indelicate in the slightest degree. The word which he uses (evvolav, benevolence) denotes kindness, good-will, affection of mind. And by the use of the word "due," (pελoμévny,) he reminds them of the sacredness of their vow, and of the fact that in person, property, and in every respect, they belong to each other. It was necessary to give this direction, for the contrary might have been regarded as proper by many who would have supposed there was special virtue and merit in living separate from each other; as facts have shown that many have imbibed such an idea;-and it was not possible to give the rule with more delicacy than Paul has done. Many MSS., however, instead of "due benevolence," read opeλǹv, a debt, or that which is owed; and this reading has been adopted by Griesbach in the text. Homer, with a delicacy not unlike the apostle Paul, uses the word piórnra, friendship, to express the same

idea.

VER. 4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but

the wife.

The wife hath not power, &c.—By the marriage covenant that power, in this respect, is transferred to the husband. And likewise, also, the husband.-The equal rights of husband and wife, in the Scriptures, are every where maintained. They are to regard themselves as united in most intimate union, and in most tender ties.

VER. 5. Defraud ye not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Defraud ye not, &c.-Of the right mentioned above. Withdraw not from the society of each other. Except it be with consent.—With a mutual understanding, that you may engage in the extraordinary duties of religion. Comp. Exod. xix. 15. And come together again, &c.-Even by mutual consent: the apostle would not have this separation to be perpetual, since it would expose them to many of the evils which the marriage relation was designed to avoid. That Satan, &c. -That Satan take not advantage of you, and throw you into temptation, and fill you with thoughts and passions which the marriage compact was designed to remedy.

tors, as Macknight and Rosenmüller, however, suppose it refers to what follows, and appeal to similar places in Joel i. 2. Psa. xlix. 2. 1 Cor. x. 23. Calvin supposes it refers to what was said in ver. 1. By permission, (ovyyvóμnv.)— This word means indulgence or permission, and stands opposed to that which is expressly enjoined. Comp. ver. 25. "I am allowed to say this; I have no express command on the subject; I give it as my opinion; I do not speak it directly under the influence of divine inspiration." See ver. 10, 25, 40. Paul here does not claim to be under inspiration in these directions which he specifies. But this is no argument against his inspiration in general, but rather the contrary. For, (1.) It shows that he was an honest man, and was disposed to state the exact truth. An impostor, pretending to inspiration, would have claimed to have been always inspired. Who ever heard of a pretender to divine inspiration admitting that in any thing he was not under divine guidance? Did Mahomet ever do this? Do impostors now ever do it? (2.) It shows that in other cases, where no exception is made, he claimed to be inspired. These few exceptions, which he expressly makes, prove that in every where else he claimed to be under the influence of inspiration. (3.) We are to suppose, therefore, that in all his writings, where he makes no express exceptions, (and the exceptions are very few in number,) Paul claimed to be inspired. Macknight, however, and some others, understand this as mere advice, as an inspired man, though not as a command. Not of commandment.-Not by express instruction from the Lord. See ver. 25. I do not claim in this to be under the influence of inspiration; and my counsel here may be regarded or not, as you may be able to receive it.

VER. 7. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

would be glad if all men had control over their passions and propensities, as he had; had the gift of continence, and could abstain from mar

make it proper. We may add, that when Paul wishes to exhort to any thing that is difficult, he usually adduces his own example, to show that it may be done; an example which it would be well for all ministers to be able to follow. But every man hath his proper gift.-Every man has his own peculiar talent or excellence. One man excels in one thing, and another in another. One may not have this particular virtue, but he may be distinguished for another virtue quite as valuable. The doctrine here is, therefore, that we are not

marriage contract was dissolved. Pau! tells them that this was impossible; and that if they had so separated from their husbands, the pure laws of Christianity did not recognise this right, and they must either be reconciled to their husbands, or remain alone. The marriage tie was so sacred, that it could not be dissolved by the will of either party. Let her remain unmarried. That is, let her not marry another. Or be reconciled to her husband.-Let this be done, if possible: if it cannot be, let her remain unmarried. It was a duty to be reconciled, if it was possible. If not, she should not violate her vows to her husband so far as to marry another. It is evident that this rule is still binding, and that no one who has separated from her husband, whatever be the cause, unless there be a regular divorce, according to the law of Christ, (Matt. v. 32,) can be at liberty to marry again. And let not the husband.-See Note, Matt. v. 32. This right, granted under the Jewish law, and practised among all the heathen, was to be taken away wholly under the gospel. The marriage tie was to be regarded as sacred; and the tyranny of man over woman was to cease.

