CHAP. V.
Christ not the Giver of a new Law.
MOSHEIM (Eccl. Hist. Maclaine's edit. quarto, vol. i. p. 295) very justly observes—"When once the ministers of the church had departed from the antient simplicity of religion, abuses were daily multiplied; and superstition drew, from its horrid fecundity, an incredible number of absurdities, which were added to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles."—This is very true, and very strikingly exemplified in that learned and accurate writer's history of the Christian church, both with regard to ceremonies and doctrines. Among other absurdities in point of doctrine, is the notion that "Christ's mission upon earth, was to exhibit to mortals a new law, distinguished from all others by its unblemished sanctity and perfection." In vol. ii. p. 277, this is represented as one main article of the Socinian creed, and it is to be wished that it never had been adopted but by the immediate followers of Socinus. Yet this is the language we hear daily, and is at the bottom of that extravagant notion expressed by Gronovius on Grotius de Jure, tom. i. p. 274, octavo, 1735—maintained by many learned men, and even adopted as an axiom by the generality of Christians, as much as the Pope's supremacy and infallibility were before the Reformation—namely, that—"Lex naturæ & veteris fœderis concedunt polygamiam"—The law of nature and of the Old Testament, allow polygamy, but it is forbidden—"Lege Christi"—by the law of Christ. This appears to be the opinion of Grotius in that place on which Gronovius comments: for he says—"Ex Christi lege irritum est conjugium cum eo qui maritus sit alterius mulieris, ob jus illud quod Christus fœminæ pudicitiam servanti dedit in maritum."—By the law of Christ, a marriage with a man who is the husband of another woman, is void and of none effect, by reason of the right which Christ gave to the woman, who preserves her chastity, over her husband. Here then Christ is set up to exhibit to mortals a new law, and that, in opposition to the law of nature, and of the Old Testament, as Gronovius expresses it. How this idea harmonizes with the heresy of Socinus, may appear from the short view which we have of the Socinian theology, Mosh. vol. ii. p. 276.—"God, who is infinitely more perfect than man, though of a similar nature in some respects, exerted an act of that power by which He governs all things, in consequence of which an extraordinary person was born of the Virgin Mary. That person was Jesus Christ, whom God first translated to heaven, and having instructed Him fully there in the knowledge of His will, counsels, and designs, sent Him again into this sublunary world to promulgate to mankind a new rule of life, more excellent than that under which they had formerly lived, to propagate the truth by His ministry, and to confirm it by His death." Thus blasphemed Socinus against the excellence, purity, and perfection of the law of Jehovah, as well as against the glory and divinity of the Son of God! However, this notion about a new law given by Christ, is not to be called the invention of Socinus, who lived so late as the 16th century; it was a doctrine of the Koran, when the impostor Mahomet set up his religion; for we are there informed, that, "of 224,000 prophets which have from time to time been sent into the world—among whom 313 were apostles, sent with special commissions to reclaim mankind from infidelity and superstition—six of them brought new laws for that purpose, which successively abrogated the preceding. These were, 1. Adam, 2. Noah, 3. Abraham, 4. Moses, 5. Jesus, 6 Mahomet." See Broughton, Hist. Lib. tit. Mohammed.
It was fundamentally necessary for Mahomet's plan, to have it believed that God had sent several prophets into the world; who had successively abrogated the laws of those who had gone before: for as Mahomet's intention was to appear as such an one himself, he very artfully kept his followers from looking after the credentials of his mission in the writings of the Old and New Testaments; for had he appealed to these himself, or referred his followers to their evidence of his mission from God, He must have appeared as great an impostor in their eyes, as doubtless he was in his own.
The blessed Jesus proved the reality of His mission, by a course directly contrary to this, for, in all His teaching, He constantly appealed to the law and the prophets—"It is written," was His warrant for all He said and did—He founded all His claim to the character of the Messiah, on the writings of the Old Testament, and all His miracles were a constant appeal to what was there foretold concerning him. So far from assuming to Himself the authority of abrogating that holy, perfect, and spiritual rule of life, which was contained in the law given from God by Moses, He began His public ministry with the most solemn protest against such a supposition. Therefore, to contend for his enacting any new law, contrary to the law of nature, and of the Old Testament, is to call in question His veracity, and to place Him in a rank of imposture even below Mahomet himself. Mahomet professed to reform, but in truth to destroy, the law and the prophets, as they had destroyed all preceding systems: whereas Christ most solemnly declared—that heaven and earth could sooner pass, than one jot or tittle pass from the law—Think not, said He, that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. So far from abrogating the law, or rule of life, which had been delivered by the hand of Moses, or setting up a new law in opposition to it—He came into the world to be subject to it in all things, and so to fulfil the whole righteousness of it. Matt. iii. 15. To magnify and make it honourable. Is. xlii. 21. even by His obedience unto death. Speaking in the spirit of prophecy (Ps. xl. 8.) He says—Lo—I come—in the volume of the book it is written of me—I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. And in His public ministry, how uniformly doth he speak the same thing? How does He disclaim the imputation of abrogating the law of God, and of setting up any new law of His own, in opposition to it? He whom God hath sent, said He, speaketh the words of God. John iii. 34.—My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me. John vii. 16, 17.—If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. John viii. 28.—I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me I speak these things. John xii. 49, 50.—I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work. John iv. 34.—This is not the language of one who came to abrogate God's law, as delivered by Moses, and to set up a new law of His own, contrary to the rule of life revealed in the Old Testament, but of one who came to fulfil the righteousness of the law, every precept of which He revered, whose every commandment He perfectly obeyed.
Let the reader turn to his Bible, and consider what is said of the law of God—Ps. xix. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and throughout the whole long 119th Psalm, and surely he must say, that the idea of a more excellent law, or rule of life, than is therein set forth, is as replete with folly, as it is with blasphemy. The same testimony which the Old Testament bears to the perfection of the divine law, is also borne in the New Testament. When Christ delivers that summary of it, Mark xii. 30, 31, under the two heads of the love of God with all the heart—and the love of our neighbour as of ourselves—He says—There is none other commandment greater than these. So Paul, (Rom. vii. 12.) The law is holy, and the commandment holy—just—and good. And again (ver. 14.) The law is spiritual.—Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, saith the Psalmist, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Ps. cxliii. 2.—For by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, saith the apostle, Rom. iii. 20. And again, Rom. iii. 19. Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them, that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. After all this, to talk of a more excellent law—a more pure and perfect rule of life," goes beyond folly, it borders upon madness.
But as madness is usually allowed to be so far consistent with itself, as to argue right, though from wrong principles, we must observe that this scheme of abrogating the old law, and of introducing a new one, was a necessary and consistent part of the Socinian plan—to suffer a rule of life to remain, which, from its purity and holiness, concluded all men under sin, and condemnation, so that no flesh could be justified by it—and, at the same time, to deny the necessity of a vicarious satisfaction and atonement (which is the very marrow of the Socinian heresy)—was to render the salvation of man impossible. Socinus, therefore, to establish a consistent plan, abrogates the divine law as delivered by Moses, by which man cannot be saved, and introduces a new law (called the law of Christ) by which he might be saved. This made way for the rest of the Socinian scheme, so that the divinity of Christ's person—His vicarious obedience—sufferings—atonement—and satisfaction—being rendered unnecessary, were all struck out of the Socinian gospel. Thus the pride of fallen man's reason, or rather the reasonings of his pride, are made to triumph over the wisdom of God. But as in all wickedness there is folly, so in this; for if no man could be justified by a law less excellent, pure, and perfect, how could he be saved by one that is more so? This has been seen by the Socinians; therefore—sincerity is their gospel obedience, and if they fail here (as fail they must) a sincere desire to obey will serve the turn.—Thus ends the Socinian, with the Mahometan, in the destruction both of the law and the gospel: and Christ, like Mahomet, is to annihilate Moses and the prophets!
If we attend to our Saviour's preaching, and especially to that heavenly discourse delivered from the Mount, we shall find Him a most zealous advocate for the law of God, as delivered by Moses. We shall find Him stripping it of the false glosses, by which the Jewish rabbies had obscured or perverted its meaning, and restoring it to that purity and spirituality by which it reacheth even to the thoughts and intents of the heart. For instance, when He is about to enter upon a faithful exposition of the moral law, lest his hearers should imagine, that what he was about to say, was contrary to the law of the Old Testament, being so different from the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees, He prefaces his discourse with those remarkable works—Matt. v. 17–20. Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil; for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. So far from abrogating the old rule of life delivered from God by Moses, no one single part of it, not a sentence—a word—a letter—a bit of a letter, was to be destroyed. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. What commandments were these? The sequel shews that they were the commandments of the moral law, or rule of life, delivered from God by Moses. For except your righteousness (or conformity to those commandments, which ought to be internal and spiritual) exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (which was merely outward and formal) ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. He then enters upon an exposition of the sixth commandment, which He vindicates from the bare, outward, literal construction, received by old tradition, and taught by the Scribes and Pharisees—Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment—but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say—Thou fool—shall be in danger of hell-fire.—This—"I say unto you"—does not imply that Christ meant to abrogate God's law against murder, and to set up a new law of His own instead thereof—but to shew the people, that what they had been taught by the Scribes and Pharisees, after the tradition of the elders, namely, to look upon the sixth commandment as reaching only to the outward act of murder, was false, for that, in the spiritual view and intendment of that law, it forbad every temper which resembled it, or could lead to it; such as violent, causeless, unprovoked anger, or any malicious inclination of the heart, breaking forth and shewing itself in opprobrious and injurious language; these are as contrary to the law of the second table—Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself—in their nature and tendency, as murder itself. So 1 John iii. 15. He that hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Christ then proceeds to explain the seventh commandment. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that, whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. This—"but I say unto you"—does not imply that Christ meant to repeal the seventh commandment, but to explain it, as he had done the sixth, and to shew that it not only meant to forbid the act of defiling another's wife (γυνᾶικα) but even indulging in the heart an evil desire towards her. Whereas the Scribes and Pharisees, after the tradition of the elders, stuck to the outward letter, and taught, that nothing but the outward act was a breach of this law. What our Lord said here was no new commandment, but what was implied in the tenth commandment—Thou shalt not covet (lust after) thy neighbour's wife. So Prov. xxiv. 9. The thought of foolishness is sin.
