5<\/strong>. that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer<\/em> ] The best MSS., most of the Fathers, and many of the best versions, including the Vulgate, omit the word ‘fasting.’<\/p>\n Satan<\/em> ] Cf. 1Pe 5:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n Defraud ye not … – <\/B>Of the right mentioned above. Withdraw not from the society of each other.<\/P> Except it be with consent – <\/B>With a mutual understanding, that you may engage in the extraordinary duties of religion; compare Exo 19:15<\/span>.<\/P> And come together again … – <\/B>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.<\/P> That Satan … – <\/B>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.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 5<\/span>. Defraud ye not one the other<\/B><\/I>] What ye owe thus to each other never refuse paying, unless by mutual consent; and let that be only for a certain time<\/I>, when prudence dictates the temporary separation, or when some extraordinary spiritual occasion may render it mutually agreeable, in order that ye may fast<\/I> and pray<\/I>, and derive the greatest possible benefit from these duties by being enabled to wait on the Lord without distraction.<\/P> <\/P> That Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.<\/B><\/I>] It is most evident that the separations permitted<\/I> by the Apostle, for he enjoins<\/I> none, are only for a season<\/I>, on extraordinary occasions; and that the persons may come together again<\/I>, lest Satan, taking advantage of their matrimonial abstinence, might tempt either party to illicit commerce.<\/P> <\/P> There are a multitude of rules prescribed in such cases by the rabbins<\/I>, and indeed even by heathen<\/I> writers; for this was a matter in which common sense could always judge; and under the direction of experience, heathens<\/I>, as well as those favoured with Divine revelation, could see what was proper in all such cases.<\/P> <\/P> Incontinence<\/I>, , want of strength<\/I> to regulate one’s desires or appetites; from , negative<\/I>, and , strength<\/I>. It is remarkable that the apostle supposes that even this temporary continence<\/I> might produce incontinence<\/I>; and universal observation confirms the supposition.<\/P> <\/p>\n Defraud not one the other; <\/B>that is: Withhold not yourselves one from another; which he rightly calls defrauding one another, because he had before declared it a debt; and further declared, that neither the husband nor the wife had a power over their own bodies, but the power of either of their bodies was in their correlate. He adds, <\/P> except it be with consent, <\/B>mutual consent, and then it is indeed no defrauding; and <\/P> for a time, <\/B>for a religious end, <\/P> that<\/B> they might give themselves to fasting and prayer:<\/B> not that this abstinence is necessary to us by any Divine precept, to prepare us for solemn prayer, (for such only is here spoken of), for then the apostle would not have made consent necessary in this case; but the Jews were commanded it, Exo 19:15<\/span>, as a preparation to their hearing of the law; and it was a piece of the legal purification, as appeareth from 1Sa 21:4<\/span>, as to which Christians were at liberty, and might observe or not observe it, as they agreed. <\/P> And come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency:<\/B> then he requires, that they should return to their former course, not defrauding one another, lest the devil, observing their abstinence, should tempt them to unlawful mixtures, seeing their inability to contain themselves within the bounds of temperance and chastity. <\/P> <\/p>\n 5. Defraud . . . not<\/B>namely,of the conjugal duty “due” (1Co7:3<\/span>; compare the Septuagint,<\/I> Ex21:10<\/span>). <\/P> except it be<\/B>“unlessperchance” [ALFORD]. <\/P> give yourselves to<\/B>literally,”be at leisure for”; be free from interruptions for;<\/I>namely, on some special<\/I> “season,<\/I>” as theGreek<\/I> for “time” means (compare Exo 19:15<\/span>;Joe 2:16<\/span>; Zec 7:3<\/span>).<\/P> fasting and prayer<\/B>Theoldest manuscripts omit “fasting and”; an interpolation,evidently, of ascetics. <\/P> come together<\/B>Theoldest manuscripts read, “be together,” namely, in theregular state of the married. <\/P> Satan<\/B>who often thrustsin his temptations to unholy thoughts amidst the holiest exercises. <\/P> for your incontinency<\/B>becauseof<\/I> your inability to “contain” (1Co7:9<\/span>) your natural propensities, which Satan would take advantageof.<\/P><\/p>\n Defraud ye not one the other<\/strong>,…. By withholding due benevolence, denying the use of the marriage bed, refusing to pay the conjugal debt, and which is called a “diminishing of her marriage duty”, Ex 21:10<\/span> where the Septuagint use the same word “defraud”, as the apostle does here; it is what both have a right to, and therefore, if either party is denied, it is a piece of injustice, it is properly a defrauding; though with proper conditions, such as follow, it may be lawful for married persons to lie apart, and abstain from the use of the bed, but then it should never be done,<\/p>\n except it be with consent<\/strong>: because they have a mutual power over each other’s bodies, and therefore the abstinence must be voluntary on each side; otherwise injury is done to the person that does not consent, who is deprived against will of just right; but if there is agreement, then there is no defrauding, because each give up their right; and such a voluntary abstinence is commended by the Jews