and cohabiting with more than one at a time. They imagined themselves totally free from the first, before they married the fecond. The New Teftament was not to introduce a new law concerning this, nor any thing else. Nothing is to be found there which was not in the Old Testament, only as to the manner; the matter is one and the fame. Otherwife, how could Paul derive any strength to his argument, Gal. iii. 10. by citing the fanction of the old law, to prove the neceffity of falvation by grace? If the law be in a fingle inftance altered, or changed in one fingle point, how can it be faid by an inspired apostle of CHRIST-Curfed is every one that continueth not in ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them? -which, as it never had, fo it never can have but one fenfe and meaning; and our LORD fhews, that it not only condemned the act, but the very thought of adultery. Did it only begin to do this, when CHRIST faid, Whosoever looketh upon a woman to luft after her, bath already committed adultery with her in his heart? Matt. v. 28. (but then this must mean fuch a woman as adultery could be committed * *The word furn, like the Hebrew UN is certainly a general term, and fignifies a woman, as dif tinguished committed with, fuppofing the thought brought forth into act). And does not the Old Testament. fay the fame thing? What tinguished from a man; and in this fenfe it is ufed Matt. xiv. 21. Acts v. 14. & al freq. But this cannot be the sense of it here; for if it be finful to look with defire on any woman whatfoever, then it would be finful for a man to defire his own wife, to whom he is actually married, or a virgin to whom he is contracted; and this would lead us into all the abfurdities of the antient mifogamifts, who held marriage itself to be finful. In this place, therefore, it certainly means a woman confidered as related to a man; and that, whether betrothed or efpoufed only (See Matt. i. 20, 24. Luke ii. 5.) or that hath cohabited with her husband, (Luke i. 5, 13, 18.) for with no other can adultery be committed; and it is very evident that our Saviour's difcourfe is on that subject; as forbidden and condemned by the feventh commandment, which He is explaining. Turn in the New Teftament, like UN alfo in the Old Teftament, is the term made use of to denote a married woman-when others are defigned, we meet with xopaciov, a damfel, Fr. damoiselle-rapßevos, a virgin-xnpa, a widow-but I believe it would be difficult to find a fingle paffage in the New Teftament, where furn is ufed neceffarily to denote an unmarried woman. μεμέρισαι ἡ Γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος, 1 Cor. vii. 34. Afterwards the Tapevos is called αγαμ-the fum, Γαμησασα. For want of fuch diftinction, fome commentators, by letting their own imaginations loofe, have filled thofe of many readers with matter of fore diftress and bondage of confcience, as if the defire after any female whatsoever, came within what they call the Spiritual import of the feventh commandment. What else is the meaning of the tenth commandment, which fays, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife? or of Prov. xxiv. 9. I once knew a gentleman, who often affured me, that he never approached his own wife, without finding a fecret uneafinefs in his mind, left he was doing wrong. He was a great admirer of what are called Spiritual expofitors. Thefe are, too often, a fpecies of commentators, who, neglecting the fcriptural fense 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 tranflation. Some inftances 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. Such people there always were.-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 againft walls." See Chriftoph. Gerfon, in Talmud. p. 24. 66 We are told of a Jefuit, called Alphonfus Rodicius, who, though he ferved at the mafs 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 Devil-an arraignment of the wisdom and holiness of the CREATOR in our formation, by condemning as evil, thofe appetites, which He hath implanted in our nature, for the purpose of incitement to marriage, and, of courfe, to the continu ánce xxiv. 9. The thought of foolishness is fin? The word not which we tranflate the thought, fignifies a wicked imagination, prava ance of the human fpecies. To avoid fuch errors, one fafe 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 ftrong, noble, manly fenfe of fcripture, 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 abovementioned, and which is as likely to be abused to the purposes of felf-righteoufness, as that of Matt. v. 28. It is that of fob xxxi. 1. I made a covenant with mine eyes, why then should I think upon a maid? Job is afferting his integrity with refpect to many circumftances of his life and conversation, and among the reft, with regard to fleshly incontinence; and this chapter begins with-I have made a covenant with Et quid confiderabo- ומה אתבונן על בתולה .mine eyes in virgine. Mont. Our tranflation is near enough the original, to give us the fense 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 words; for Job (ver. 2, 3.) fhews us, that he means to express a very grievous offence, fuch as excludes from all portion of GOD, and inheritance in the kingdom of heaven (Comp. 1 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 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 men must 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 shewn at large, practifed openly by the greatest faints, and allowed and bleffed of GOD; therefore cannot answer to ver. 2, 3. For which reasons, this text is very difficult to interpret, agreeably to the analogy of faith, unless the word na maid, or virgin, be taken here, for -בתולה ארשה ,what it certainly imports elfewhere virgo defponfata-a betrothed or efpoufed virgin, who ftill was called bna. See Joel i. 8. and perhaps Jer. ii. 32. Comp. If. lxi. 10. latter part. See Deut. xxii. 23, 24, 25. That Job fhould not fuffer 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 Job is not to be understood as making tranfgreffion where there is no law, like the Talpa and the Jefuits above-mentioned; but as protefting his innocence with refpect to adultery, in every sense of the word, as not fuffering himself 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. |