Again. Ye have heard that it has been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is His footstool, &c.—but let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Our Lord, by His—"but I say unto you"—doth not enact any new law, but explains and restores the honour of the third commandment—Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. This evidently forbids all vain and rash swearing, and the use of God's holy name (לשוא) in vain, to no purpose, in men's communication with each other. Even swearing by the creatures, is an interpretative breach of this commandment; for, as our Lord shews, there is no creature but hath some relation to God.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, &c. This refers to Exod. xxi. 24, where the law of retaliation was enacted, to be administered by the judges of Israel in a judicial way, on the lawful conviction of offenders: but the Jews, who were taught to abuse every thing, made this a rule of proceeding in their own private acts of revenge upon one another. Such a temper and disposition as this was very sinful to indulge, much more so to gratify; our Lord therefore checks this, by teaching patience and forbearance, and doing good to, rather than injuring, their enemies. But still here is no new law, the Old Testament taught the same. Exod. xxiii. 4, 5. If thou meet thine enemy's ass or his ox going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.—Prov. xxiv. 17. Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it, and it displease Him.—Prov. xxv. 21. If thine enemy hunger, give him bread to eat; if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.—Lev. xix. 17, 18. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart—thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. I am the Lord. All this is but saying what Christ says in other words.—This doctrine is inforced by example, as well as taught by precept, in the Old Testament. See 1 Sam. xxiv. 17, 18, 19, with Ps. vii. 4. But what a bright example have we, of rewarding evil with good, in the character of Joseph? Gen. xlv. &c.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away. This is the very language of Deut. xv. 7, 8, 10.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy: they certainly had heard such a doctrine from the Scribes and Pharisees, but it was false; the law said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, but in no part of it, Thou shalt hate thine enemy—directly the contrary, Lev. xix. 18. Yet what numbers of people are there, that believe it did allow hatred to enemies, and that the forgiveness of them, and doing them good, was never known till Christ preached it! The apostle tells us—Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Rom. xiii. 10. What law is meant, appears ver. 8, 9; not a new law of Christ, but the old law delivered from God by Moses. As there is but one lawgiver (James iv. 12.) so there is but one law .
More instances of the truth above contended for might be adduced, but I will refer the reader to but one more on this part of the subject, wherein, if Christ could ever have had the least intention of abrogating the old rule of life, given from God by Moses, and setting up a new one of his own, he had a fair opportunity of declaring it.—Matt. xix. 16. One came unto him, and said, Good master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? He said unto him, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto Him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder—thou shalt not commit adultery—thou shalt not steal—thou shalt not bear false witness—honour thy father and thy mother—and—thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto Him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. The use which I would make of this scripture, is to shew that every necessary requisite for entering into life, as far as the second table of the law is concerned, is here set down—but we find not a syllable of any new law, or one jot or tittle subtracted from the old. Comp. Luke x. 25–28. The old law is repeated word for word, and summed up in its spiritual sense and import in the last sentence, which occurs in the Old Testament in just the same words. See Lev. xix. 18. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.—The proof which our Lord required of this man's sincerity, that of giving to the poor, was as much a duty under the Old Testament as under the new. See Deut. xv. 7–11, and Ps. xli. 1. The following Christ was so far from being a new law, that it was the only way to heaven which God ever revealed since the fall of man. Comp. Deut. xviii. 15, with Acts iii. 22, 23, 24, and Matt. xvii. 5.
But it hath been urged, that Christ declared Himself to introduce a new law, John xiii. 34. where He saith, A new commandment give I unto you. The context runs thus: A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.—By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another. It surely cannot be meant, that, by the term "new commandment," we are to understand the introduction of some law totally new in itself, as to the matter of it, without evident inconsistency, and absolute contradiction: for our Lord says, Matt. xxii. 39, 40. To love our neighbour as ourselves, is one of the two great commandments, on which hang all the law and the prophets. And St. John speaks of our loving one another, as an old commandment which we had from the beginning. Comp. 1 John ii. 7, 8. with 2 John v. 6. St. Paul saith, Rom. xiii. 8. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another—he that loveth another fulfilleth the law. For this—thou shalt not commit adultery—thou shalt not kill—thou shalt not bear false witness—thou shalt not covet—and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying—Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Comp. 2 John 5, 6. So James ii. 8. If ye fulfil the Royal Law (νομον βασιλικον) according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (See Lev. xix. 18.) ye do well. But if ye have respect to persons (See Lev. xix. 15. Prov. xxiv. 23. xxviii. 21.) ye commit sin, and are convinced (ελεγχομενοι, convicted) of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point (or instance—ἐν ενι) is guilty of all—i. e. "He is as truly a sinner, and as truly subject to punishment, though not so severely, as if he had actually been guilty of all possible transgression against God's laws." See Parkhurst's Gr. & Eng. Lex. sub voc. ενοχος. For He that said, Do not commit adultery; said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law, ver. 11.—i. e. by offending against the authority of the Lawgiver. Whether in one or more instances this be done, the whole law, considered as one entire rule of obedience, is violated, and the offender of course liable to punishment. Comp. Gal. iii. 10. See a very sensible paraphrase on James ii. 8–12. in Guyse's Paraphase on the New Testament.
St. James addresses this epistle to the believing Jews, but holds forth no other rule of obedience to them, than the royal law delivered from God to Moses, and recorded in the Old Testament. For the perfect law of liberty, see chap. i. 25. and chap. ii. 12. See Guyse's Paraphrase on the New Testament, note on James i. 25. and on Rom. iii. 27.
Demonstration cannot be clearer, if these passages be duly considered, that Christ could not mean, by a new commandment, one that had never before existed, but to establish the old commandment among His disciples, not only on the footing of its general obligation as they were men, but also on that special consideration of their relation to Him, and to one another as His disciples, so as, if need were, to lay down their lives for each other. The inforcing this by a new example—on new obligations, on new motives—seems to be the meaning of Christ's calling the law of brotherly love a new commandment. So his disciple John, (1 John iii. 14.) We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren; and ver. 16. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. Something like this intense affection we read of in the Old Testament. From what other motive could Moses speak, when he said, on the behalf of his offending brethren (Exod. xxxii. 32.) Oh this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold! (ver. 31.) yet now, if Thou wilt, forgive their sin, and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. See also 2 Sam. xxiv. 17, where David pleads with God for the people, when he saw the angel that smote them, and said—I have sinned, I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father's house. How were both these great men eminent types of the good Shepherd, who laid down His life for the sheep! John x. 11. Here we may also observe the amiable and affectionate conduct of Abigail, when, on the behalf of her churlish husband Nabal, she ventured forth to meet the angry David, and his men, 1 Sam. xxv. 18, 22, 23, taking his fault upon herself. Upon me, said she, my lord, let this iniquity be, and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid: then follows, to ver. 32. one of the most noble, though simple instances of the perfection and persuasiveness of eloquence that we meet with, even in the sacred writings: one would almost think that Virgil had this transaction and that of David's in his view, when he wrote the speech of Nisus to the Rutulians, on the behalf of Euryalus, as much as that he had the prophecy of Isaiah before him, when he wrote his Pollio.
Me, Me, adsum qui feci, in Me convertite ferrum;
O Rutuli, mea fraus omnis; nihil iste, nec ausus
Nec potuit—Cælum hoc & conscia Sydera testor.
Tantum infelicem nimium dilexit amicum.
"Me, Me, he cry'd, turn all your swords alone
On me; the fact confess'd, the fault my own.
He neither could or durst, the guiltless youth—
Ye moon and stars bear witness to the truth!
His only crime (if friendship can offend)
Is too much love to his unhappy friend."
Dryden.
So in the friendship between David and Jonathan—1 Sam. xviii. 1.—where it is said—the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul: and ver. 3.—then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And we actually find Jonathan interposing with Saul on the behalf of David, even at the risque of his own life. 1 Sam. xx. 32, 33. So David's affection to Absalom—Would to God I had died for thee, my son! 2 Sam. xviii. 33. And, to the shame of us Christians be it spoken, this heroic and disinterested friendship is even to be found among the Heathen (in notion at least) witness the fine and beautiful story of Nysus and Euryalus. Virg. Æn. ix. 1. 427, &c. Even Epicurus could say, "that a wise man will sometimes die for his friend." See Leland, vol. ii. p. 96.
We must readily allow, that the Redeemer's love to his people surpasseth all human conception, as to the full and adequate knowledge and comprehension of it, and leaves, at an immeasurable distance, all the instances of the most disinterested love and friendship, that ever did, or can exist among mortals. This is finely touched by the pen of inspiration, Rom. v. 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure (ταχα, perhaps) for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners (and therefore—enemies, ver. 10.) Christ died for us. Well then may the same Apostle (Eph. iii. 19.) call it—Υπερβαλλουσαν της γνωσεως αγαπην του Χριστου—the love of Christ which passeth knowledge. These considerations may suffice to shew, that our Lord's—καθως ηγαπησα υμας—AS I have loved you—is not to be taken in any other sense, than as directory for the motives of their affection towards each other, or to describe the manner of that love which they were to bear each other as his disciples, and for his sake. This was a new commandment, not as to the matter of it (for love is the fulfilling of the law) but as to the manner and measure of it, grounded on the new principle of their relationship to him, and to each other in him.
A like sentiment occurs Luke vi. 36. Be ye therefore merciful, as (καθως) your Father is merciful; where God's mercy to man, is made the rule of our dealings with each other. What is there, in all this, contrary to, or inconsistent with, Moses and the prophets?
