Page images
PDF
EPUB

adultery could be committed with, fuppofing the thought brought forth into act). And does not the Old Testament say the fame thing?

What

Túvn in the New Teftament, like UN alfo in the Old Teftament, is the term made use of to denote a marriea woman-when others are defigned, we meet with nopalov, a damfel, Fr. damoiselle-waposvos, a virgin-xnpa, a widow-but I believe it would be difficult to find a single paffage in the New Teftament, where yun is ufed neceffarily to denote an unmarried woman. peμépisai ʼn guin

aptéros, 1 Cor. vii. 34. Afterwards the Tapevor is

Galled αγαμος-the γυνή, γαμησασα.

For want of fuch diftinction, fome commentators, by letting their own imaginations loose, have filled those of many readers with matter of fore distress and bondage of confcience, as if the defire after any female whatsoever, came within what they call the fpiritual import of the feventh commandment.

I once knew a gentleman, who often affured me, that he never approached his own wife, without finding a se cret uneafinefs in his mind, left he was doing wrong. He was a great admirer of what are called fpiritual expofitors. Thefe are, too often, a fpecies of commentators, who, neglecting the scriptural fenfe and meaning of the original, wander into every conceit which a warm, or perhaps a wild imagination may fuggeft, from the found of words in a translation. Some instances of this have been given in this work, and as many more might be given, as would furnish ample materials for a work by itself.

N. B. Let every man be fure he understands the original letter-before he prefumes to defcant upon the spirit of it; or he will bewilder himself and his readers; and what is worse, be fetting forth many things as the word of GOD, which are not fo.

Such people there always were.-Among the heathenDemocritus oculos fibi eruit, quòd mulieres fine concupifcentia afpicere non poffit. Sed nihil aliud fecit, quam quod fatuitatem fuam urbi manifeftam fecit. Tertull. in Apologet."Democritus plucked out his eyes, because he could not "behold women without concupifcence. But he did

[ocr errors]

nothing else than expofe his folly to the city."

Among

What else is the meaning of the tenth commandment, which fays, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife? or of Prov. xxiv. g. The

Among the Jews, we read of a fect of Pharifees, who were called Talpa or Moles, because they walked about with their eyes fhut or blindfolded, left they should behold a woman; and, fays my author-fæpe in muros impegerint & fanguis profufus fuerit-"They often got bloody nofes "by running against walls." See Chriftoph. Gerson, in Talmud. p. 24.

We are told of a Jefuit, called Alphonfus Rodicius, who, though he served at the mass 44 years, and had given abfolution to thousands, had never beheld the face of a woman in all that time. Geneal. Mar. 31 Oct. p. 577

Another was fo pious, and fo avoided the fight of all women, that he would not even fee his own mother. Ib.To what does this amount?-A delufion of the Devilan arraignment of the wifdom and holiness of the CREATOR in our formation, by condemning as evil, those appetites, which He hath implanted in our nature, for the purpose of incitement to marriage, and, of courfe, to the continuance of the human species. To avoid fuch errors, one safe rule may be laid down, viz. That no defire is, or can be unlawful, but where the object of it is unlawful for us to poffefs. Let us keep to this, and then we shall not be whittling away the strong, noble, manly fenfe of scripture, into the ridiculous whims and fancies of vifionaries and enthufiafts.

Notwithstanding the length of this note, I cannot help taking notice of a text, which is fuppofed to be the ground of the Talpean aufterity above-mentioned, and which is as likely to be abused to the purposes of selfrighteousness, as that of Matt. v. 28. It is that of Job Xxxi. I. I made a covenant with mine eyes, why then should I think upon a maid? Job is afferting his integrity with respect to many circumftances of his life and converfation, and among the reft, with regard to fleshly incontinence; and this chapter begins with-I have made a covenant with mine eyes. by pans -Et quid confiderabo in virgine. Mont. Our tranflation is near enough the original, to give us the sense of it; however, that fenfe must be interpreted according to the analogy of the divine law, and not according to the mere found of

the

The thought of foolishness is fin? The word nt which we tranflate the thought, fignifies

the words; for Job (ver. 2, 3.) fhews us, that he means to exprefs a very grievous offence, fuch as excludes from all portion of GOD, and inheritance in the kingdom of heaven (Comp. I Cor. vi. 9.) and which bringeth deftruction on workers of fuch iniquity. This is fufficient to make it impoffible that Job can fpeak the truth, if nothing more is meant than is literally expreffed. In the first place, Job had made no fuch covenant, &c. as not to think on a maid, for he had married one. Secondly, this can be no fin, fimply confidered in itself; for if fo, men muft plunge into fin, or there must be an end of the world; which but ill agrees with-INCREASE and multiply, &c.

