Page images
PDF
EPUB

Evolav-which is faying the fame thing, i other words indeed, but with the fame meaning. To render to another their due, is not to withold it; and not to withold it, is to render it. Paul fays, un aπоsepεITE-Mofes fays y, which the LXX actually tranflate & ἀποςερήσει. This is the very identical verb which we tranflate defraud not. fignifies to fubtract or withdraw-to withold or keep back; the Greek arcsepew has the fame meaning-fo that Paul may be faid to tranflate, just as the LXX have done, the y of Mofes. The only fhadow of difference between the Jewish law-giver, and the Chriftian apostle, confifts in the explicitnefs of the latter, and conciseness of the former. Mofes's words imply what Paul's declare, and, vice verfâ, Paul declares what is implied by Mofes. If the husband is not to withold the marriageduty from the wife, this must imply that the wife is not to withold it from the husband. There must be a parity of reason in both cafes. Neither husband nor wife can have any fuch power over their own bodies. This is plainly faid by Paul, and, in confiftence with the law of marriage, muft evidently be meant by Mofes. For my own part, I as much believe that Paul had the doctrine in Exod. xxi. 10. in his mind, when he * wrote

* On looking into Pole Syn. in 1 Cor. vii. 3. I find him of the fame opinion- Refpexit hîc Paulus locum "illum, Ex. xxi. 10. ibi enim idem quod hîc marito "præcipitur. "Paul here looked back to that place " in Exod. xxi. 10. for there the fame thing is com"manded to the husband as here."

that

that part of the answer to the Corinthians letter, wherein he folved their difficulties about the intercourfe of married people, as it is now in my mind, while I am writing these words; and thus, upon good authority, even that of the mind of GOD as delivered by Mofes, he could be fo peremptory in declaring that fuch intercourfe was duty on both fides, and therefore could not (as the Gnoftic doctrine might have led them to fuppofe) be a fin.

St. Paul, who, before his converfion, had profited in the Jews religion above many bis equals in his own nation, Gal. i. 14. could hardly, after his converfion, be ignorant of the law of Mofes; fo far from it, he was, undoubtedly, a moft accomplished teacher of it. Witness the masterly manner in which he explains the fenfe and meaning of the moral law, and unfolds the whole defign of the ceremonial law. By the firft, he demonftrated the neceffity of the gospel for falvation-by the Second, he fhewed the gospel to have been one and the fame, though under different difpenfations of it, from the fall of Adam to the coming of Jefus Chrift. Now to fet Paul, as a law-giver, in Mofes' feat, and to reprefent him as condemning that which was not condemned by the law of Mofes, is to make him act inconfiftently with his own declaration, Rom. iii. 31. Do we make void the law through faith?-GOD forbid! yea--we eftablish the law. It is to make him tranfgrefs the law, by defpifing that folemn fanction, which equally forbad adding to it, or dimiQ3

nishing

nishing from it; and to put him in much the fame fituation with thofe, whether men or angels, who preached any other gospel than that which he preached; for to preach any other law than that which was given by MOSES, is as great an offence as to preach any other gospel than that which came by JESUS CHRIST. This we may learn from the very words of the law itself. Deut. iv. 2. xii. 32.

66

*

Dr. Whitby, a very laborious and learned commentator, in his comment on-the busband, in soiala, hath not power of his own. body, &c. fays-" Here is a plain argument against polygamy." That here is a plain argument to prove that he fhall not withhold the duty of marriage from the wife, and that, in this refpect, neither fhall defraud or withold from the other, on proper occafions, the conjugal debt, is very certain. But as what is here faid, is founded in the very nature and effence of the marriage-relation, it must equally concern all that ever have married, or shall marry, to the end of the world, as

* "Sane patres Tridentini," faith one, "fi adhuc in "vivis effent, ipfis immortales agerent gratias, quod a "fcripturis anathematis in polygamos vibrati juftitiam sc atque æquitatem defenderint, eaque præftiterint quæ " ipfi ne quidem audere voluerint."

"Truly the fathers of the council of Trent, if they "were yet alive, would give immortal thanks to thofe "who fhould defend, out of the holy fcripture, the juftice and equity of their curfe brandished against polygamifts, and who fhould do that, which they themfelves would not even dare to attempt."

[ocr errors]

well

well under the Old Teftament as the New Teftament; it bears equally hard, if it be an argument against polygamy, on the man who, having one wife, took another, in the days of Mofes, as on any one who should do fo at this hour (for certainly the marriage-relation must always be the fame) and will prove much more against certain diftinguished characters under the Old Teftament, than I dare fay the author meant it fhould. For this we have his own word—" Nor can I think” (says he) "that Abraham, Jacob, David, and other

[ocr errors]

pious men, would have had more wives, or "wives and concubines, had this been a plain "violation of the law of nature; nor would "GOD have fo highly approved of them, "had they lived in adultery." Note on Matt. xix. 7, 8.

When learned and pious men find out "plain arguments" against things which are not mentioned, or even hinted at, in the text, it is a fhrewd fign that * prejudice, and not

judgment,

*How this learned man's prejudices warred against his judgment (like many others who want to fupport a preconceived opinion, against the truth which would overturn it) may be feen from the conceffion he falls into, in his note on Mark x. 11. in the following words→→

Since to commit adultery is to violate the bed of "another perfon, he that commits adultery against his wife, muft violate her bed, which no husband can do only by doing that which an husband lawfully might do. Since then a right to polygamy, is a right to mar❝ry more wives than one, he that hath this right, cannot violate the bed of his first wife, by affuming another to it. It therefore must be acknowledged, either

84

that

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The Corin

judgment, dictates the comment. thians had a very plain argument" against their fears about married perfons cohabiting together; and if they compared this fcripture, ver. 3, 4, with what Mofes fo pofitively laid down, Exod. xxi. 10. the polygamifts among them were no more to forfake the company of their wives, fo as to withold the duty of marriage, than those who had but one wife were to withdraw themfelves from her fociety in the fame respect.

That there were many polygamists among the Gentile converts, as well as among the Jewish, there can be but little doubt; for, as Grotius obferves-Inter Paganos paucæ gentes una uxore contenta fuerunt." Among the

66

"that the husband, under CHRIST's inftitution, and by "the original law of matrimony, had no fuch right, or that he that marrieth another cannot, by that, "commit adultery against his firft wife." Here is a fair ISSUE IN LAW joined and must be tried by THE LAWfor CHRIST made no inftitution whatfoever on the fubject of marriage, but only declared, explained, and inforced thofe already made and recorded in the LAW which was given by MOSES. This LAW, like all other RECORDS, is to be tried by ITSELF-taking the WHOLE TOGETHER.

* De Verit. lib. ii. § 13. So De Jure, lib. ii. cap. 5. $9. he fays- Sed & apud Græcos, CECROPS primus,

tefte Athenæo, μiav évi èÇeužev, unam fæminam uni ma"rito attribuit: quod tamen ne Athenis quidem diu "obfervatum Socratis & aliorum exemplo docemur." But among the Greeks, CECROPS firft, as Athenæus witnes feth, allowed one woman to one man; which, nevertheless, was not long obferved, even at ATHENS, as we are taught by the example of SOCRATES and others.

Παλαι

[ocr errors]

ειωθείσαν και Ελληνες, και Ιεδαίοι, και δυο καὶ τρισι, καὶ πλείοσι γυναίξε νόμῳ γαμε καλα ταυλον συνοικειν. Theodoret-cited by Whitby, on 1 Tim. iii. 2.

"Formerly

« PreviousContinue »