"But we meet with the very expression—the law of Christ, Gal. vi. 2.—Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."—By bearing one another's burdens (a metaphor taken from easing another by carrying a burden for him, or assisting him in carrying it) I should apprehend that we are to understand, what the Apostle expresses—Rom. xii. 15.—by weeping with them that weep; i. e. so to be affected with their sorrows, as even to make them our own, and to be as assiduous in their removal, or alleviation, as we should be were they our own . But is this a new law of Christ, in opposition to, inconsistent with, or differing in the matter of it from, the law of the Old Testament? Rather, doth not this fall under—thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself? Compare Gal. v. 14. This was to be observed under the Old Testament, as well as under the New; we find this exemplified in those familiar instances put Deut. xxii. 1–4. Nor was this to be confined to friends only, but to be extended to enemies. Exod. xxiii. 4, 5. Though the letter of these laws expressed only things comparatively trivial, yet, doubtless, the spirit of them extended to matters of more serious consequence, and were rules for their conduct towards each other in whatever calamities they or theirs might be involved: a very striking instance of this appears (Psalm xxxv. 12, 13, 14.) in the behaviour David observed with respect to some of his ungrateful enemies—they rewarded me evil for good, to the spoiling of my soul (שכול—to the depriving it of comfort.) But as for me, when they were sick (or afflicted, as חלה also signifies) my clothing was sackcloth—I humbled my soul with fasting—I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother—I bowed down heavily as one that mourneth for his mother.
However, by the law of Christ, may we not suppofe something more to be meant than as to the doctrine which He taught in conformity to the law of love? May we not suppose, that here is a reference to the example He set—to the principle of action (for so νομος sometimes is to be understood—see Rom. vii. 21.) which led Him to bear our burden of guilt and punishment, when He himself bare our sins in His own body on the tree, 1 Pet. ii. 24. according to the prophecy that went before, Is. liii. 4. Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. He suffered, leaving us an example, that we should follow His steps; and in particular, by observing the same rule or principle of action towards each other as He did towards us, in bearing, alleviating, removing each other's burdens of affliction and sorrow, by every means in our power? The νομος—law—or rule—which Christ acted by towards us, is proposed to our imitation, with respect to the forgiveness of injuries, (Col. ii. 13.) Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any; even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. So that when a man forgives an injury upon this principle, he may be said to fulfil the law of Christ in this respect, by acting agreeably to the rule—law—or principle of Christ towards His redeemed people. But what is there in all this inconsistent with the Old Testament, or that is not exactly conformable to it? Christ did nothing for us but what the Old Testament exactly foretold. Acts xxvi. 22, 23. The Apostle, in this passage of Gal. vi. 2. says only, in other words, what is said, 1 John iv. 11. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. So our Lord, John xiii. 34. That ye love one another, as I have loved you. As it is written, Is. lxiii. 8, 9. He was their Saviour; in all their affliction He was afflicted. How then ought Christians to observe this rule towards each other! How ought they to weep with them that weep—as well as rejoice with them that do rejoice!—Who is weak, and I am not weak?—saith Paul, 2 Cor. xi. 29. Who is offended, and I burn not? Did Christ bear our burden—was this the νομος—the principle of action—the rule—the law—which governed Him in all He did and suffered for us? then let us fulfil this law towards each other, by interesting ourselves in each other's welfare and prosperity; so as, by our consolation, advice, and every other means in our power, to comfort those that mourn—raise up them that are cast down—bind up the broken-hearted—and, in the spirit of meekness, restore those that are fallen. Thus shall we bear each other's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. See Is. lxi. 1, 2, 3. Lastly, it is not improbable that the apostle refers to what Christ said, John xiii. 34, 35. xv. 12.
I have before observed, that the idea of Christ's setting up a new law in opposition to the law of the Old Testament, as more pure and holy, is equally replete with folly and blasphemy. This is true; for it not only carries us into the fundamental principle on which Mahomet founded his Koran, and into the very sink of Socinianism—but it sets forth Christ as finding fault with the law of God as delivered by Moses, and opposing Himself to it. This runs us, though we perceive it not, very near the borders of that monster of heresy Cerinthus, and his followers, against whom St. John is supposed to have written the beginning of his gospel. They taught, that—"the Creator of this world, who was also the sovereign and lawgiver of the Jewish people, was a Being endowed with the greatest virtues, and derived his birth from the supreme God: That this Being fell by degrees from His native virtue and primitive dignity: That the supreme God, in consequence of this, determined to destroy His empire, and sent upon earth, for this purpose, one of the ever-happy and glorious Æons, whose name was Christ; that this Christ chose for His habitation the person of Jesus, a man of the most illustrious sanctity and justice, the son of Joseph and Mary, and, descending in the form of a dove, entered into Him, while He was receiving the baptism of John in the waters of Jordan: That Jesus, after His union with Christ, opposed Himself with vigour to the God of the Jews, and was, by His instigation, seized and crucified by the Hebrew chiefs.—Cerinthus required of his followers, that they should abandon the lawgiver of the Jews, whom he looked upon as the creator of the world; that they should retain a part of the law given by Moses, but should nevertheless employ their principal attention and care to regulate their lives by the precepts of Christ." Mosh. vol. i. p. 69. Which said precepts are supposed to be the precepts of one who opposed himself with vigour to the God of the Jewish people, and whose disciples were to abandon the lawgiver of the Jews, though they were to admit him to be the Creator of the world!
Here then, reader, I have lifted up the hive, and out has flown the swarm, not a swarm of useful and industrious bees, but a swarm (ערב—a mixture) like that in Ægypt, Exod. viii. 24. which was grievous, and corrupted the land. Here is to be seen those pestilential insects from whence sprung Arianism—Socinianism—Mahometism—Antinomianism—Neonomianism, and all the isms which have plagued, harrassed, and distressed, divided, and disgraced the church ever since.
Such is the picture of the Cerinthians. Surely we cannot survey it attentively, without recognizing a similitude of some of the features, at least something which may be called a strong family likeness to the idea of "polygamy's being allowed by the law of nature and of the Old Testament (that is, by the God of the Jews) but forbidden by the law of Christ," which is contrary to both.
If it be possible to produce a single law of Christ, which opposes the law of the Old Testament, all his claim to the character of the Messiah is at an end; for the Messiah was to be made of a woman made under the law. Gal. iv. 4.—subject to its every precept, obedient to its every command—and doubtless therefore to that solemn command, which, for the greater solemnity, is repeated twice over—Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it. Deut. iv. 2. xii. 32. How could the blessed Jesus be said to fulfil all righteousness, by a perfect conformity to all things which are written in the book of the law to do them—how say, as He doth by the Psalmist, Ps. xl. 8. Lo I come to do thy will—not mine own.—John vi. 38. I am content to do it—thy law is within my heart—if he either added to the rule of life given from God by Moses, or diminished from it? How could he be said to observe the law in all things—how give that holy challenge to the Jews, John viii. 46. Which of you convinceth Me of sin?—if he abrogated the law, the rule given as touching the moral actions of men, in any one instance, and set up a law of his own in opposition to it?
The false Christ of Cerinthus and of the Socinian, and the true Christ of God, are discernable by this essential difference—The first opposed himself with vigour to the God of the Jews—required that his disciples should abandon the law given by Moses, and regulate themselves by some new precepts of his own.—The Holy Christ of God declared—that not a jot or tittle was to pass from the law—that He came not to destroy, but to fulfil it—His whole teaching, practice, and example, magnified the law, and made it honourable. Therefore He exactly answered to the character given of Him in the Old Testament. He finished the transgression—made an end of sins—made reconciliation for iniquity—and brought in (by his sinless, perfect, and meritorious obedience) an everlasting righteousness, for the justification and salvation of his people to all eternity.
"But what shall we say of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's supper, are not these Christ's own institutions, established by his own authority?"—To this I answer—that these two sacraments were to succeed circumcision and the passover, which were the two sacramental ordinances of the Mosaic dispensation, the whole of which was to cease and vanish away on the coming of the Messiah.
Another priest was to arise, not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedeck, (Ps. cx. iv.) and this, according to the prophecies which went before. Now, as the excellent Bishop Hall observes, "some actions are prophecies," and he instances in the history of the brazen serpent the truth of his position; he might have instanced in many more and among the rest, in the history of Melchizedeck, of whom it is said, that he was a priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him. Heb. vii. 1. In Gen. xiv. 18. it is said—And Melchizedeck, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine, and blessed Abraham, ver. 19. In this prophetical action is exhibited a type of Christ, the priest after the order of Melchizedeck (see Ps. cx. 4.) exhibiting, under the sacramental bread and wine, his body broken, and his blood shed, for the life of the world. So that after the similitude of Melchizedeck there ariseth another priest. Now all this was foretold, because ordained to happen in the fulness of time; therefore the instituting the receiving of bread and wine, in remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, as emblems of his body and blood, was no new law of Christ, but as really foretold in the Old Testament, as was the sacrifice and death of Christ upon the cross. Christ our passover being sacrificed for us (1 Cor. v. 7.) there was an end of the typical ordinance of the paschal lamb. And the priest after the similitude of Melchizedeck, was to bless the children of Abraham (Gal. iii. 7.) by exhibiting his body and blood to their faith, under the emblems of bread and wine, as Melchizedeck (whom some learned men suppose to be Christ Himself appearing to Abraham in an human form, as he often did under the Old Testament, in token of his future incarnation) blessed the father of all the faithful, by exhibiting to his faith the future great sacrifice under those emblems which were to be the appointed figures to represent it under the gospel dispensation. Thus, (as the Apostle speaks, Heb. vii. 12.) as the priesthood was to be changed, there must be of necessity also a change of the law. But all this was pre-ordained and foretold ages before it happened, and therefore is not to be looked upon as a mere law of the New Testament, but must bear equal date, in the intentions and designs of God, with the plan of redemption itself.
