: I take the οφειλομενην ἐννοιαν οἱ Paul to answer exactly to the word my which is rendered duty of marriage. This is mentioned by Mofes to be ftill 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 fupposes it. The root ny means to act upon Some perfon or thing-and, in Kal, to lie with a woman, Gen. xxxiv. 2. Deut. xxi. 14. Deut. xxii. 24, 29: fo that by comparing scripture with fcripture, we shall 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

ber duty וענתה לא יגרע us. Mofes faith

of marriage he shall not withhold — Subtract-withdraw keep back from her. Paul fays-let the husband render to the wife due benevolence-Ὀφειλομένην Εύνοιαν which is faying the fame thing, in 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 ÀTOGEρEITÉ Mofes fays ya which the LXX actually tranflate εκ αποςερήσει. This is the very identical verb which we tranflate defraud

defraud not. fignifies to fubtract or withdraw-to withold or keep back;-the Greek ȧrosepew has the fame meaning-so that Paul may be faid to tranflate, just as the LXX have done, they of Moses. The only shadow of difference between the Jewish law-giver, and the Chriftian apostle, confifts in the explicitness of the latter, and concifeness of the former. Mofes's words imply what Paul's declare, and, vice verfa, Paul declares what is implied by Mofes. If the bufband is not to withold the marriage-duty from the wife, this must imply that the wife is not to withold it from the bufband. There must be a parity of reafon 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, must 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 that part of

*

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

the

the answer to the Corinthians letter, wherein he folved their difficulties about the intercourse of married people, as it is now in my mind, while I am writing thefe 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, bad 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 maf

terly manner in which he explains the fenfe and meaning of the moral law, and unfolds the whole defign of the ceremonial law. By the first, he demonstrated the neceffity of the gospel for falvationby 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 lawgiver, in Mofes feat, and to reprefent him as condemning that which was not condemned by the law of Mofes, is to

make

make him act inconfiftently with his own declaration, Rom. iii. 31. Do we make void the law through faith?-GOD forbid! yea-we establish the law. It is to make him tranfgrefs the law, by defpifing that folemn fanction, which equally forbad adding to it, or diminishing 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.

Dr. Whitby, a very laborious and learned commentator, in his comment on -the busband, in itsσiale, hath not power of his own body, &c. fays "Here " is a plain * argument against polygamy."

66

"Sane patres Tridentini," faith one," fi ad"huc in vivis effent, ipfis immortales agerent gra"tias, quod a fcripturis anathematis in polygamos "vibrati juftitiam 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 VOL. I. "brandifhed

R

gamy." That here is a plain argument to prove that he fhall not withold 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 marriagerelation, it must equally concern all that ever have married, or fhall marry, to the end of the world, as 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 fhould 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 should. 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

"brandifhed against polygamists, and who should "do that, which they themselves would not even "dare to attempt."

* How this learned man's prejudices warred against his judgment (like many others who want to fupport a pre-conceived opinion, against the truth which

Would