VER. 12. But to the rest speak I, not & the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

g Ezra x. 11, &c.

In

But to the rest." I have spoken in regard to the duties of the unmarried, and the question whether it is right and advisable that they should marry. (Ver. 1-9.) I have also uttered the command of the Lord in regard to those who are married, and the question whether separation and divorce were proper. Now, in regard to the rest of the persons and cases referred to, I will deliver my opinion." The rest, or remainder, here referred to, relates particularly to the cases in which one party was a Christian and the other not. the previous verses he had delivered the solemn, explicit law of Christ, that divorce was to take place on neither side, and in no instance, except agreeably to the law of Christ. (Matt. v. 32.) That was settled by divine authority. In the subsequent verses he discusses a different question; whether a voluntary separation was not advisable and proper when the one party was a Christian and the other not. The word "rest refers to these instances, and the questions which would arise under this inquiry. Not the Lord.— Note, ver. 6. "I do not claim, in this advice, to be under the influence of inspiration; I have no express command on the subject from the Lord; but I deliver my opinion as a servant of the Lord, (ver. 40,) and as having a right to offer advice, even when I have no express command from God, to a church which I have founded, and which has consulted me on the subject." This was a case in which both he and they were to follow the principles of Christian prudence and propriety, when there was no express commandment. Many such cases may occur. But few, perhaps none, can occur, in which some Christian principle shall not be found, that will be sufficient to direct the anxious inquirer after

truth and duty. If any brother.-Any Christian. That believeth not.-That is not a Christian; that is a heathen. And if she be pleased.—If it seems best to her; if she consents; approves of living together still. There might be many cases where the wife or the husband, that was not a Christian, would be so opposed to Christianity, and so violent in their opposition, that they would not be willing to live with a Christian. When this was the case, the Christian husband or wife could not prevent the separation. When this was not the case, they were not to seek a separation themselves. To dwell with him.-To remain in connexion with him as his wife, though they differed on the subject of religion. Let him not put her away.-Though she is a heathen, though opposed to his religion, yet the marriage vow is sacred and inviolable. It is not to be sundered by any change which can take place in the opinions of either party. It is evident that if man were at liberty to dissolve the marriage tie, or to discard his wife when his own opinions were changed on the subject of religion, that it would at once destroy all the sacredness of the marriage union, and render it a nullity. Even, therefore, when there is a difference of opinion on the vital subject of religion, the tie is not dissolved; but the only effect of religion should be, to make the converted husband or wife more tender, kind, affectionate, and faithful than they were before; and all the more so, as their partners are without the hopes of the gospel, and as they may be won to love the Saviour. (Ver. 16.)

VER. 13. And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

ces.

Let her not leave him.-A change of phraseology from the last verse, to suit the circumstanThe wife had not power to put away the husband, and expel him from his own home; but she might think it her duty to be separated from him. The apostle counsels her not to do this; and this advice should still be followed. She should still love her husband, and seek his welfare; she

should be still a kind, affectionate, and faithful wife; and all the more so that she may show him the excellence of religion, and win him to love it. She should even bear much, and bear it long; nor should she leave him, unless her life is rendered miserable, or in danger; or unless he wholly neglects to make provision for her, and leaves her to suffering, to want, and to tears. In such a case, ne precept of religion forbids her to return to her father's house, or to seek a place of safety and of comfort. But even then it is not to be a separation on account of a difference of religious sentiment, but for brutal treatment. Even then the marriage tie is not dissolved, and neither party are at liberty to marry again. VER. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

h Mal. ii. 15, 16.