So with regard to the ordinance of Baptism, this was exhibited under the figure or type of Noah's ark, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water—the like figure whereunto Ὡ Ἀντιτυπον—the antitype to which) even baptism doth now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. As the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, in the Lord's Supper, so the water in baptism represents the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, and all exhibit to our faith, touching what is past, what the sacraments of the passover and circumcision represented to the faith of the Old-Testament saints, touching what was then to come; but all meet in one grand central point—Christ, the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom. x. 4. Therefore the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism, are not new ordinances , in any other sense, than as appointed of God to attend on the dispensation of the gospel of His grace, under the New Testament, when those sacraments were abolished which were to attend a different dispenfation of the same gospel under the Old Testament. All argue one uniform, consistent design in the blessed God, carried on in different manifestations of it, under the Patriarchal— Mosaical—Prophetical, and Evangelical ages, but subject to no controul, opposition, or variation, as to the matter of any single part or atom of it. The further we follow the notion of Christ's being the giver of a new law, in opposition to the law of the Old Testament, the more must we see it pregnant with consequences of the most alarming and dreadful kind—because, this being the case, we are without a Redeemer, and of course without any redemption; for we are told, that Christ died for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testament, Heb. ix. 15. by which first Testament we must understand the law of God delivered by Moses; but I can find no trace of any satisfaction for sins committed against any new law of Christ: we must look to ourselves for any transgressions against this: and if so—no flesh can be saved. Therefore some of the old heretics, who were maintainers of this new-law scheme, were perfectly consistent, in declaring, that "no sin after baptism could be forgiven"—against which horrible error, the 16th Article of the Church of England is very scripturally and properly levelled.—But again—this notion of Christ's abrogating the old rule of life, and enacting a new one in its place, as it turns us over to seek our salvation by a new plan of obedience, or personal righteousness of our own, makes void both Testaments. It annihilates the law which was given by Moses, it of course destroys the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. John i. 17. If we are not bound by the old moral law, we have no occasion to seek redemption from its curse, and absolution from its condemnation.—The divinity of Christ—the atonement of his precious blood—the imputation of His righteousness—His satisfaction—merit—vicarious sufferings and obedience, together with his intercession at the right hand of God, and all other appendages belonging and essentially necessary to his priestly office, by which alone we can have redemption, even the forgiveness of our sins, may bear as small a price in our eyes as in the eyes of Socinus, Mahomet, or Cerinthus. If the old law be abrogated as a rule of life, then have we nothing to do with—Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal. iii. 10. The law is no longer a ministration of death, 2 Cor. iii. 7. and condemnation. And, if this be the case, the whole foundation of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus is sapped and destroyed, and the whole fabric of man's salvation, which is built upon it, must fall into one dreadful and horrible union; we must reverse Christ's declaration—I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it—and say, that he came not to fulfil but to destroy it. Here we must join in the madness of the Antinomians, and deny the obligation of the law—or in the horrid errors of the Socinians, and renounce the hope of the gospel. To mention all the appendages to this new-law scheme would be endless; suffice it to say, that they are, in one shape or other; connected with every heresy that ever was, or can be invented; for all heresy, however coloured or disguised by the art and subtlety of men, or, as the Apostle says, Eph. iv. 14. by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive, must originate in the confounding those two distinct propositions, which are laid down in the beginning of St. John's gospel as above-mentioned—The law was given by Moses—Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Christ came, neither to set up a new law nor a new gospel, but (as the Scripture had foretold) to bear testimony to the truth of both, as revealed by Moses and the Prophets.—Thus he told Pilate, John xviii. 37.—To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth: Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. And in that most affectionate prayer for His disciples—John xvii.—He saith, ver. 17. Sanctify them through thy truth—thy word is truth.
To conclude this point:—If we compare scripture with scripture in every instance, we shall not find a single law, or rule of life, in the New Testament, which has not its foundation in the Old Testament, and that Christ came not as a law-giver and a judge, when He appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh—Rom. viii. 3. but as a law-fulfiller and a Saviour—I came not (said He, John xii. 47) to judge the world, but to save the world. Not to introduce any new rule of right and wrong, which was to change the nature of moral good and evil; but for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament, that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Heb. ix. 15.
As a prophet—He opened and explained the law, and preached the gospel. As a priest—He made atonement for the guilty.—As king—He established the moral law as a rule of life to his subjects; leaving it as He found it—a spiritual, holy, righteous, perfect institution (Ps. xix. 7.) to which nothing could be added, from which nothing could be diminished; reaching not only to the outward actions of the life, but to the inward thoughts; tempers, desires, and intents of the heart. Were it otherwise, and the New Testament can be supposed to contain some rule of life which is not in the Old Testament, Abraham's counsel, which he advised the rich man's five brethren to follow, was very imperfect—They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them—If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. What good would Moses have done them, if the rule of life laid down by him had been incomplete and deficient?—what benefit could have accrued to them from listening, though ever so attentively, to the prophets, if these had no better news to tell them, than that in the reign of Augustus Cæsar, a man was to come and set up a new law? Why refer these poor sinners to the writings of Moses and the prophets, if there yet remained some new rule of faith and obedience, not to be met with in their writings?—Indeed, if this was the case, it was but to little purpose for Christ to command the Jews to search the scriptures (John v. 39.): they might, indeed, as He says, think they had eternal life in them, but they were sadly mistaken, if a new law was to be the condition of it, and the way to it, which was not revealed and contained in those scriptures. In vain also were they referred to the Hebrew scriptures, as testifying of Him; for not a word is there to be found of His appearance upon earth as a repealer and abrogater of the moral law of Moses, and as the enacter and establisher of a new rule of life in its place. When our blessed Saviour said (Matt. v. 18.) Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, &c. He spake in the most emphatical manner, introducing what He said with an Amen-verily—and though the expressions He uses have been called proverbial, yet no doubt but He is to be understood literally. The Hebrew jod י (for doubtless he expressed himself in Hebrew) is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, yet the omission of it in some words might wholly alter the sense of them.—So with regard to the κεραια, which we render tittle, it comes from κερας, an horn (Heb. קרן) and denotes those little projections which in Hebrew distinguish one similar letter from another—as a ב from a כ—or a ד from a ר. Many texts might be produced, where taking away one of these, would make a considerable alteration in the sense. Now can Christ be supposed to have been so watchful over the book of the law, and all things contained therein, as to declare that not a single letter, or the smallest part of a letter, could suffer the least diminution, and yet himself vacate, alter, change, abrogate, and repeal whole and entire statutes? And this to promulgate to mankind a new rule of life, more excellent than that under which they had formerly lived, hereby stamping a want of excellence, purity, and holiness, as well as of wisdom and perfection, on the Divine Law?
The Apostle says, (Gal. iii. 21.) If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness (or that by which men could have been justified) should have been by the law; but the scripture hath concluded (συνεκλεισε, hath shut up together as in a prison) all under sin. Again, He gives us to understand, that the justification of man is impossible by the law—What the law could not do—τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νομου—impossibile legis—the impossible thing of the law—Why so?—Because the law itself was imperfect?—No—but because it was weak through the flesh. Not from any defect in the law itself, but through the impediment arising from the corruption of the human nature, which has brought us under guilt, and rendered us incapable subjects of its absolving and justifying sentence. As it argues a perfection and purity of holiness in God himself, that He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity (Hab. i. 13.) so it argues a perfection and purity in the divine law, that it cannot justify a sinner: and if (according to the new-law scheme) Christ has abrogated this law, and introduced one that can, it must only be from a want of perfection and purity in the new law, which is not to be found in the old law. This must be attended with many certain and dreadful consequences;—amongst which, one is—making Christ the minister of sin. Gal. ii. 17. Another, representing Him as defeating the purpose of his own death; for it is a maxim self-evidently true, that if righteousness (or justification) come by the law—by any law whatsoever, no matter what—Christ is dead in vain. Gal. ii. 21.
The moral law, or rule of life, delivered from God by Moses, is founded in the very nature of that relation which every reasonable creature must bear to its Creator. It is all reducible to two heads, which our Saviour holds forth as the two great commandments of the law. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbour as thy self—is too perfect a system of morals to admit of the least addition or improvement: it is a rule of life to angels as well as to men; and a constant conformity to this holy law, constitutes the happiness of the angels, principalities, and powers (Col. i. 16.) of heaven. Could one of these cease from loving God with all its faculties; could it feel a single wrong temper, either with respect to God, or to its fellow spirits, it would sin—it would leave its first estate, and, with the other apostate spirits, be cast down to hell, and be reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude 6.
It can therefore be no more true, that Christ came upon earth to give a new law to mortals, than that He ascended into heaven to give a new law to angels. He could not do either, without materially affecting the very nature of that relation which the intelligent and reasonable parts of the creation bear to God and each other.
As far as the moral law of God relates to mortals, we must consider the commerce of the sexes, with all its various relations, consequences, and dependencies, as a most material object of it: so material, as to form a very considerable part of the sacred code. It naturally ranges itself under the duties of the second table. So the Apostle, Rom. xiii. 9. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, &c. and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour. Now if Christ forbad that which was before allowed, He extended the obligation of the divine law beyond what the Old Testament had done; therefore must be said to add something to the second table of the law. This consequence cannot be avoided, if we suppose Him giving a sense to the word נאף—adultery—which it never had before. He certainly hereby extended the seventh commandment as to its curse and punishment. On the other hand, if He had allowed what the law had forbidden under the Old Testament, He had diminished from its curse and punishment, by narrowing its obligation. In this view He had diminished from the law. In either case, we number Him with the transgressors in a most awful and dreadful sense; for no positive command of the law is revealed with more solemnity than Deut. iv. 2. and Deut. xii. 32. which forbad, absolutely forbad, both. It is therefore as impossible that Christ should condemn polygamy as adultery, as that He should allow adultery as lawful commerce; because the first was adding to the law, which never forbad it, the other diminishing from the law, which positively forbad adultery with another man's wife. Exod. xx. 14. explained Lev. xx. 10.
To suppose that God should ever revoke, alter, or change those moral institutes, which were revealed under the Old Testament for the regulation and government of mankind, is to suppose some defect in the Deity, some want of prescience to foresee mischiefs which might arise, and which were not sufficiently guarded against. This argues an imbecillity or weakness of understanding and knowledge, like that of human legislators, who make laws to remedy evils as they arise before them, but cannot tell what a day may bring forth; and therefore repeal at one time, the law which they made at another. When we argue for the immutability of the law, we argue for the perfection of it, which is, in other words, to contend for the perfection of Him that made it.