Some have therefore conftrued this to mean, that Job was content with one wife, and verged not towards concubinage or polygamy.-Neither of these were forbidden or condemned by the law, but, as has been fhewn at large, practifed openly by the greatest faints, and allowed and bleffed of Gon; therefore cannot answer to ver. 2, 3.

For which reafons this text is very difficult to interpret agreeably to the analogy of faith, unless the word na-maid, or virgin-be taken here, for what it certainly imports elsewhere, virgo defponfata -a betrothed or efpoufed virgin, who ftill was called

. See Joel i. 8. and perhaps Jer. ii. 32. Comp. If. lxi. ro. latter part. See Deut. xxii. 23, 24, 25.

That Job fhould not suffer himself to think on (i. e. fo as to defire) fuch a one, is of a piece with what he fays, ver. 9, 10, 11, 12; for fuch a one was, in the eye of the law, another man's wife. Deut. xxii. 23, 24. So that Fob is not to be understood as making tranfgreffion where there is no law, like the Talpa and the Jefuit above-mentioned; but as protesting his innocence with respect to adultery, in every fenfe of the word, as not fuffering himfelf to look on, fo as to luft after, a virgin betrothed, much lefs to commit actual adultery, by defiling his neighbour's wife. ver. 9, 10, 11, 12.

Solomon Jarchi conftrues the paffage very liberally indeed, or rather paraphrafes it thus, viz. "I made a covenant, &c. that I would have no knowledge of any "man's wife." See Chappelowe on Job, vol. i. p. 425.

66

a wicked

a wicked imagination, prava aut mala cogitatio. Mont.-an evil thought. The law is fpiritual, fays Paul, I had not known luft (i. e. known it to be evil) except the law had faid, Thou shalt not covet. Rom. vii. 7. Therefore, when our Saviour preached on the Mount, He did not make, ordain, or publish any new law, nor did he make the law more fpiritual than when published at Mount Sinai; but He fet it forth, and vindicated it from the falfe gloffes of the Scribes and Pharifees, who, in their teaching, dwelt on the outward letter only, throwing a veil of obfcurity over its fpiritual fenfe and meaning. The Seventh commandment was just as spiritual under the Old Teftament as under the New. The very thought of adultery in DAVID, was as finful as it would have been in Saint Paul. How then can it be imagined, that the commandment against adultery meant not as much in the times of Mofes and the prophets, as in the days of CHRIST and His Apoftles? or, in other words, as much under the Old Teftament as under the New? How can it be thought to condemn any thing amongst Christians, which it did not equally condemn amongst the Jews? Whatfoever things the law faith, it Jaith to them that are under the law (whether Jews or Chriftians) that every mouth may be Stopped, and all the world become guilty before GOD. Rom. iii. 19. If then the law ever condemned polygamy as adultery, whoredom, or fornication, it certainly does it now; but, as

hath been fhewn, it never did condemn it in any one instance, not only from the beginning, by any conftruction put on the original marriage-inftitution, but alfo for 1500 years together after the giving the law at Mount Sinai; therefore it never has condemned it fince for CHRIST gave no new meaning to this or any other of the commandments, but only vindicated and restored the old. What was murder is now murder-what was theft is now theft-what was adultery is now adultery-and what was none of thefe, is still none of thefe.

GOD's law is His will, and His will is His law; a change of one must infer a change in the other, and either of these a change in HIMSELF: an idea which is wholly irreconcileable with the fcripture-character of God, with whom there is no variableness, neither any Shadow of turning. James i. 17.

Men may cobble, and vamp, and alter, and repeal laws, and indeed it must be fo, as mifchiefs, which efcape all human prescience and forefight, muft daily arise; but it cannot be fo with OMNISCIENCE. All things are prefent and open to Him. Heb. iv. 13. He ordained the propagation of mankind-He bleed them, and faid unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Gen. i. 28. He made the woman, and brought her to the man, and faid—A man fhall cleave to his wife, Gen. ii. 22, 24. (by which expreffion, according to St. Paul's interpretation, 1 Cor. * See before, 19, 20, and note.

*

vi. 15,

« PreviousContinue »