Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and lie with her, and they be found; the man that lay with her shall give unto the damfel's father fifty fhekels of filver, and he shall be his wife; BECAUSE HE HATH HUMBLED HER, be may not put ber away all his days.

The word Shekels is not in the original, but inferted by our tranflators; in the paffage of Exod. xxii. 17. there is the fame word filver, or filver-money; there it is faid in general, according to the dowry of virgins. Here it is faid Don Quinquaginta argenteos, fifty pieces of filver-money. By

and constraint, which we call a rape. But this is fpoken of at ver. 25, where the word pr is ufed; which is a much stronger expreffion than we to take, or lay hold en; and fo our tranflators have (ver. 25.) obferved, in their tranflating by-force her. That this is the true idea of the word, may be feen by comparing 2 Sam. xiii. 11, 14. when Amnon commits a rape on Tamar. The word wan does not neceffarily fignify violence, which p does. Omnis fignificatio eft vehementia, fortitudo. Calafio fub voc. This place

of Deut. xxii. 28. is rather to be understood of " de"filing a maid, that being occafionally laid hold on, "did prefently yield, not being folicited before-hand, "and drawn to it by degrees. But Exod. xxii. 16.

fpeaks of fuch as did entice a maid, with promise "of marriage, and then defiled her." Clark. The two paffages taken together fhew, that in neither cafe fhall the man abandon the virgin he hath taken. We muft conclude there is a reafon for ufing different words at ver. 25, and ver. 28, in the Hebrew text, though the LXX tranflate them both by Blaod per -probably won is a more general word than pin and includes all taking, whether by force or other

wife.

comparing

there

comparing the two paffages, we may fore look upon this as the affeffment of the ufual dowry of virgins paid to the father. It was to be paid in this case as well as the former, for in both the father's confent was precluded; but in no cafe was he to be defrauded of the n or dowry. This was as much to be paid when his daughter was taken against his confent, as when with it, and fo when taken without his knowledge and confent, as in this latter cafe. But on whatever account the money was to be paid, it alters not the point in queftion, for, faith GOD, She fhall be his wife, or woman-Fr. Elle lui fera pour femme HER, he may not put her away all his days. This is clearly explanatory of the original inftitution they shall be one flesh, and what God hath joined together (by pronouncing then one flesh) let not man (either the parties themselves, or any human power whatsoever) put afunder.

[ocr errors]

be

BECAUSE HE HATH HUMBLED

I should rather chufe to let the fcripture answer for itself, than appeal to human authority for its explanation. I will only here juft obferve, that I am by no means fingular in my views of these things. Our ecclefiaftical courts have proceeded on this principle, have called this perfonal intercourfe, previous to any outward ceremony, a marriage de facto, and have compelled

the

the parties to a public recognition of it in facie ecclefiæ, in the face of the church. See Blackstone's Comment. vol. i. 435, 439and in Burn's Ecc. Law, Tit. Marriage, there is this remarkable paffage, "Nor "was he or fhe to be difmiffed or abfolved,

if thofe fpoufals de futuro, by reafon of "carnal knowledge, or fome other act equi

valent, did become matrimony." By this it does appear, that, in the judgment of our canon law, if a man had promised a woman to marry her at a future time, and in the mean-time lay with her, or used the freedoms of an husband with her, fuch promife did, by fuch acts, become matrimony.

So facred have our canonifts efteemed this act, that where one of the parties have forfaken the other, and married another than the person to whom they have been thus joined, the ecclefiaftical courts have pronounced fentence of divorce, with regard to the fecond marriage, caufa precontractûs, by reafon of precontract. With what authority will appear by-and-by.

In Bacon's Abr. vol. iii. p. 574, we find the following cafe:-A. contracts himfelf with B. and after marries C. B. fues A. on this contract in the fpiritual coure. There fentence is given that A. thall marry and cohabit with B. which he does accordingly. They are baron and feme, without any divorce between A. and C; for the marriage

[ocr errors]

marriage of A. and C. was a mere nullity *.

That I am not fingular in my opinion, refpecting the one divine ordinance of marriage, will alfo appear from the remarkable statute of Henry III; which, as it is very short, I will transcribe.

"To the king's writ of bastardy, whe<ther one born before matrimony may "inherit in like manner as he that is born after matrimony: all the bishops answer"ed, that they would not nor could not "answer to it, becaufe it was against the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

common order of the church. And all "the bishops inftanted the lords, that they "would confent, that all fuch as were "born before matrimony, as to the fuc"ceffion

The law fince 26 Geo. II. c. 33. is quite the reverse, the precontract between A. and B. would be a nullity, and the marriage between A. and C. valid. Such are the liberties which mortals have prefumed to take with the ordinance of Heaven. But this cannot alter either the thing itself, or GOD's views of it.

"Conftantine, to difcourage concubinage, and to "encourage matrimony in perfons who lived together in "that way, ordered, that if a man married his concu"bine, the children which he had by her before mar"riage, fhould become legitimate. But the church "meddled not with thefe diftinctions of the civil

laws, but regarding only the law of nature, approved every conjunction of one man with a woman, "if it was with one woman and perpetual; and the "more fo, because the holy fcriptures employ the name of wife or of concubine indifferently.

"The

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"ceffion of inheritance, fhould be legiti→ mate, as well as they that be born "within matrimony, for fo much as the "church accepteth SUCH TO BE LEGITI66 MATE. And all the earls and barons "anfwered with one voice that they "would not change the laws of the realm, "which hitherto have been used and approved."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Here was a strong push made, that the

"The first council of Toledo, A. D. 400, hath this canon, He who with a believing wife hath a concu"bine, is excommunicated: but if his concubine is in "the ftead of a wife, and he adheres to her alone, "whether he be called wife or concubine, he is not "to be rejected from communion." See Jortin Rem. v. ii. p. 294, 295; who adds-" This canon fhews "that there were concubines approved by the church.”

I would here add, that Austin, De fide & oper. c. 19. fays" If a concubine fhould profefs to know "no other man, although fhe fhould be difmiffed "from him to whom she is fubjected, it may well be "doubted whether the ought not to be admitted to "receive baptifm." So that it appears very plainly, there was a time, when the conjunction of the man and woman did not depend, for its validity and lawfulness, upon human ceremonies and inventions.

In how many matters, as well as in many of the above circumftances, hath the church (as it is called) changed it's notions of things! I have often thought, that if Methafaleh had begun his long life with the era of the Chriftian church, and had lived his 969 years in the Chriftian world, his life muft have been a very miferable one, unlefs, like the vicar of Bray of famous verfatile memory, he could have changed with the times, and have held at leaft as many different opinions as he was years old,

ordinance

« AnteriorContinuar »