When God created the heavens and the earth, He gave them a law which cannot be broken; by this law the material universe is governed, and will be governed to the consummation of all things. The least departure from it, either by addition or diminution, would throw the whole into disorder, confusion, and ruin. So with respect to the moral world, the laws which God once gave for the regulation and government of this, are equally sure and stedfast; and it is owing to a departure from these, that disorder, confusion, and ruin are the portion of wretched man.
The divine law, as delivered from God by Moses, may be compared to a golden chain; the several statutes which compose it are the links. Now we know, that whichever link of a chain be broken, all that is suspended by it must fall to the ground. That the security and protection of the weaker sex against the deceit, violence, and cruelty of the stronger, depend wholly on the law of God, is a truth which none, who admit that God ever gave a law, will dispute. And shall we suppose that Christ came into the world to weaken that security, by destroying some of the links of the chain on which it is suspended? and this by introducing a new law, so contrary to the law which was given by Moses, that men, in some situations, cannot obey the one, without transgressing the other? This is making Christ's acts like the threatening of Rehoboam, 1 Kings xii. 11. Whereas my father did lade you with an heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.—But far, far be it from us, to impute such a proceeding to Him who came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Luke ix. 56.—That no such thing is chargeable upon Him, will appear still more plainly, on our taking a nearer and more critical view of those passages of the gospels, in which Christ is supposed to condemn polygamy as adultery. The first which I shall take notice of, as introductory to the rest, is Matt. v. 31, 32. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery. Here our Lord shews that there is but one lawful cause of divorce in the sight of God, so as to set the husband entirely free from the wife. The Jews, on the contrary, had been taught by the rabbies, that a man who wanted to get rid of his wife, had nothing to do but to give her a bill of divorcement, and this for any cause whatsoever. But Christ shews, that such unjust divorces had no operation on the bond of marriage; so that marrying such a divorced woman, was as much an act of adultery, as if the man had taken her while she cohabited with her husband. Christ did not declare this, as if it had been lawful under the Old Testament, and now made unlawful by some new law of His, but on the footing of the primary institution of marriage from the very beginning, as will appear when we farther consider the passage in Matt. xix. on which the conceit is founded, that "polygamy is forbidden by the law of Christ." Suffice it to observe at present, that in this place of Matt. v. 31, 32. nothing is said about polygamy, or a man's having two wives.
Our Lord says—causeth her to commit adultery. How so?—First—by laying her under the temptation, which may be supposed to be not a little heightened by her resentment against her husband, who had first used her ill, and then divorced her; especially where this was done for the sake of taking another woman whom he liked better. Secondly—she was tempted to it by the very terms of the bill of divorcement, which was to the following effect—
"Such a day, such a month, and year, I such a one, of such a place, do, of my own free consent and choice, repudiate thee A. B. my late wife, banish thee from me, and restore thee to thy own liberty, and thou mayest henceforth go whither, and marry whom, thou wilt. And this is thy bill of divorcement and writing of expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel. Signed by two witnesses." See Univ. Hist. vol. iii. p. 149.
The people having been taught that such a bill of divorcement was a valid dissolution of the marriage, the woman of course believed, that he, having received it, was free to marry any other man, as much as if her husband had been dead; and thus was she caused, by this deceit, to marry another, by which, in truth, and in the sight of God, she committed adultery.
The latter clause of ver. 32. Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery, is wanting in the Cambridge manuscript. St. Augustine says, that some Greek and Latin copies had it not, and seems to treat it as a needless tautology; his words are these—"Explicatus hic sensus putari potuit in eo quod superius dictum est"—"facit eam mæchari"—"quomodo enim dimissa fit mæcha, nisi fiat qui eam duxerit mæchus?"—that is—The sense of this clause may be supposed to be explained in what goes before—causeth her to commit adultery—for how could she become an adulteress, unless the man who married her became an adulterer?" But when it is considered that our Saviour was speaking to a people whose ears were dull of hearing, Matt. xiii. 15—who were taught by their Doctors to stand upon the mere letter of scripture, without entering into the spirit of it—it was necessary that line should be upon line, line upon line—precept upon precept, precept upon precept—as the Prophet speaks, Is. xxviii. 10.—therefore, that our Lord should not leave them to draw conclusions from words of implication only, and thus to throw the sin upon the woman alone, because the man was not mentioned, but so express Himself as to bring the whole law on the subject into full view; as Lev. xx. 10. where both the woman and the man are explicitly mentioned, the one as an adulteress, the other as an adulterer. Surely then, on the analogy of scripture itself, the reading of this last clause may be retained, as it stands in our printed copies.
The next scripture to be farther considered, is Matt. xix. 9. I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife (except it be for fornication) and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her which is put away, committeth adultery.—This is highly necessary, in order to bring into view the whole of our Lord's design, which was to reprobate the various abuses of divorce, at that time practised by the Jews, and among the rest, the horrid traffic, which the very law of Moses, to which they referred for their justification, condemned—that of divorcing their wives for every cause, and, of course, that they might exchange them for a time, and then take them back again;—this was expressly forbidden by Deut. xxiv. 2, 3, 4. therefore certainly included in our Lord's discourse on the subject of unlawful and unjust divorce. And indeed I much doubt, whether, in this place, the applying and inforcing of Deut. xxiv. 2, 3, 4. was not the chief object which our Saviour had in view—(see before p. 85, 86, 87.) For where a man divorced his wife for such a purpose (which, according to the Hillelians was held lawful—see before p. 82.) he became an adulterer in a double sense, as not only causing his own unjustly-divorced wife to commit adultery, by prostituting her to another man, according to Matt. v. 32.—but also by taking the other man's unjustly-divorced wife to himself; which, in this view of the matter, seems the true import of γαμησν ἀλλην in this place. We must remember, that Christ is arguing with the Jews on the footing of the law of Moses, as it stood in the Hebrew scripture, not as the Scribes and Pharisees interpreted it, or as we have translated it. See the learned Ainsworth on Deut. xxiv. 1, &c. and Gell's Essay towards a New Translation, p. 723.
A person of infidel-principles was once making himself merry in a large company, at the expence of the scriptures, and told his companions, that he could prove the prophet of the Christians (as he called Christ) mistaken, even upon the most common subjects. After awakening the curiosity of the company, he thus gratified it—"Christ says, that old bottles are not so strong as new" (alluding to Matt. ix. 17.) "and therefore, if new wine is put into old bottles, it will break them—now don't every body know that old glass is just as strong as new, for who ever heard that glass was the weaker for being old?" A clergyman in company, who had been made the butt of his wit, gently reproved the ignorance and folly of this witling, by asking him if he understood Greek?—"Greek, Sir?—No, Sir—but what has Greek to do with it?—a bottle's a bottle, whether in Greek or English, every body knows that, and that an old bottle is just as good and as strong as a new one."—"Not quite, Sir," (replied the other) "if they are made of leather or skins, which was the fact as to the bottles Christ speaks of, as their Greek name imports;—and indeed it is so in many countries, even to this day, that people use skins by way of vessels to contain wine."—On which side the laughter of the company turned is not very difficult to imagine.
Something like this facetious gentleman's misconception of things is likely to be our portion, if we form our ideas of the import of certain passages of scripture, from the sound of words in our translation, without adverting to the sense of the original. So also, if we interpret the scripture according to our own conceits, without duly considering the times when—the places where—the occasions on which—and the situations of the persons to whom they are addressed. These observations are peculiarly needful respecting the portion of scripture now before us, especially as we have popular mistake, vulgar error, and of course, prejudice of education, to contend with. Still all these cannot alter the truth of scripture, or render it at all the more certain, that Christ here condemns, or indeed mentions, polygamy.
He was surrounded at this time by a great multitude of people, who, in principle, as living under the law of the Old Testament, were polygamists, and, doubtless, numbers of them were so in practice—many there must have been among this great multitude of Jews, who had either married two wives together, or having one, took another to her, and cohabited with both. Had our Lord intended to have condemned such practices, he would scarcely have made use of words which did not describe their situation, but of words that did. It is very plain that—He that putteth away his wife, by giving her a bill of divorcement—could have nothing to do with the man who took two wives together, or one to another, and cohabited alike with both. But we are apt, like the man and his bottles, to construe scripture, by supposing persons to whom particular things are said, were in the circumstances then, in which we are now; but it was far otherwise: they had no municipal laws against polygamy, as we have. So far from it, their whole law (as has been abundantly proved) allowed it. Which said law, and every part thereof, was, at the time Christ spake what is recorded in Matt. xix. 9, in as full force and efficacy, as at the moment after Moses had delivered it to the people. He therefore could no more state polygamy as adultery by the law of Israel, than I can state it as high treason by the laws of England.
