Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

thofe permiffive divorces, which, fays He, Mofes permitted, ETÉTρEEV-not, as the Pharifees would have it, ivernato, commanded-made no difference as to the marriage-bond in the fight of GOD. The man who put away his wife, for no other cause than marrying another, which was the practice of these people, committed a great fin, not only by not cleaving to his wife, as GOD had commanded, but by putting her away for another woman, and thus caufing her to commit adultery with another man. See Matt. v. 32. And in this fenfe, as acceffary to his divorced wife's crime, might himself be faid to commit adultery. But more of this hereafter.

If thofe divorces could have operated. as a diffolution of the first marriage, fhe would not have been DEFILED by marrying another man; but this not being the cafe, she was DEFILED in the fight of GOD, when put away by unlawful divorce, as when he went to another man without any divorce. Very ftriking are the words of Jer. iii. 1. They fay, If a man put away his wife, and he go from him, and become another man's, fhall be return to her again? fhall not that land be greatly polluted?

*The word (Deut. xxiv. 4.) which we translate defiled, is N. The fame word is ufed, Ezek. xviii, 6, 11, 15. for violating another's wife.

But

But where is any thing like this faid of polygamy? That polygamy was practifed throughout all ages of the Jewish œconomy, cannot be denied. It is equally evident, that it was the deliberate, open, avowed, and wilful practice of the most boly and excellent of the earth, of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the friend of GOD, If. xli. 8. as well as of the most illuftrious of his children; and this, without the least reproof or rebuke from GOD, or the most distant hint or expreffion of his displeasure, either by Mofes, or any other of the prophets. No trace of forrow, remorse, or repentance, touching this matter, is to be found in any one inftance, and therefore many commentators are at a loss to maintain the finfulnefs of polygamy, but at the expence of fcripture, reafon, and common fenfe.

Some fay" It was a fin, but GOD al"lowed it for the hardness of their hearts.” That Mofes fuffered (ETETPEEV, permitted, tolerated) divorce, fo far as not to exact the outward punishment of it in certain cafes, is evident from the fuppofed circumftances in Deut. xxiv. 1, &c. But this was in order to avoid worse mischief amongst the wicked and profligate part of the community, fuch as mal-treating, beating, or even killing their hated wives.

This

of the text.

This is what we may fuppofe, in part at leaft, to be meant by our LORD, when He fays-Mofes, because of the hardness of your hearts, fuffered you to put away your wives. This is faid of divorce, not of *polygamy, as plainly appears by the words And herein Mofes feems to have acted more as a politician, than as a lawgiver by permiffion, not by commandment, like that of Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 6. It is not faid-GOD fuffered it-but Mofes fuffered you to put away your wives: but, CHRIST adds, from the beginning it was not so-i. e. that men fhould put away their wives. Here is not the leaft hint about polygamy.

Can we fuppofe, however, that Gon fuffered Abraham, Jacob, David, and others of His faints, to break His law, and this for the hardness of their hearts?If they had hearts of ftone, who ever had an beart of flesh? Ezek. xi. 19. Do not

[ocr errors]

* The learned authors of the Universal Hiftory, vol. ii. p. 137, obferve, that Mofes, amongst other things, was forced to indulge them (the Jews) "in polygamy."-But what could this have to do with Abraham, Jacob, and thofe who lived before Mofes? It is evident that polygamy was practifed by the holiest of the faints, ages before Mofes exifted' therefore, afcribing the practice of it to an indul gence of Mofes, is as great a mistake, as afcribing the original of circumcifion to the law of Mofes, Comp. Gen. xvii. 10-14. with John vii. 22.1

[ocr errors]

reafon

reafon and common-sense start back at fuch a fuppofition?

Others have as abfurdly faid, "that, "GOD, being the fovereign, has a right "to difpenfe with his own laws, and having done this, polygamy was no fin.

66

* The elaborate Noldius, after long arguments upon the fubject, pro and con, of his own and other people's, which may all be feen Heb. Part. Annot.. 225. concludes--Sanctos veteres polygamos non peccaffe coram Deo, quia habuerunt difpenfationem fpecialem &extraordinariam." The old faints, who were polygamifts, did not fin before GOD, because they had a special and extraordinary difpenfation." But, 1. Where is such a difpenfation recorded? 2. The very supposition of fuch a thing is as abfurd as it is profane; more becoming the character of a Pope of Rome, than of the HOLY GOD. 3. The idea of a Special and extraordinary difpenfation to fome, and leaving others under the guilt of fin, feems to be borrowed from the fpeech of one of the doctors (Soto) at the famous council of Trent, who faid,

The antient fathers had many wives by difpenfa "tion, and the others, who were not difpenfed

with, did live in perpetual fin."—Hift. of CounciĮ of Trent, Eng. Tranf. by N. Brent, p. 671. This directly militates against the univerfality of the law, Deut. xxi. 15, which is conceived in as general terms as poffible, and most clearly fuppofes that any man might have two wives. The Levirate or law, Deut. xxv. 5, 6. which Noldius calls a difpenfation for marrying the brother's wife, contrary to Lev. xviii. 16. is very improperly called fo, it being a pofitive commandment, established for a particular purpose, and both the law itself, and the reafon of it are there fet down. This is not the cafe with polygamy, for there is no law which prohibits it, nor any to eftablish a partial allowance of it.

[ocr errors]

We find particular occafional inftances of God's difpenfing with the rigour of His laws on certain emergencies, and for particular purposes-as in DAVID's eating the few-bread, which it was not lawful for any but the priests to eat. Alfo in fomerother inftances which might be mentioned. But where do we find a total fufpenfion of one of the commandments of the moral law for ages together?. If it was as great a fin for a man to have two wives, as for a woman to have two husbands, why fufpend it on the part of the man, and not on the part of the woman? Why invariably ordain punishment on one fide, and not on the other, if each was equally finful against the law itself? Doth GOD pervert judgment? Or doth the Almighty pervert juftice? Job viii. 3. GOD is no refpecter of perfons. Acts x. 34. He accepteth (i. e. with undue and partial favour) no man's perfon. Gal. ii. 6. As many as have finned in the law, shall be judged by the law. Rom. ii. 11, 12. Nor is it conceivable that the righteous JUDGE OF ALL should Himself depart from the rule laid down for his vice-gerents, the judges of the earth,(Deut. i. 17.) Ye shall not respect perfons in judgment. No other account then can confiftently be given of the matter, than what may be gathered from the uniform and unvaried ufe of the word adultery

« AnteriorContinuar »