« PreviousContinue »
commit adultery, and so the husband, by caufing her to do it, is particeps criminis, as an accessary before the fact, and may be said himself to commit it ; as a man who hires, or causes another to commit a murder, is himself * guilty of murder ;--as David, 2 Sam. xii. 9; Abab, i Kings xxi. 19.
This interpretation is not new ; for Wetstein, on Matt. xix. 9. mentions some copies, in which for po.XAT 001—committeth adultery, is red-TOEL QUTYV MOI Xeu@yvas-causeth her to commit adultery; and in one-MOXATA-T8TESTV DYQYXATEL NOXsUbyvoscommittethadultery; that is, compels her to commit adultery. I will conclude this point with observing, that, in all this, there is not the least hint or glance at
« Coinmitteth adultery) that is, maketh her to com“ mit adultery, to wit, the former wife which he fent
away from him; comp. Matt. v. 32. He is rightly “ faid to do it, who occasions it to be done. It is the “ custom of the Hellenists,” (Jews, who spake or wrote in Greek) “ to express words of the form Hiphil by ac" tive verbs.” As Rom. viii. 26. where the Spirit's making intercession for us, is His causing us to pray in a right manner for ourselves; just as His crying Abba, Father, (Gal. iv. 6.) is His enabling us so to cry. Accordingly the apostle, Rom. viii. 15, speaks of Him as the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. See Guyse Paraph. on Rom. viii. 26. and note.
Many exemplifications of this doctrine, as very senfibly and properly adopted into the law of England, appear in our law-books; but in none more clearly, than in the case of Lord Audley, who was indicted for a rape on his own wife, he holding her while another ravised her;-he was convi&ted and executed. He was likewise as evidently guilty of adultery, as the raviber himself was. See State Try. vol. i.
polygamy, as condemned, or even mentioned, in these texts.
The learned Grotius, whom I have men: tioned and quoted, at the beginning of this chapter, as maintaining a new law of Christ on the subject of polygamy, “ afterwards “ changed his opinion," (see note ce Grot. de Jure, lib. ii. c. š. $ 9.)
plain from his annotations on Matt. v. 32. “ where he shews, that in that place, and “ other like passages of the gospels, polygamy “ is not condemned, but only the abuse of “ divorce, from whatever cause it proceeds." “ Hence (adds Barbeyrac) in that excellent « little work-De Verit. Relig. Chrift.-he
only says" The Christians follow the usage of the * Germans and Romans, who
* Grotius, in the passage here alluded to, doth not quote Tacitus fairly, whose words are-“ Severa illis “ matrimonia. Nam soli prope barbarorum fingulis “ uxoribus contenti, exceptis admodum paucis, qui non " libidine, fed ob nobilitatem, pluribus ambiuntur “ nuptiis." Which proves, that the Germans were, in a degree at least, polygamists. On voit par les dernieres paroles, que, quoique cela fút rare parmi eux, il y en avoit pourtant des exemples; de sorte que c'etait plutôt une mode, qu'une chose regardée comme illicite. Barbeyrac on Grot. de Jure, lib. ii. c. 5. note 12. Fr. traní. “ One fees,
by the last words, that though polygamy was rare among “ the Germans, there were however examples of it; lo
that its rarity rather arose from fashian than from its
being looked upon as unlawful." As to the Romans, they were also polygamists; for though they lived but with one, who was called uxor, a wife; yet their liberta, and ancillæ or serve, with whom they also cohabited, amounted to the same in point of fact.
** were content with one wife. Lib. ii. $ 13; “ and in the note there introduced, he only " refers to 1 Cor. vii. 4. This text, with the verses preceding it, we have very fully considered in the last chapter.
Since the first Edition of this work was published, I had a book put into my hands, the title page of which announces its being written on a popular occasion, that is to say,
" the affair of Lord Grosvenor's action
against the D. of C.” This book is entitled, “ Free Thoughts on Seduction, Adultery, and Divorce.”
The author styles himself a Civilian, and, by many parts of the book, seems to be an adept in his profeffion. His remarks are keen-his observations shrewd. There are some things in which he may be thought to have gone too far ; but there is a stricture on the subject of polygamy, as vulgarly supposed to be prohibited by OUR SAVIOUR, Matt. xix. 9. which I will insert here, just as I find it, leaving it to my readers to make their own remarks upon it.
" It is indeed pretended, that the strictness “ of conjugal discipline, supposed to be re“ commended by the apostle, is confirmed by
Suet. in Vit. 7. Cæf. faith-that “he made a law, by
which every man, for the sake of propagating chil“dren, might marry as many wives as he pleased. M. Antony had two wives at the same time." So had Craffus, and doubtless many more, whose names have not reached us.
our SAVIOUR himself; who is conceived “ also to have prohibited a man's having
more than one wife, as well as a wife's hav“ ing more than one busband.
“ But this supposition is groundless : for, as I before observed, from our Saviour's own words, He came not to destroy the law
or the prophets, but to fulfil them. Now, “ under the ļaw, polygamy was allowed; as
plainly appears not only from practice but precept
* « In saying, “Thou shalt not commit adul
tery,' the law did not say—thou shalt not • have more than one wife; as it does when,
respecting idolatry, it says, “Thou shalt have " " no other gods but me. It is said, “Thou
halt not lie with another man's wife;' it “ did not say—'Thou shalt not lie with as many “. wives as tbou wilt of thy own.' On the contrary,
appears to have been commonly
." It were taking up the reader's time to little pur
pose, to prove what is so generally known; the learned “ Selden, in his Uxor Ebraica, fhews fully that a plura“ lity of wives was not only allowed of among the He“ brews, but amongst almoft all other nations, and in
all ages. In the Eaft it was almost universal, as it
remains at this day. The ancient Romans indeed did “ not practise it, though it was not prohibited. Mark
Anthony, I think, was the first who led the fashion of
having two wives. This fashion lasted between three " and four hundred years, when it was prohibited by an “ express law, under the reign of Theodofus. The Em
peror Valentinian however permitted it in a fuller ex“ tent; nor did the Christian Bishops of these times ss make any opposition to this reintroduction of polygamy. ? Juftinian and the latter councils put a stop to it.
permitted to have two or more. If a man or have two wives, one beloved and another
bated,' &c. Deut. xxi. 15. And again, 2 Sam. xii. 8, the prophet Nathan, reproaching David, says, : -Thus faith the * LORD God, I gave thee thy master's
house and thy master's wives into thy bofom.” " It is true that, after the world became " to be somewhat populous, and perhaps - some communities apparently too nu
merous for the land they possessed, the “ * practice of polygamy was prohibited by “ the civil magistrate, for the political ends of fociety.
According to the laws of Justinian, it " was not lawful to have two wives at a time,
nor even a concubine with a wife. The canons of the church also confirm this
pro“ hibition, under pretence of its being 66 founded on the words of our Saviour, in “ His reply to the Pharisees. But if we
* There are writers, indeed, who have laboured to
prove, that polygamy does not tend to population. But, “ however ingeniously they have argued, they have “ contradicted all the experience both of ancient and “ modern times. If there are some countries, in which
at this day polygamy is allowed, and yet they are not
more populous than others where it is prohibited, the “ fact may be accounted for, by various other reasons. " The desolation, occafioned by the plagues, wars, fa" mine, and licentiousness of those countries, would proSo bably have long since depopulated them entirely, had $! not polygamy been allowed.”