It is to be observed, that the subject-matter in debate was the business of divorce, which the Jews had carried to a shameful height, and this is what Christ is opposing. The occasion of the discourse seems to be this—what He had said in His sermon on the mount, in Galilee, about divorce, Matt. v. 31, 32, had, doubtless, been carried to the Pharisees in Judea, by some of their emissaries, who were among the multitudes that followed Him from thence, Matt. iv. 25. most probably by some of those spies, which were set upon all his words and actions. See Luke xx. 20. The Pharisees were provoked, as what Christ had said militated against those notions which they had received, and strenuously maintained among their disciples. On His return into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan, He was also attended by great multitudes, ver. 2. The Pharisees thought this a fair opportunity to entangle Him in His talk (as Matt. xxii. 15.) and lay Him under difficulties, either that of disavowing what He had said, or, if He persisted in it, to represent Him before the multitude as an enemy to the law of Moses. Therefore we read, ver. 3. the Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him—by proposing an ensnaring question, which they supposed would lay Him under one or other of the difficulties above-mentioned, either of denying what He had said, or of appearing an adversary to Moses. They therefore ask Him—Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? His answer to this is not founded on any new law of His own, but on the original command of God, delivered by Adam, Gen. ii. 24. The Pharisees then bring their design into full view, by quoting Moses's authority against the answer which Christ had given, and in defence of their own opinion. The passage which they referred to, was Deut. xxiv. 1, which they called a command; but our Lord corrects them, and calls it only a permission, and this—for the hardness of their hearts; not that it affected the matter in the sight of God, by vacating the marriage, for that a man who married a divorced woman, was as guilty of adultery in the sight of God, as if he had not been divorced, and so was the divorced woman; who married again, living her husband. That this was the scope of Christ's reasoning upon the matter, appears from the answer which He gave to His disciples, Mark x. 10, 11, 12. when in the house, they asked Him again of the same matter—περι του ἀυτου—about the self-same identical thing.—He cannot be supposed to vary His opinion upon the same point; therefore, in words which had the same meaning, He repeats the substance of what He had before said to the Pharisees. He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her; to which He adds—And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
As the Pharisees had referred Christ to the authority of Moses, by way of answer to what He had said, to prove the unlawfulness of divorces; He takes an opportunity to detect their abuse of that scripture, Deut. xxiv. 1. &c. (for this is the passage evidently referred to) and proves, on the ground of ver. 4. of that chapter, the truth of all he said upon the subject; namely, that these permissive divorces, which Moses suffered (ἐπέτρεψεν) for the hardness of their hearts, wrought no dissolution of the marriage-bond, but that the man who thus injuriously divorced his wife, caused her to be defiled; and he who married her, defiled her; but yet, having married her, she could not return to her first husband, on a divorce from the second, without a fresh act of adultery. Defiling a man's wife, and committing adultery upon her, are synonymous terms, as may appear by comparing Prov. vi. 29. with Ezek. xviii. 11, 15. Therefore our Saviour says no more in effect, than is said Deut. xxiv. 4; He only enlarges upon, explains, and appplies the doctrine there delivered, concerning the defilement and adultery which was the consequence of marrying a divorced woman, and has a view to the licentious practices of the Jews, under the sanction of these wanton and causeless divorces. The antient Jews had learned from the Egyptians, amongst whom they dwelt so long, a practice of changing their wives, and afterwards taking them again; which the law, Deut. xxiv. 1–4, was expressly made to prevent, as one of the greatest abominations in the sight of God. Still this practice prevailed in later times, as may be gathered from Jer. v. 8. They were as fed horses in the morning, every one neighed after his neighbour's wife. Their intercourse with the Greeks and Romans, in later times still, was another means of promoting this unnatural and horrid traffic. This could not be carried on among the Jews without the expedient of the ספר כריתת—bill of divorcement; without this the adultery had been too barefaced, but with it, they had been taught by their rabbies, such as Hillell (who held that a man's seeing a woman he liked better than his own wife, was a just cause of divorce) to do as they pleased. They might put away their wives for every cause, therefore for this, among the rest, because they saw another's (for that may be signified by the word ἀλλην, as I shall observe presently) whom they liked better than their own. Thus under these divorces they could exchange their wives. For instance—A. liked the wife of B.—B. liked the wife of A.—each hating his own—they agree to change—How shall this be done? If the wives are exchanged without a bill of divorce, adultery, must be acknowledged on both sides; they therefore have recourse to a bill of divorcement; under which the woman was held to be legally put away, according to the law of Moses and Israel (see before p. .) and was free to marry whom she would; the bill of divorcement being looked upon as an absolute and total dissolution of the marriage-bond. Our Lord is shewing the contrary. First, On the footing of the indissolubility of the contract, in the sight of God, by any human authority. Secondly, On the terms of the very law, to which the Pharisees referred him for their justification; which being taken all together, proves no more than an implied permission of divorce for the hardness of their hearts; or, as we say—a mensâ & toro propter sævitiam—"from bed and board by reason of cruelty:" and this was, that women might be released from the barbarity with which their cruel husbands would have treated them, on conceiving some dislike, had they been forced to have lived with them. But yet, as Moses shews, the bond of marriage still remained; so that if a man married such a woman, he and the woman were both guilty of adultery, in the sight of God, notwithstanding the bill of divorcement. If this had not been the case, Moses could not have called the marriage of the divorced woman a defilement—saying, Deut. xxiv. 4.—after she is defiled. Our Saviour, therefore, doth not by His—I say unto you, mean that He was enacting a new law, or laying down a rule that was opposite to, or inconsistent with, the law of Moses—had He attempted this, he had fallen into the very snare which the Pharisees had laid for Him. But—"I say unto you" means here, as in the instances before related in His sermon upon the mount (see before, p. 310–313) as if He said—"Your rabbies teach you so and so, and in so teaching you they make void the law of God through their traditions;—but I, who am come to restore the honour of Moses's law, by restoring its true sense and meaning—I—on the authority of that law, which you have partially quoted, without taking the whole together—say unto you, though, for the hardness of your hearts, Moses suffered you to put away your wives, and suspended any punishment which might have accrued for so doing, yet did he not, nor could he thereby dissolve the marriage itself; so far from it, he terms the marriage of such a divorced woman a defilement. Therefore I say unto you—whosoever putteth away his wife, (except for the cause of fornication—which is the only legal cause of divorce) and marrieth another—hereby tempting, and even provoking the divorced woman to marry another man—that though the personal guilt follows the personal act, with respect to her, so that if she, while her husband liveth, be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress (see Rom. vii. 2.) yet the guilt of this adultery will also be imputed to him who was the wilful occasion of it, by causing her to commit it. And as to you, who, for the purpose of exchanging your wives with each other (a matter which the law of Moses, in a part of the passage which you refer me to, but which you don't mention, was particularly made to guard against ) have put away your wives—and to you who marry such divorced women—and to you divorced women, who think yourselves at liberty to marry whom ye will, when ye are unjustly put away from your husbands—Moses calls all this defilement, which is but another term for adultery:—therefore I say unto you, as well as to those who, contrary to the law above-mentioned, take back again the women they have once divorced , after they have been married to others—however ye may have been taught to abuse the toleration of divorce on particular occasions—that all the cases which I have mentioned, touching men divorcing their wives and marrying others, thereby causing their unjustly-divorced wives to marry other men—of men marrying divorced women—and divorced women marrying other men—this is all contrary to the law of marriage itself, as delivered to and pronounced by Adam, Gen. ii. 24. as well as to the law of the seventh commandment, delivered to Moses, and by him delivered to the people at Mount Sinai. In short, these are only several methods of incurring the guilt of adultery; therefore all the salvos which your consciences may derive from your abuse of Moses's permission, with respect to bills of divorcement, however highly esteemed amongst men, are abomination in the sight of God. Luke xvi. 15."—Here Christ puts the Pharisees to silence, by the very law which they had partially quoted, with the hope of ensnaring Him, and making Him appear as an enemy to the law of Moses. We do not read of any reply which they attempted to make: this would certainly not have been the case, had they understood him to have spoken against polygamy as adultery; the Pharisees could have desired nothing more to their purpose, of representing Him as an enemy to Moses, as there was not a single passage in the whole law of Moses to have supported Him against them on that point. They were ready enough, on other occasions, to call upon him for his authority as to what he said and did—See Matt. xxi. 23. Mark xi. 28.—but here they are totally silent and this under the only fair opportunity they ever had, of convicting Him of a downright falshood, as laying down that for law, which their law contradicted. It is therefore plain that they understood Him in no such sense. Neither did His own disciples understand Him to speak of any thing but divorce.—They are said, Mark x. 10, in the house to ask Him again of the same matter; His answer was in substance the same: the conclusion which the disciples draw from it is—If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry—i. e. "If a man cannot get rid of his wife when he pleases, he had better not marry at all." This conclusion must have been made from their understanding Christ to speak of divorce, for it is totally foreign from the matter of polygamy;—How could they possibly mean that a man had better have no wife at all, if he could not have more than one at once? It must likewise be supposed, that they did not misunderstand their Master, for if they had, He would doubtless have set them right in his reply (Matt. xix. 11, 12) and not have there said, what clearly shews them to have understood Him aright.
Now let us consider Matt. xix. 9. still more closely, taking it in connection with his subsequent explanation of it to the disciples in the house. Mark x. 10, 11, 12.
I say unto you—Whosoever shall put away his wife—κὰι γαμηση ἀλλην—and shall marry another; ἀλλιν must here have a reference to the preceding γυναικα, which we render by the word wife—therefore γυναικα must be understood as following the word ἀλλην, and this may be construed in the sense of αλλοτριαν γυναικα—another man's wife, i. e. a divorced woman. We find the word ἀλλης, so used, 1 Cor. x. 29. ὑπο ἀλλης συνειδησεως—which we rightly translate—another man's conscience. The learned Wetstein takes ἀλλην in this sense, in his note on Matt. xix. 9.—His words are—Ἄλλην] i. e. Ἀλλοτρὶαν ab alio itidem viro repudiatam—vel ab illo divertentem, ut Herodias & Salome.—"Another] that is—another man's wife, who has been repudiated by him, or who has left her husband; as did Herodias and Salome." He mentions afterwards a difficulty he was under from this interpretation of ἀλλην—as it seems to make the text say the same thing twice over; and on επ᾽ ἀυτην, Mark x. 11. he has the following note, which I will lay before the reader in English, referring the learned to the original.—Against her.] "There are some who interpret this to relate to the second or latter wife, on whom the husband might commit adultery, properly so called; which he cannot be said to commit if he should marry a virgin, or a widow, but only by marrying a woman who had been in like manner (i. e. unjustly) divorced by another man. But there is an objection to this interpretation, which is, that by this method of interpreting the passage, the same thing would be said twice over, once at this ver. 11, and again at ver. 12."
Here I cannot help dissenting from this learned and judicious man; for surely a man's putting away his wife, and marrying another divorced woman, and a woman's putting away her husband, and marrying another man, are very different ideas. In both cases adultery is committed, whether the woman be unjufsly put away from her husband, or she put herself away; but when we consider, as in the case of Herodias and Salome, that this last was growing into a custom—for Salome's example was soon followed by others, as Josephus writes—it was natural for Christ to condemn this in as express terms in one case as in the other, both being equally opposite to the law of God.
