ing fome restrictive expreffion or * epithet to the description of the man as to that of the damfel. But, instead of any thing of this fort, we find the indefinite ; and therefore our tranflators have rightly rendered it a man indefinitely;-fo the LXX-Eav de TIC—but if any man ;-the Latin-fi vir-if a man ;-the French of D. Martin-fi quelqu'un-if any one. Though all the tranflators of the Bible which I have met with, have modeftly, humbly, and faithfully reprefented the mind of God as He has been pleased to reveal it, yet some expofitors have ventured to interpret — if a man-by-If an unmarried man-thus * The restrictive description of the damfel is -non defponfata-not betrothed. But now is added to the defcription of the man. And it is very remarkable, that though betrothing is used fo often in the Bible, it always relates to the woman, never to the man, as the perfon betrothed. The man is faid to betroth a woman, as Deut. xxviii. 30. Deut. xx. 7. & al.-fo when betrothing is figuratively used, as Hof. ii. 19, 20. But in neither fenfe is it once used in all the fcriptures paffively on the man's fide. This distinction is alfo maintained in the New Teftament. See Matt. i. 18. Luke i. 27; ii. 5. 2 Cor. xi. 2. This can make no difference with regard to DIVORCE; but it seems to make a confiderable one in certain other refpects. Agreeably to the above remarks, Gronovius on Grot. de Jure. lib. ii. c. 5. § 8. n. 20. obferves, that where Grotius fpeaks of the woman's contracting herself to the man, there is "tacitly implied, that the contract on the man's fide is not by nature, but from pofitive inftitution." See before, p. 22. n. This must mean human inftitution, for there is no trace of fuch a thing in the Bible, as the confinement of the word to the fide of the woman fufficiently demonstrates. 3 corrupting corrupting the paffage by an interpolation, not only unwarranted by the Hebrew text, but by every translation of it extant. This method of interpreting fcripture, not by fcripture, but by our own prejudiced imaginations, is making the word of God to mean any thing and every thing which fancy may invent; and rendering it-instead of a fure word of prophecy, to the which we do well to take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, 2 Pet. i. 19-a fort of ignis fatuus, by no means to be depended on for a director and guide, in fo awful a concern as therein is proposed to every man to whom that word fhall come. The only shadow of excuse for such an interpretation, or rather corruption of the paffages above mentioned, is the being able to produce fome pofitive law against a man's having more wives than one at a time; and then, in order to make GOD's laws agree together, it may be thought reafonable to reftrain the indefinite expreffion if a man, in Exodus and Deuteronomy, to unmarried men only. But as the first is impoffible, the Second is without, and indeed against, all authority from the law of GOD; for that it allowed polygamy, is juft as clear as that it allowed marriage. Therefore the confequence is, that the expreffion in question being general, without limitation or exception with respect to the fituation of the man, as married or unmarried, it must in fome cafes command polygamy, and therefore make it a duty. This confequence must be allowed, if we let fcripS 2 ture ture speak for itself; it could not be avoided by any other means than a man's refraining entirely from the other fex, or, if he married, contenting himself with one wife. If a man went farther than this, he must take the confequence. But as GoD would not suffer a whore of the daughters of Ifrael, so he made these laws to prevent their being expofed to prostitution by men's taking them, and then putting them away. This was just as likely to be the cafe where married men were concerned, as where others were; therefore pofitively forbidden as to both alike. That there were fome ingredients in thefe laws, of the ceremonial, local, or temporary kind-as the payment of the fifty fhekels to the father-we do not deny; but that the morality of thefe laws must furvive as long as morality itfelf exifts, is as clear, as that expofing a woman to prostitution and ruin must at all times be equally hateful in the fight of GOD, and therefore at all times equally provided against by these humane and falutary laws. In confirmation of what is here faid, I would lay it down as a rule in all cafes, that wherever a moral intendment appears to be involved in the words of a ritual, ceremonial, or local and temporary inftitution, there, though the letter of the law itself can have no place among us, yet the spirit and moral intention must survive as long as the world endures. For instance, it is written, Deut. xxv. 4. Thou fhalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. By this we must suppose, that it was was the custom in thofe days, and in that part of the world, to lay the heaves on the floor, and to get the corn out by the treading or trampling of oxen. oxen. We We get the corn out of the heaves by threshing with flails; therefore the letter of the law above mentioned has nothing to do with us. But the Spirit of this law being of a moral nature, and to teach us, that those who labour in the word and doctrine are to live of their labours, for that the labourer is worthy of his reward-this law is itself quoted by St. Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 9. 1 Tim. v. 18. as a proof that they who preach the gospel fhould live of the gospel. 1 Cor. ix. 14. From whence, as from other instances which might be mentioned, I infer, that though a law itself, or fome part of it, may have vanished as to the letter, yet it may, or rather muft, furvive as to the spirit of it. Shall we fay, that we must conftrue the words-if any man-to mean unmarried men only, because, though GoD's laws do not forbid polygamy, yet ours do? To imagine that our laws are to controul the laws of GOD, is a blafphemous arrogance, in comparison of which, Cardinal Wolfey's-EGO ET REX MEUS-is humility itself in the very abstract. The law of the land is fuch, that a married Englishman cannot publicly and openly marry the virgin he has feduced or taken; he cannot *Kolben tells us, that this practice is obferved at the Cape of Good Hope, (vol. ii. p. 73.) and adds-" 'tis most "certain, that corn is much more expeditiously got out "of the ears by the treading of horses or oxen, than it is "by threshing. A team of eight horfes or oxen will tread out more corn in a few hours, than a dozen men can "thresh out in a whole day." obey the letter therefore of these laws of GOD, as the Jews could have done; but he can and ought to make them the law of his confcience; and if he has taken a virgin, &c. he can, according to the spirit of these laws, maintain, protect, and provide for her, and, if he furvives his prefent engagement, marry her publicly in preference to all other women upon earth. Thus would one great end of this law be answered, and millions be preferved from destruction. If indeed the woman is profligate enough to forfake the man, and voluntarily unite herself with another, The is guilty of tranfgreffing these laws of GOD, as in other cafes of adultery: for, the fame reason which is given why the man Shall not put her away all his days, viz. because be bath humbled her, goes to what is also faid of the woman-she shall be his wife—she certainly therefore is his wife in God's fight, and whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent, Prov. vi. 29. I fome time ago met with two fermons, which were preached, and afterwards printed, on occafion of paffing the marriage-act. The learned author, fpeaking of polygamy, expreffes himself as follows:-"We find like wife in those early times, and afterwards, "that polygamy was partly indulged, but "only upon certain typical occafions, and "then only among the patriarchs and fome of the kings, who were all exprefs types of "CHRIST in their feveral marriages; and in "this refpect they each typified and prefigured CHRIST's marrying the Jewish 66 church, |