Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

into

As there was no law against polygamy, there was nothing to exempt a married man from the obligation of marrying his brother's widow on this account; for if fo, things might have been fo fituated, that Bethlehem might have gone away fome other family than that of David, into fome other tribe than that of Judah, and, of course, Jofeph and his wife Mary have gone elsewhere to be taxed; for this might evidently have been the confequence of the widow and the inheritance going into the hands of a ftranger. But GOD fays-The wife of the dead fhall not marry without unto a firanger- ber bufband's brother fhall go in unto her, &c. Here is a negative claufe, pofitively declaring whom the fhall not marry, and an affirmative claufe, as pofitively declaring whom the fhall. Now let us fuppose, that not only the furviving brother, but all the near kinfmen, to whom the marriage of the widow, and the redemption of the inheritance belonged, were married men ; if that exempted them from the obligation of this law-as they could not redeem the inheritance, unless they married the widow (Ruth iv. 5.)-the end. of this important law muft in many cafes be defeated-the widow be tempted to marry a ftranger-to put herself and

S 4

[ocr errors]

the

the inheritance into his hands-and the whole reafon affigned for the law itself, that of raifing up feed to the deceased, to preferve the inheritance in his family, that his name he not put out of Ifrael fall to the ground. For which weighty reafons, as there was evidently no law against polygamy, there could be no exemption of a man from the pofitive duty of this law because he was married. As we fay-ubi eadem ratio ibi idem jus.

But the learned Dean, in order to overthrow all the Bishop's reasoning on the fubject, obferves from Selden's Ux. Heb. that the Chaldee paraphraft, the "Midrash, and Jofephus, agree, that this "" was the reafon why Mahlon's next "kinfman refufed to redeem Ruth, his "widow, viz.--Becaufe it was not law"ful for him to marry her, having a wife " of his own." That people should invent reasons for men's actions, where none are given, is not fo furprizing as overlooking the reafons that are given, and fubftituting others which do not appear to be fo much as thought of by the parties themfelves. This is the cafe here-Mahlon's next kinfman is applied to, as by law he ought to have been, to buy Mablon's inheritance, and to marry Ruth his widow: his anfwer is neither

more nor lefs than this-"I cannot re"deem it for myfelf, left I mar my own

inheritance."-How thefe words relate

to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the matter, was referved for the ingenuity of modern interpreters to make out--that they may, and most probably do, relate to the expediency or inexpediency of fuch a step, the kinfman's prefent circumstances confidered, may be eafily inferred from the words of the reafon given. The kinfman might be married, perhaps have many children, and but a fmall provifion for them-therefore, when he hears of not only difburfing the redemption-price for Mahlon's parcel of land, but that this could not be done, without marrying a very poor young woman, by whom he might have another numerous family of children, which he could not maintain, educate, or provide for, out of the small parcel of land which was * Elimelech's, but must diminish his own inheritance of which he was poffeffed, to the damage of his other family, he prudently declines the kinfman's part-left, faid he, I mar mine own inheritance. Such a fenfe as

*Elimelech was the father of Mahlon; therefore the land is called Elimelech's, it defcending to Mahlon from him.

this

this the words will moft certainly bear; but as to their meaning that the man would not marry Ruth" because it was "not lawful for him to marry her, bav"a wife of his own"-it is a conceit, fetched even farther than, one would think, the utmost unfairnefs of prejudice itfelf could reach.

Since I wrote the above, I have looked into Bishop Patrick, on Ruth iv. 6. who mentions the paffage alluded to in the Chaldee paraphraft, and the Midrash; and fo far from their appearing to say what the Dean would make them, there is not a word of any fuch thing; they put quite a different fenfe upon the words. As for Jofephus, I would almoft venture to affirm, without looking into the book, that he cannot fo groffly contradict himfelf; for when he is writing that part of the Hiftory of David, where he speaks of his polygamy, he fays-δοντος δε αυτω καὶ γυναικας ὡς δικαίως και νομίμως ήγαγετο (GOD)" giving him wives, which he

6.6

justly and lawfully married." However, having confulted Jofephus on the fubject, I find no fuch reafon affigned by the kinfman, for refufing to redeem Mablon's land, and to marry his widow, as the Dean afferts.-Jofephus, Antiq. lib. ix. c. 5. § 4. fpeaking of the kinf

man's

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

man's refufal, fays, that he rejected the offer Ειναι δε καὶ γυναικα λεγων αυτω και παιδάς ηδη "Saying, he had already a "wife and children;" but not a word that it was unlawful to marry another woman." Not that Jofephus represents the matter as the Bible does, any more than the learned Dean rightly represents the fentiments of Jofephus. It might not be expedient for the kinfman to marry Ruth, as he was circumftanced; but this has nothing to do with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the matter, with respect to the law of GOD. Lawfulness and expediency are very diftinct and different confiderations. See I Cor. vi. 12. 1 Cor. x. 23. As for Mr. Selden, he, in the very paffage which the Dean quotes, refolves the kinfman's refufal to marry Ruth into a matter of prudence, and that for much the fame reasons which I have affigned above.

The law itself on which we have been difcourfing, was only a local and temporary inftitution, and, in the very nature of it, could only concern the Jews, and that only with regard to their peculiar fituation before the coming of the Meffiab, when fo much depended on the clearness of family defcent and inheritance. It is obfervable that this law, though not reduced

« AnteriorContinuar »