The Jews at this time had much intercourse with the Romans, Judea having been long reduced to the situation of a Roman province, and no doubt, in the very corrupt state in which the Jews universally were, the Roman manners easily insinuated themselves among the Jewish women. See before, p. 364, n. Divorces, though allowed very early in Rome, were never put in practice till about the year of Rome 520, which was before Christ 229 years, in the case of Carvilius Ruga, who divorced his wife because she was barren; after which they became scandalously frequent, as a corruption of manners prevailed in the republic, till the Roman women grew as licentious in leaving their husbands, as the husbands were in putting them away.—What was the character of the Roman ladies in this respect, we may learn from Juvenal , who wrote not many years after this time. In Sat. vi. he is dissuading his friend Ursidius Posthumus from marriage, by setting before him the monstrous practices of the Roman women, one of which was, leaving their husbands, and marrying other men.
Speaking of their imperiousness, he says, their grand argument, in all disputes with their husbands, was
Hoc volo—sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.
Imperat ergo viro:——— l. 222.
Then he proceeds———
That this was a common practice, appears from l. 45, &c.
Quid quod & antiquis uxor de moribus illi
Quæritur? O medici! mediam pretundite venam
Delicias hominis! Tarpeium limen adora
Pronus, & auratam Junoni cæde Juvencam;
Si tibi contigerit capitis matrona pudici.
What shall I say to him who seeks a wife
Of antient manners, uncorrupt of life?
Surely he's mad—come, Doctor, breathe a vein,
And try to bring him to himself again.
But if, by chance, a woman could be found
Modest and chaste, through all the empire round,
Thrice happy mortal!—to thy destin'd bed
Let her, with thanks to all the Gods, be led.
In short, such was the profligacy of the Roman women, that if one could be found fit for his friend to marry, he would call her a Phœenix as we say:
Rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno.
But to return to Wetstein.—"Others understand this επ᾽ ἀυτην of the first wife, to whom the husband might by his unjust divorce give occasion of committing adultery, or of flying to a second or adulterous marriage: but These do not explain what those words—and shall marry another—are to the purpose; since the divorced woman would be equally in danger of committing adultery, whether the husband who put her away, marries another or not. This difficulty came into my mind at Matt. xix. 9; but on considering the matter again, I do not think those words superfluous, but so to cohere with the rest of the sentence, as to denote, that though the unjust divorce was the occasion of the divorced wife's adultery, yet the husband's second marriage was the occasion of the divorce. For example—If a man, having met with another woman, who pleased him better than his wife, should, in order to enjoy the other, give his wife a bill of divorcement, and grant her liberty to marry any body else, whom she chose, would this be any thing else than to expose her to an adulterer, and to commit the crime of pimping?" So the Roman laws—"To act the part of a pimp, is not less a crime than to make a gain by prostituting the body.—He who makes a gain of the adultery of his wife, whatever his rank or condition be, is punished as an adulterer.—If a man, in order to defame his wife, shall put an adulterer in his place, both the husband and wife shall, by law, be adjudged guilty of the crime of adultery."
By all this it appears, that nothing kept this learned man from thinking, with those first mentioned, that the ἐπ᾽ ἀθτην relates to the second wife, (who, to make the man guilty of adultery, must be a divorced woman) but his supposing, that in this view the same matter is repeated twice over, which it certainly is not. See before, p. This makes him also, on second thoughts, differ from his own note on Matt. xix. 9, and take the μοιχαται, Mark x. 11. in the sense of the Hebrew Hiphil conjugation, as causing her to commit adultery, and so the husband, by causing her to do it, is particeps criminis, as an accessary before the fact, and may be said himself to commit it; as a man who hires, or causes another to commit a murder, is himself guilty of murder;—as David, 2 Sam. xii. 9; Ahab, 1 Kings xxi. 19.
This interpretation is not new; for Wetstein, on Matt. xix. 9. mentions some copies, in which for μοιχαται—committeth adultery, is red—ποιει ἀυτην μοιχευθηναι—causeth her to commit adultery; and in one—μοιχαται—τουτ᾽ ἐστιν αναγκαζει μοιχευθηναι—committeth adultery; that is, compels her to commit adultery. I will conclude this point with observing, that, in all this, there is not the least hint or glance at polygamy, as condemned, or even mentioned, in these texts.
The learned Grotius, whom I have mentioned and quoted, at the beginning of this chapter, as maintaining a new law of Christ on the subject of polygamy, "afterwards changed his opinion," (see note ee, on Grot. de Jure, lib. ii. c. 5. § 9.) "as is plain from his annotations on Matt. v. 32. where he shews, that in that place, and other like passages of the gospels, polygamy is not condemned, but only the abuse of divorce, from whatever cause it proceeds." "Hence (adds Barbeyrac) in that excellent little work—De Verit. Relig. Christ.—he only says—"The Christians follow the usage of the Germans and Romans, who were content with one wife. Lib. ii. § 13; and in the note there introduced, he only refers to 1 Cor. vii. 4." This text, with the verses preceding it, we have very fully considered in the last chapter.
Since the first Edition of this work was published, I had a book put into my hands, the title page of which announces its being written on a popular occasion, that is to say,—"the affair of Lord Grosvenor's action against the D. of C." This book is entitled, "Free Thoughts on Seduction, Adultery, and Divorce." The author styles himself a Civilian, and, by many parts of the book, seems to be an adept in his profession. His remarks are keen—his observations shrewd.—There are some things in which he may be thought to have gone too far; but there is a stricture on the subject of polygamy, as vulgarly supposed to be prohibited by our Saviour, Matt. xix. 9. which I will insert here, just as I find it, leaving it to my readers to make their own remarks upon it.
"It is indeed pretended, that the strictness of conjugal discipline, supposed to be recommended by the apostle, is confirmed by our Saviour himself; who is conceived also to have prohibited a man's having more than one wife, as well as a wife's having more than one husband.
"But this supposition is groundless: for, as I before observed, from our Saviour's own words, He came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil them. Now, under the law, polygamy was allowed; as plainly appears not only from practice but precept .
"In saying, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' the law did not say—thou shalt not have more than one wife; as it does when, respecting idolatry, it says, 'Thou shalt have no other gods but me.' It is said, 'Thou shalt not lie with another man's wife;' it did not say—'Thou shalt not lie with as many wives as thou wilt of thy own.' On the contrary, it appears to have been commonly permitted to have two or more. 'If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated,' &c. Deut. xxi. 15. And again, 2 Sam. xii. 8, the prophet Nathan, reproaching David, says, '—Thus saith the Lord God, I gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom."
"It is true that, after the world became to be somewhat populous, and perhaps some communities apparently too numerous for the land they possessed, the practice of polygamy was prohibited by the civil magistrate, for the political ends of society.
"According to the laws of Justinian, it was not lawful to have two wives at a time, nor even a concubine with a wife. The canons of the church also confirm this prohibition, under pretence of its being founded on the words of our Saviour, in His reply to the Pharisees. But if we turn to the text, we shall find that no such prohibition is there either expressed or implied.
"I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. Matt. xix. 9.
"Very true, but if, without putting away his wife, he marry another, (as was the case with Jacob; when, after marrying Leah, he married also her sister Rachel) it does not appear that he would commit adultery.
"It is the putting away the first wife only, that made the marrying a second, adultery. Nor is even this a direct commission of that sin, but an indirect one; as such dismission of the first would naturally tend to make her form a connection with some other man; which would be direct adultery. This is plain from the words, in which the same prohibition is expressed in another place, by the same Evangelist, 'I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.' Matt. v. 32.
"It is true that some of our most learned divines have been of opinion, that the adultery lay in marrying the second wife, and not in the putting away of the first. But in this they have shewn themselves to be better canonists than casuists. Even Bishop Cosens says, it is not the dismission of the first wife that is adulterous, but the marrying of the second. But this is clearly a mistake; not only, because polygamy was allowed at the time when our Saviour's injunction, respecting a man's putting away his wife, was promulgated; but because the contrary appears on the very face of the text.
"The Pharisees did not ask Jesus about the lawfulness of a plurality of wives; but merely about putting away their wives: and though he answered them in a fuller manner than they seemed to require, he cannot be supposed to mistake the full drift and sense of their query.
"The question was, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?' The reply is, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication (and shall marry another) committeth adultery.' That is, indirectly, by depriving her of the protection of a husband, and reducing her to the necessity of accepting that of some other man; agreeable to the words of the text before quoted, causeth her to commit adultery.
"Our Saviour indeed goes farther, and explains his meaning distinctly, in adding, And whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery. But how so, unless the criminality depended on the incapacity of the first husband to put her away? This indeed made it adultery in the man marrying a woman thus unjustly divorced, because she was still the first man's wife, and not lawfully separated .
"That this was certainly the meaning of our Saviour, cannot be doubted. Moses, says he, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives. Or rather, as the translators have more properly expressed it in Mark x. 5. for the hardness of your heart.
"A mere English reader might, from the former expression of Matthew, take occasion to say, that the term wives in the plural, is no more applicable to the individual than that of hearts; and that the former word, as well as the latter, must be meant of their wives collectively, and not of the wives of each severally: but the original is in both places the same—Προς την σκληροκαρδιαν υμων—Beza has it—pro duritia cordis vestri—for your hardness of heart, in the singular number; but it is dimittere uxores vestras—put away your wives, in the plural, conformable to the original.
"That this is the true sense of the text, is farther confirmed by the remark which the disciples of Jesus made on it, in the succeeding verse.
"It runs in the vulgar translation thus: If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is good not to marry.
