"the Hebrew phrase is, meaning one to "another; which, if it were true, would"folve feveral difficulties: but there are "such reasons against it, as that I cannot "think it to be the meaning. For as

more wives than one were indulged be-fore the law, fo they were after. And Mofes himself fupposes as much, when "he provides, a man fhould not prefer. a child he had by a beloved wife, be"fore one he had by her whom he hated, "if he was the eldeft fon; which plainly " intimates an allowance in his law of "more wives than one."

Here, by the good and learned Bishop's leave, I would obferve that he expreffes himself rather inaccurately; for by saying "MOSES himself fuppofes as much" and by calling the law, he is mentioning "bis (MOSES's) law"-it looks as if MOSES was fpeaking by his own wisdom, and establishing fome law merely on his own authority; whereas MOSES, under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost (Numb. xi. 17, 25. and 2 Pet. i. 21.) is the mouth of GOD Himself to the people; to whom He fays, Deut. iv. 5. Bebold, I have taught you ftatutes and judgments, even as the LORD commanded me, that ye fhould do fo in the land whither ye go to poffefs it. The only inftance in which

5

MOSES

MOSES acted by his own authority, was in the matter of divorces. When our

SAVIOUR is mentioning this, Matt. xix. he does not fay-GOD fuffered, butMOSES, because of the hardness of your hearts, fuffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not fo; plainly intimating that divorce was not of GoD's ordaining, but merely of Moses's permiffion, as an expedient to obviate the mischiefs of his enforcing the letter of the law in every inftance, by compelling them to retain their wives; thus fubjecting them to their ill treatment and brutality, even to the beating, and perhaps killing them. So that, in this toleration of divorce for, or upon account of, the hardness of their hearts, Moses might say as PAUL, I Cor. vii. 12. To fuch Speak I, NOT the LORD but as to other things, NOT I, but the LORD, ver. 10.-The BiShop proceeds-" And fo we find expreffly "their kings might have, though not a multitude, Deut. xvii. 17; and their beft king, who read GoD's law day and night, and could not but understand "it, took many wives without any reproof: nay, GOD gave him more than he had before, by delivering his (late). "mafter's wives to him, 2 Sam. xii. 8. "And befides all this, Moses, fpeaking

66

"all

"all along in this chapter of confanguinity "and affinity, it is reasonable, as Schind"lerus obferves, to conclude he doth fo "here, not of one woman to another, but "of one * fifter to another. There being "alfo the like reafon to understand the "word fifter properly in this place, as the "words daughter or mother in others, ver. "17; and chap. xx. 14. where he for"bids a man to take a woman and her "mother, or a woman and her daughter, as "Theodoric Hackspan fufficiently notes.

"The meaning therefore is, that "though two wives at a time, or more, were permitted in those days, no man "fhould take two fifters (as JACOB formerly did, before there was any pofi"tive law against it) begotten of the fame father, or born of the fame mother, "whether legitimately or illegitimately, "(which, though it may seem prohibited "before, because the marriage of a bro "ther's wife is forbidden) yet it is here

directly prohibited, as other marriages "are which were implicitly forbidden "before; for ver. 7. the marriage of a fon with his mother is forbidden, and

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

"ver. 1o. the marriage of a father with "his daughter."

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

As there was but one man and one woman at first, the peopling of the world must have been carried on between much nearer relations, and therefore there could be no law to forbid marriages of this fort. So after the flood, when but eight perfons were left of mankind. But when VOL. I. M the

the reafon* ceafed, the thing itself was to cease, as demonftrably appears by GoD's enacting the pofitive laws againft marrying within certain degrees of confanguinity and affinity; fubject nevertheless, like all other of His general laws, to fuch exceptions, restraints, or qualifications, as He in his infinite wisdom fhould fee expedient. Some of them carry their own reafons with them, others do not, but doubtless all equally wife, as equally the difpenfations of Omniscience.

By the way, I cannot help obferving it as a very extraordinary thing, that the Christian churches fhould adopt one part of the law refpecting marriages, and pay no regard to the reft of it. They have made the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, from ver. 6 to ver. 18, inclufive, a part

* After the Exodus, the Ifraelites were reftrained from marrying within certain degrees of confanguinity, which had been, till then, permitted, to prevent their taking wives from among the idolatrous nations with whom they lived.

This was the reafon which Abraham gave, for chufing a wife for Ifaac from his own kindred, Gen. xxiv. 3, & feq. and his defcendents for following his example, Gen. xxviii. 1, & alib. but which was now entirely ceafed, by their being fo multiplied fo that they could eafily find wives, without being neceffitated to marry their near relations, or to contract marriages with the heathen. See Ant. Univ. Hift. vol. iii. p. 140.

of