Rom. xiv. 4. Who art thou that judgest another's man's fervant, in the fingular number, not fervants, in the plural: or to argue for polygamy, because it is faid, 1 Cor. vii. 29. they that have wives, and not every one that has a wife. All fuch literal or verbal criticifm is mere word-catching, far below the dignity of fair argument, and deferves nothing but contempt.

Those who represent the apostle as addreffing himself to fingle perfons, and advifing them to marry, to avoid fornication, make him guilty of evident tautology-for the eighth verfe is exprefly addreffed to the unmarried and widows. After wishing that all, like himfelf, could live unmarried (that they might have lefs diftraction in their attendance on the service of GOD, ver. 35.) he adds -but if they cannot contain let them marry, for it is better to marry than burn—πvρcvolαi, to be fired, to be on fire-(comp. Cant. viii. 6. Hof. vii. 4.) that is, with luft, or unchafte defires, by which they might be driven into the commiffion of fornication, and all manner of uncleanness ;--which is, in effect, faying the fame thing over again, as fome would have him to fay at the fecond verfe, the very terms of which fhew it to be addreffed to married perfons; for how could the apolle fay to a fingle man-let him bave-EyeTw, retain

-yuväma έavte, his wife; or to a single woman-let her have, i. e. keep to-Tov idiov avspa, her own husband? The immediate connection of this verfe with the three following,

which can belong to married people only, is another strong argument for the truth of this obfervation. Befides, if we understand the nasos, every man, and the xas, every woman, to relate here to any but the married people, it may seem to make the apostle command every one to marry, whether they chuse it or not, contrary to ver. 7, 8. The word nagos is certainly relative, and must agree with fome mafculine fubftantive understood: this can be, (agreeably to the rest of the verfe) nothing but amp, which, in the last clause, must fignify husband-Tov idiov avspa, her own husband, and fo in the four times it is used in the two following verfes. The word nas is alfo relative, and muft agree with fome feminine fubftantive understood; this can be no other than yuvy, which, in this verfe, is rendered wife; and fo the four times it is used in the following verfes. If the If the amp and γυνή which are understood, had been rendered as they are uniformly in the reft of the context, all difficulty in understanding, and all disputes about, the apostle's meaning had been faved, and the evil alluded to reprobated in as plain terms as the apostle intended it fhould; for the verfe would have ftood thus-Let every husband (or married man) have his wife γυναικα ἑαυτ8, the wife that belongs to him-and every wife (or married woman) have her own husband.

ανηρ

When he addreffes himself to single perfons, and advises them to marry to avoid fornication (which is certainly the meaning of

ver. 9.) he does not use a doubtful * peri-· phrafis, but fpeaks the matter in the common ufual phrafe-yaμyoáтwσav-let them marry. There is something remarkable also at the tenth and eleventh verses, where, in answer to fome questions put to him in the Corinthians letter, probably about married perfons, who were in a state of Separation, he faysLet not the wife depart from her husband, but if fhe depart-UEVÉTW ayapos-let her remain unmarried. Comp. Rom. vii. 3. and I Cor. This is faid to be the command of GOD, ver. 10; how is it that it is not extended to the husband? It is only faid-Let not the husband put away his wife. Had he construed Matt. xix. 9. by the found instead of the fenfe, he most probably would have faid of the husband alfo, uevéтw ayaμos-let him remain unmarried, in case of her departure, or of his putting her away.

vii. 39.

But as thofe falfe apoftles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of CHRIST, 2 Cor. xi. 13. had, by their erroneous and monftrous doctrines, faying, "that "all marriage was of the Devil" (for fuch was the doctrine of the Gnostics) fadly diftreffed the confciences of weak people, and led them to think, that, as marriage was a finful thing, therefore all conjugal inter

*Which feems not conformable to the idiom of the Greek language itself, for I do not recollect, that, in any Greek author, any more than in the fcriptures, exev γυναίκα, οι εχειν ανδρα ever fignifies to marry, fands as a phrafe for γαμειν or γαμηθηναι.

VOL. 1.

or

courfe

66.

course between married people must be * fin ful too, we find the apostle proceeding, ver. 3. to answer that part of the letter which related to their diftrefs on this account. But, fo far from deeming the intercourfe of married perfons wrong, he fays-" "Let the husband ren"der unto the wife due benevolence, 'Oekoμɛvyv évvolav (which answers to the ny of Mofes, Exod. xxi. 10. and which we decently render duty of marriage) and like"wife the wife unto the husband. The wife "has not power over her own body, fo as to "withdraw herself entirely from the con"jugal debt, but the husband may, as a mat"ter of right, have access to her at all pro66 per times and feafons. Likewise the buf"band has not the power (an exorales) of his own body, fo as to withdraw from the conjugal intercourfe with his wife, but the wife, as a debt due from the contract "which the man is under to her, by the very terms of their union, has a right to "his fociety.

66

66

Therefore, defraud ye not one the other— * μη ἀποφέρειτε αλλήλους—do not deprive or wrong each other in thefe refpects, under a falfe notion of its being finful to come "together as man and wife. There may "be times, indeed, when both may find it

*In the 4th century there were a fet of people who cenfured matrimony, and said, that "wives and husbands "cohabiting together cannot be faved." These were condemned by the council of Gangara, anno 369. Fortin Rem. vol. iv. p. 43.

5

66

expedient,

દુઃ

expedient, and therefore both confent to feparate for a while; as on occafion of particular abftinence and devotion: but "let not even this exceed the bounds of prudence, left, if it should, Satan fhould "take the advantage of you, and tempt

you to gratify, in an unlawful way, thofe "defires which may lawfully be fatisfied "between married perfons. However, I do "not infift upon the matter of your parting, even for a season, by way of commandment, επιταγήν, but by way of permission, иaта σuyyou." See 2 Cor. viii. 10. κατα συγγνώμην.

κατ'

I take the Οφειλομένην έννοιαν of Paul to anfwer exactly to the word ny, which is rendered duty of marriage. This is mentioned by Mofes to be still due to the first wife, though a man take a fecond. Exod. xxi. 10. Therefore this paffage of St. Paul no more concludes against polygamy, than that of Mofes, which actually fuppofes it. The root ny, means to act upon fome perfon or thing-and, in Kal, to lie with a woman, Gen. xxxiv. 2. Deut. xxi. 14. Deut. xxii. 24, 29: so that by comparing fcripture with fcripture, we fhall find one part explain the other. There is a fimilarity of expreffion between Mofes and Paul, which, I own, makes me think that the latter copied the fentiments of the former, upon the fubjects before us. Mofes

ber duty of marriage be- וענתה לא יגרע faith

Shall not withold-fubtract—withdraw-keep back from her. Paul fays-let the husband render to the wife due benevolenceὈφειλομένην

Q 2

Έννοιαν