"But the version is here also palpably defective. By the man, may be mistakenly understood, a particular husband; and by his wife, may in like manner be understood his sole and only wife; but the word his, is foisted into the text; it is indeed usually printed in Italics, to denote the interpolation. This prohibition is expressed, on the contrary, in the most general terms. Si tale est hominis negotium cum uxore, says Beza: conformable to the original—ει ουτως εστιν η αιτια του ανθρωπου μετα της γυναικος, not the particular case between any one husband and his sole wife; but the matrimonial commerce (negotium) between the sexes in general; or, as Vasor explains it, the condition or relative situation of a husband respecting his wives. Si ea est conditio viri, &c.
"If any other argument were necessary, to establish the sense of this reply, which our Saviour gave to the designing Pharisees; perhaps some confirmation of it may be drawn from the question, put to him by the Sadducees, with a design equally sinister.
"A woman, say they (successively) married seven husbands, At the resurrection whose wife shall she be?—Had a plurality of wives not been permitted by the divine law, it would have better answered their end, if they had proposed the same problem, with a change of terms; and asked him, if a man had successively seven wives, to which of them, at the resurrection, would the husband belong?"
In justice to our author, I cannot conclude my quotations from him, without giving, in his own words, the caveat which he enters, against the practice of polygamy.———"But I am not pleading either for the piety or morality of polygamy. Under the Christian dispensation, and in times like these, I conceive one wife to be enough, if not too much, for any one man. Add to this, that, whether it be contrary to the law of God or not, it is expressly contrary to that of man; being forbidden in England by the written laws of the land."———Our author might have strengthened this part of his argument, by adding, "and by the Canons of the Church of Rome."
To all the weight of evidence which has been produced against the notion of Christ's introducing a new law, either with respect to polygamy, or any thing else, I will add one more testimony, and such a one as must carry its own conviction with it, even into the bosom of prejudice itself. Let us hear our Lord Himself, Luke xvi. 18. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, ( ἑτεραν) committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that has been put away (ἀπολελυμενην) from her husband, committeth adultery. This, say some, is Christ's "new law, by which He forbad polygamy, which was allowed under the Old Testament."—As to the meaning of the words themselves, as they are much the same as in Matt. xix. 9. I will not repeat what has already been observed on that place; but as to their constituting some new law, we have Christ's own authority to say they do not: for observe the preface at ver. 17. with which our Lord introduces them, wherein He Himself gives us to understand, that, what He here says, and of course what He says elsewhere to the same purpose, is grounded upon the law of the Old Testament. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Having introduced what He says, ver. 18. with this positive assertion touching the stability, unchangeableness, and perpetual obligation of the law, we must, to be consistent ourselves, or to make Him consistent, construe what He says, as grounded upon that law, which He Himself lays down as the foundation on which He spake. This can be no other than the law of God as delivered by Moses; what that condemned, Christ condemned on its authority; but had He condemned what that allowed, or had He allowed what that condemned, there was an end of that law, and more than a tittle of it must be said to fail—πεσειν—to fall—perish, and be destroyed. It may be worth our while to take a short view of the context:—ver. 16. the law and the prophets were until John: since that time, the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
As if our Lord had said: "Till the coming of John the Baptist—which was foretold, Is. xl. 3. Mal. iii. 1.—ye were under the teachings of the legal and prophetical dispensation; but since John's coming, that gospel, which was prefigured by the ceremonial and typical rites of the Mosaic dispensation, and foretold for ages together by the prophets, is now openly declared. This is not confined, as the others were, to the Jews only; but multitudes of persons, of what nation or character soever, even publicans and sinners of the Gentiles, sensible of their sin and misery, shall be invited to partake of its blessings, and will eagerly press for an interest in them, though they be no observers of the rites and ceremonies of the law.
"And yet the law is not hereby made void;—the prophecies, types, and shadows of the Old Testament, are fully accomplished; the moral law is honoured and confirmed, its precepts explained, and all its commandments established as a law of My kingdom, as an eternal and unchangeable rule of life to all My subjects. Therefore think not that I came to destroy the law (καταλυσαι, Matt. v. 17.) to dissolve it, or loosen men from any of its obligations in point of obedience—It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail—therefore, however you may have been taught to make it void by your traditions, and especially with regard to your treatment of your wives, by which you are daily violating the law of marriage, in the unjust and scandalous divorcements, which your rabbies have taught you to abuse to the purposes of licentiousness and cruelty, yet the law of God changeth not, it is the same now as in the days of Adam; and therefore—whoever puts away his wife unjustly, breaks the law which commands him to cleave to her, and puts asunder what God hath joined together—and if this be done in order to marry one you like better, and under such circumstances of provocation, as force the wife you put away to marry another man, she certainly sins against the seventh commandment, as does the man who takes her; but yet the guilt of adultery is not confined to them, but lights upon you also, who, by your unlawful treatment of your wife, in putting her away unjustly, caused her to commit it (see Matt. v. 32.) You are therefore answerable before God as an adulterer; for there is no difference, in the eye of His law, between the perpetrator of a crime, and the instigator and promoter of it."
In the above paraphrase on the context, I have endeavoured to take in the whole sense of the passage, as agreeable to, and reconcileable with, the law of the Old Testament; for it was certainly by this, that our Lord regulated all His thoughts, words, and actions, on every subject, and upon every occasion, as well as in the instance of what He said, Luke xvi. 18.
Had Christ been to have introduced a new law, it must have appeared somewhere in His commission: we have several transcripts of this, relative to all His offices, but not a single clause is there in any of them to that purpose.
His commission as a priest appears in several parts of the Old Testament, and is thus shortly summed up, Dan. ix. 24.—To finish the transgression—to make an end of sins—to make reconciliation for iniquity and (thus) to bring in everlasting righteousness.—As a prophet, says he, by Is. lxi. 1. &c. The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek: He hath sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn: to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness, that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified. There is nothing about a new law in this part of our Savioiur's commission.
As to His kingly office, on which He entered after His resurrection from the dead, when He had a name given Him above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father—His kingdom was to be administered not by any new law, but by that which was from the beginning, once written on tables of stone, but now to be written on the fleshly tables of the heart, 2 Cor. iii. 3. For thus saith the Lord—This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer. xxxi. 33. Comp. Heb. viii. 10.
If Christ then gave a new law, or rule of life, He exceeded His commission, and we must call in question His veracity, as well as His sincerity, in that declaration of His, Matt. v. 17, 18, 19. likewise as to what he says, John xii. 49, 50. I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me He gave me a commandment, what I should say , and what I should speak—and I know that His commandment is life everlasting; (Comp. Rom. x. 5. Gal. iii. 12.) whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me so I speak. See Deut. xviii. 18, 19. In exact conformity with all this, it is said, Heb. i. 1. God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son. These words are expressly and particularly addressed to the Hebrews; and the whole subsequent epistle proves the uniformity and unchangeableness of the Divine will, and that the Christian dispensation declared none other things than Moses and the Prophets did say should come to pass. Comp. Acts xxvi. 22.
But to return once more to our Saviour's discourse with the Pharisees:—Can it be imagined that Christ, so remarkable for his precision, so thoroughly accurate in all He said on every other point, should use so little in this, as not to make Himself understood by His hearers? Nay—that He should observe so little precision, as not to describe an offence, which we are to suppose Him to condemn? The most flagrant instances, the most obvious and palpable definitions of polygamy cannot be understood from what He says.—He that putteth away his wife, by bill of divorcement, and marrieth another—does not describe a man's taking two wives together, and cohabiting with both; nor—a man's having a wife, and taking another to her, and cohabiting with both. Such was the Old Testament polygamy, not the putting away one in order to take another.—I do not recollect a single instance in which this was ever done during the whole administration of Moses, the Judges, or Kings, any more than a single instance where polygamy was forbidden . However the law of Moses forbad what our Saviour mentions, just as much as His words do. If a man once took a woman, he never (except for adultery) could put her away all his days; and though Moses suffered, in order to avoid worse consequences, divorces for other causes beside adultery, by not bringing the offenders to condign punishment in every instance, yet there never was an instance when the law of God did not condemn them. As for polygamy, Josephus says, and the Bible proves what he says to be true, that—"It was the custom of the Jews to live with a plurality of wives; he calls it πατριον—the custom of their country, derived from their fathers."—The same historian, writing the account of God's giving the deceased Saul's wives to David, observes, that, "God gave David many wives, which he might justly and lawfully have." The Pesicta, on Lev. xviii. calls it, "notissimum"—a thing most notorious, "that He who said it was forbidden to have more wives than one, was entirely ignorant of the law." See Grot. de Jure, lib. ii. c. 5. § 9. in the note k.
Is it then, without the highest absurdity, to be imagined, that Christ should mention 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 acccuse 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 should 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 adultery, 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 truth 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 μοιχαομαι is used in the Greek translation of the LXX, it constantly answers to the Hebrew נאף; and therefore there is no room to doubt, that wherever, in our Saviour's discourses, as recorded by the Evangelists, we meet with the word μοιχαται, נאף 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 a second wife, living his first, unless such second was either betrothed or married to another, or to any thing else, than only to the defilement of a betrothed or married woman. This is its single idea throughout the whole. Therefore it is figuratively used to describe the people's forsaking God, and turning to idols. See before, p.
Christ said to the Jews, John v. 46, 47. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; but if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words? It is not easy to conceive words more forcible than these, to express an absolute and unreserved 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 scriptures, the sense of those scriptures upon 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 devil, Matt. iv. 10, 11. by the word of God. But had He said polygamy was sinful, 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 Thy words—Thou hast said, that if a man having a wife, marrieth another," (for thus they might have put it, had they understood Him to have condemned polygamy) "he committeth adultery; but where dost Thou find this in Moses's writings? they are filled with the allowance of what Thou condemnest, without a single exception: therefore, because we believe Moses's writings, we do not believe Thee."
From all that has been said, I do conclude, 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 in earth or heaven. For thus saith the Spirit—Eccles. iii. 14, Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever, nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it.
Having now finished what I had to say on the subject of this chapter, I shall next proceed, on the footing of the divine law, to consider another material point relative to the commerce of the sexes, which is Divorce.
References:
Errata:
Uncharted Knowledge
Wisdom From Previous Realities
View as JSON for agents & LLMs