16
a wife to vex her, by the sin and shame of an incestuous husband all the days of her life." According to this Exegesis," it is not the second wife that is the cause of the vexation, but the husband himself. This "Exegesis" does violence to the gramar of the verse.Besides, it is mewhat difficult to see how, in every supposible case, the first sister should see the sin and shame of an incestuous husband, and be vexed thereby, while the second sister should always be so widely different in her mental constitution that she should see no sin and shame in it, and consequently suffer no vexation; and, further, the sin and shame of taking & second sister, while the first is living, cannot necessarily be either a sin or a shame when the first is dead. Once more, the Doctor declares that when a man unites himself to a woman in marriage, be accepts her relations to her blood kindred in the forbidden degrees, which is to put marriage with them out of the question. According to this view of the case, marriage between first cousins is incestuous.
Dr. Cameron's review of the literature of the controversy is as unsatisfactory. Although the Doctor can afford to throw overboard a cartload of authorities, he may ponder the following note, from wbat is commonly known as the Speaker's Commentary, which may be regarded as altogether impartial view of the matter in dispute:—
"1. The rule, as it here stands, would seem to bear no other meaning than that a man is not to form a connection with bis wife's sister while his wife is alive. It appears to follow that the law permitted marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. A limitation beiug expressly laid down in the words beside the other in her lifetime,' it may be inferred that when the limitation is removed, the prohibition loses its force, and permission is implied.
The testimony of the Rabbinical Jews in the Targuma, the Mishna, and their later writings; that of the Hellenistic Jews in the Septuagint and Philo (de Spec. Ligg. ii. 5); that of the early and mediæval church in the old Italic; the Vulgate; with the other early versions of the Old Testament, and in every reference to the text in the Fathers and Schoolmen, are unanimous in supporting, or in not in any way opposing, the common rendering of the passage. This interpretation indeed appears to have pas8sed unchallenged from the third century before Christ to the middle of the sixteenth century after Christ,"
We regret to be compelled to add, how doctors differ." Dr, Cairus (page 10) says:—"Opposite that verse in our old Bibles there is a marginat rendering which, upon good grounds, is considered to be a more faithful reading of the original than the translation given in the text; instesd of a wife to her sister, the marginal is one wife to another. This preserves the consistency of the law, and is, we doubt not, the true meaning." Dr. Cameron (page 21) says:—" If the marginal rendering were the correct one, the words would of course have nothing to do with marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but would contain simply a prohibition of polygamy. The rendering of the text, however; is to be preferred; indeed, I have the conviction based on grammatical and other grounds that it is the only rendering admissible." How absurd, the idea of compelling us to one mode of thinking, when the men who assume to be our guides so differ on the very threshold of the matter! They would do well to consider the advice of Gamaliel.
Mason, Firth, and McCutcheon; Printers, Flinrders Lane West, Melbourne.
