« AnteriorContinuar »
a single instance where polygamy was for-
Is it then, without the highest absurdity,
* Unless we understand Lev.xxi. 13, 14. to for-
P d 2 • and
and condemn polygamy in the presence of such multitudes of "Jews, and in a settled dispute with His bitterest foes, the Pharisees, who only disputed with Him to ensnare Him, and to have whereof to accuse Him. to the people as an enemy to Moses (for this was their grand point in their appeal to Moses's writings) and yet that we mould not meet with a syllable of reply to what He advanced, when they might have quoted the whole Old Testament against Him? that He should declare a thing to be adul± tery, without a single testimony from Moses to support Him in what he said? and this, when He never on any other occasion taught any doctrine but on the authority of the Old Testament, and constantly appealed to it for the tfuth of what He declared? Lastly. Is it conceivable, as Christ must be supposed to speak in Hebrew, that He should give a meaning to the language of the Old Testament, which, in all the writings of Moses and all the prophets, it never had? Now, wherever the verb ju.w;gacfxcci is used in the Greek translation of the LXX, it constantly answers to the Hebrew t|Nl; and therefore there is no room to doubt, that wherever, in our Saviour's discourses, as recorded by the Evangelifis, we meet with the word fxot%arcit, *]N3 was the very Hebrew term used by him: but no where, throughout the whole Hebrew Bible, is this word applied to a man's marrying tying a second wife, living his firji,- unless such second was either betrothed or mar '*ried to another, or to any thing else, th*H only to the defilement of a betrothed ot married* woman. This is its single idei throughout the whole. Therefore it is figuratively used to describe the peopled forsaking God, and turning to idols. 'See before, p. $j.
Christ said to the sews, John v\ 46, 47. Had ye believed Mo/es, ye would have believed me ', but if ye believe not his ivrit\ings, how shall ye believe my words?• "I* 'ife not easy to conceive words more forcible than these, to express an absolute fend kinreserved appeal to the Old Testament for the truth of all Christ said and taught in His prophetical character. In this character He stood before the great multitudes of the people and the Pharisees, while he was delivering, on the authority of the fcfip^ tures, the fense os those scriptures ttpoft the matter of unjust divorce, and proving the criminal consequences of it to all parties concerned. He so proved His point, that His adversaries had not a word to reply. He silenced them as He did the
* Let any one take up an English concordance, and look at the word adultery, and he will not be able to find a single instance where it is applied to.polygamy. in any part of the Old" Testament, nor in any other manner than the Hebrew Sjtfl
devil, devils Matt. iv. 10, 11. by the word os God. But had He said polygamy •wz.sjinful, from which of Moses's writings would He have proved this? The Pharisees might have retorted upon Him His own declaration and appeal to the writings of Moses} they might have said—" Thou hast said, "that if we believed the writings of Moses; "we should believe 'shy words—Thou hast "said, that if a man having a wife, mar'* rietb another" (for thus they might have put it, had they understood Him to have condemned polygamy] " he commit t et b. a*' dultery j but where dost Thou find this "in Moses's writings? they are filled *• with the allowance of what Thou cbndemnejl, without a single exception: therefore, because we believe Moses's *' writings, we do not believe Thee."
From all that has been said, I do con* elude, that Christ was not a destroyer of the old law, nor a giver of a new one— that therefore the business of polygamy, and all other points relative to the commerce of the sexes, were fully adjusted and settled by the divine law, subject to no alteration or change whatsoever, by * any power
* Zuinguus, in his letter on the subject of King Henry's divorce, says very truly—that " the apostles "had made no new laws about marriage, but had «* left it as they found it." See Bwrnet, Hi/I. Res. vol. i. p. 93.
In Earth Or Heaven. For thus faith th« Spirit—Eccles. iii. 14. Whatsoever GoD doeth, it Jhall be for ever, nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it.
Having now finished what I had to fay on the subject of this chapter, I shall next proceed, on the footing of the divine fatv, to consider.another material point relative to the commerce of the sexes, which is #1* nxrce.
APPENDIX TQ CHAP. II.
HPHE celebrated Martinus Bucerus, ict enarrationibus ad cap. 19. Librif u* ■dicum, has left us the following observation concerning concubinage; which, as it tends to throw some light on the subject* would have been inserted in its proper place, (fee before, p. 53, 54.) had I met with it time enough. It has since comfc to me by the hand of a friend; and as it is well worth inserting, as the testimony pf one of our excellent and learned re* formers, I hope she reader will not be displeased at my giving it a place by itself.
"Concubinœ erant legitimœ etiam uxores; f* fed hoc amatronis differebant, quod sine *f dote & sine folenni sanctificatione red*
»* piebantur *.