For the unbelieving husband.—The husband that

is not a Christian; who still remains a heathen, or an impenitent man. The apostle here states reasons why a separation should not take place when there was a difference of religion between the husband and the wife. The first is, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. And the object of this statement seems to be, to meet an objection which might exist in the mind, and which might, perhaps, be urged by some: Shall I not be polluted by such a connexion? Shall I not be defiled, in the eye of God, by living in a close union with a heathen, a sinner, an enemy of God, and an opposer of the gospel?" This objection was natural, and is, doubtless, often felt. To this the apostle replies, "No, the contrary may be true. The connexion produces a species of sanctification, or diffuses a kind of holiness over the unbelieving party by the believing party, so far as to render their children holy, and therefore it is improper to seek for a separation.” Is sanctified,(nyiarai.)—There has been a great variety of opinions in regard to the sense of this word. It does not comport with my design to state these opinions. The usual meaning of the word is, to make holy; to set apart to a sacred use, to consecrate, &c. See Note, John xvii. 17. But the expression cannot mean here, (1.) That the unbelieving husband would become holy, or be a Christian, by the mere fact of a connexion with a Christian, for this would be to do violence to the words, and would be contrary to facts every where; nor, (2.) That the unbelieving husband had been sanctified by the Christian wife, (Whitby,) for this would not be true in all cases; nor, (3.) That the unbelieving husband would gradually become more favourably inclined to Christianity, by observing its effects on the wife (according to Semler ;) for, though this might be true, yet the apostle was speaking of something then, and which rendered their children at that time holy; nor, (4.) That the unbelieving husband might more easily be sanctified, or become a Christian, by being connected with a Christian wife, (according to Rosenmüller and Schleusner,) because he is speaking of something in the connexion which made the children holy; and because the word aytag is not used in this sense elsewhere. But it is a good rule of interpretation, that the words which are used in any place are to be limited in their signification by the connexion; and all that we are required to understand here is, that the unbelieving husband was sanctified in regard to the subject under discussion; that is, in regard to the question whether it was proper for them to live together, or whether they should be separated or not. And the sense may be, They are by the marriage tie one flesh. They are indissolubly united by the ordinance of God. As they are one by his appointment, as they have received his sanction to the marriage union, and as one of them is holy, so the other is to be regarded as sanctified, or made so holy by the divine sanction to the union, that it is proper for them to live together in the marriage relation." And in proof of this, Paul says if it were not so, if the connexion was to be regarded as impure and abominable, then their children were to be esteemed as illegitimate and unclean. But now

66

they were not so regarded, and could not so be; and hence it followed that they might lawfully continue together. So Calvin, Beza, and Doddridge interpret the expression. Else were your children unclean, (ákázaрra.)—Impure; the opposite of what is meant by holy. Here observe, (1.) That this is a reason why the parents, one of whom is a Christian and the other not, should not be separated; and, (2.) The reason is founded on the fact, that if they were separated, the offspring of such a union must be regarded as illegitimate, or unholy; and, (3.) It must be improper to separate in such a way, and for such a reason, because even they did not believe, and could not believe, that their children were defiled, and polluted, and subject to the shame and disgrace attending illegitimate children. This passage has often been interpreted, and is often adduced to prove that children are "federally holy," and that they are entitled to the privilege of baptism on the ground of the faith of one of the parents. But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections. (1.) The phrase federally holy" is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, and what can be meant by it? (2.) It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here; not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a separation between man and wife, where the one was a Christian and the other Paul states, that if such a separation should take place, it would imply that the marriage was improper; and of course the children must be regarded as unclean. But how would the supposition that they were federally holy, and the proper subjects of baptism, bear on this? Would it not be equally true that it was proper to baptize the children whether the parents were separated or not? Is it not a doctrine among Pædobaptists every where, that the children are entitled to baptism on the faith of either of the parents, and that that doctrine is not affected by the question here agitated by Paul? Whether it was proper for them to live together or not, was it not equally true that the child of a believing parent was to be baptized? But, (3.) The supposition that this means that the children would be regarded as illegitimate if such a separation should take place, is one that accords with the whole scope and design of the argument. "When one party is a Christian and the other not, shall there be a separation?" This was the question. "No," says Paul; "if there be such a separation, it must be because the marriage is improper; because it would be wrong to live together in such circumstances." What would follow from this? Why, that all the children that have been born since the one party became a Christian, must be regarded as having been born while a connexion existed that was improper, and unchristian, and unlawful, and of course they must be regarded as illegitimate. But, says he, you do not believe this yourselves. It follows, therefore, that the connexion, even according to your own views, is proper. (4.) This ac

not.