argue from the Separation of the First-born among the Children of Israel in memory of this delivery Exod. 13. 2. Sanctifie unto me all the First-born whatsoever openeth the Womb among the Children of Israel Now if it be proved that only the Males were sanctified then it is clear that none but the Males were destroyed and that by the First-born none but the Males are to be understood I confess the Phrase of Opening the Womb is a little general and does extend to Females as well as Males But it is to be considered that it depends upon what went before Bibnei Jisrael which I take here in the most strict and proper sense whatsoever or whosoever of the Sons or Males of Israel first openeth the Womb that is is First-born And so Exod. 21. 29. The First-born of thy Sons shalt thou give unto me But because it may be pretended that by Sons and by the Sons or Children of Israel both Males and Females are to be understood as it is certain it is so in many other places and the contrary cannot be proved without some other argument than a bare supposition to support it I shall now desire you to consider that as the First-born of all the Children of Israel were First Sanctified and set apart in gratitude for that deliverance which they had when the First-born of Aegypt were destroyed so afterwards the Levites were singled out from the rest of the Tribes and set apart instead of the First-born of the Children of Israel Numb 3. 12 13. Behold I have taken the Levites from among the Children of Israel instead of all the First-born that openeth the Matrix among the Children of Israel Therefore the Levites shall be mine because all the First-born are mine for on the day that I smote all the First-born in the Land of Aegypt I hallowed unto me all the First-born in Israel both Man and Beast mine they shall be I am the Lord. Now in what sense it was that the Levites were set apart and what they were obliged to do by such their separation is expressed v. 5 6 7 8. of the same chapter in these words And the Lord spake unto Moses saying bring the Tribe of Levi near and present them before Aaron the Priest that they may Minister unto him and they shall keep his charge and the charge of the whole Congregation before the Tabernacle of the Congregation and the charge of the Children of Israel to do the Service of the Tabernacle The same you have likewise repeated again c. 8. of the same Book It is clear then if Ministring to the Sanctuary and doing the Service of the Tabernacle be all that is meant by the Levites being set apart and all that they were obliged to do by vertue of such their separation that the separation of the First-born of all the Children of Israel whose persons the Levites did in this case represent was of the same Nature that is they were consecrated to a sort of Priest-hood and their business was to be conversant about the Holy things Now Women were never admitted into the Priest-hood or set apart to the Ministry of the Altar either before the Law or under it any more than they are now under the Gospel therefore it is plain that by the Separation or Sanctification of the First-born only that of the Males is to be understood Again Women were at liberty to Marry out of one