z;<\/p>\n “everyone that lessens the use of the bed, lo, he, is praiseworthy; and he who does not make void, or, cause to cease the due benevolence, but , “by consent of his wife”;”<\/p>\n i.e. he also is praiseworthy: another condition of this abstinence is that it be only for a time; which shall be agreed unto, and fixed by both parties; not for ever which would be contrary to the will of God; the institution and end of marriage, and of dangerous consequence to either party. The Jews allow of a vow of continency for a while; and which they limit to different persons; thus a,<\/p>\n “if a man by a vow excludes, wife from the use of the bed, the school of Shammai say it is for the space of two weeks, the school of Hillell say one week; scholars go out to learn the law, without leave of their wives, thirty days, workmen one week;”<\/p>\n which vow, for such a limited time, they seem to allow of, without mutual consent; and herein they disagree with the rule the apostle gives; and who further observes, the end to be had in view by such a voluntary separation for a time,<\/p>\n that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer<\/strong>; not that this was necessary for the ordinary discharge of such service, as for private acts of devotion among themselves, and constant family prayer; but either when times of fasting and prayer on some emergent occasions were appointed by themselves, or by the church, or by the civil government on account of some extraordinary and momentous affairs; and this seems to be observed by the apostle, in agreement with the customs and rules of the Jewish nation, which forbid the use of the bed, as on their great and annual fast, the day of atonement b, so on their fasts appointed by the sanhedrim for obtaining of rain c: the word “fasting” is omitted in the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, and so it is in the Alexandrian copy, two of Stephens’s; and others: the apostle adds,<\/p>\n and come together again<\/strong>; to the same bed, and the use of it, and that for this reason,<\/p>\n that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence<\/strong>; for not having the gift of continency, should they pretend to keep apart long: Satan, who knows the temperament and disposition of men and women, may tempt them not only to hatred of, and quarrels with one another, but to impure lusts and desires, to fornication, adultery, and all uncleanness; a very good reason why, though abstinence from the marriage bed for a short time, by the consent of both parties, for religious purposes, may be lawful, yet ought not to be continued; since Satan may hereby get an advantage over them, and draw them into the commission of scandalous enormities. The Jews have a notion of Satan’s being a tempter, and of his tempting men to various sins, which they should guard against, as idolatry, &c. So say they d,<\/p>\n “thou mayest not look after idolatry, according to De 4:19<\/span> and again, thou must take heed lest this be a cause of it to thee, , “and Satan tempt thee” to look after them, and do as they do:”<\/p>\n and again e, frequently should a man think<\/p>\n “upon the unity of the blessed God, lest there should be anything above or below, before him or behind him, or by him, and so, , “Satan tempt him”, and he come into heresy.”<\/p>\n z Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 21. sect. 11. a Misn. Cetubot, c. 5. sect. 6. b Misn. Yoma, c. 8. sect. 1. c Misn. Taanith, c. 1. sect. 6. d Mosis Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 14. e Mosis Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 15.<\/p>\n Except it be by consent for a season <\/B> ( [] <\/SPAN><\/span>). If <\/SPAN><\/span> is genuine, it can either be regarded as like <\/SPAN><\/span> though without a verb or as loosely added after <\/SPAN><\/span> and construed with it.<\/P> That ye may give yourselves unto prayer <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist active subjunctive of <\/SPAN><\/span>, late verb from <\/SPAN><\/span>, leisure (our “school”), and so to have leisure (punctiliar act and not permanent) for prayer. Note private devotions here.<\/P> That Satan tempt you not <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Present subjunctive, that Satan may not keep on tempting you.<\/P> Because of your incontinency <\/B> ( []<\/SPAN><\/span>). A late word from Aristotle on for <\/SPAN><\/span> from <\/SPAN><\/span> (without self-control, <\/SPAN><\/span> privative and <\/SPAN><\/span>, to control, common old word). In N.T. only here and Mt 23:25<\/span> which see. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Defraud ye not one the other,<\/strong> (me apostereite allelous) turn ye not away from each other or do not deprive one another. Though no previous writer or prophet had been inspired to write on these special physical needs of partners in marriage, Paul did so in the will of Christ, 1Co 14:37<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) Except it be with consent for a time.<\/strong> (ei meti an ek sumphonou pros kairon) Except it should be by agreement, in symphony, or in harmony for an agreed period of time.<\/p>\n 3) That ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer.<\/strong> (hina scholasete te proseuche) in order that you both may have leisure and prayer.<\/p>\n 4) And come together again.<\/strong> (kai palin epi to auto ete) and ye may be or come together as one again, to satisfy sex desires of each that would shield each against temptations to fornication.<\/p>\n 5) That Satan tempt you not.<\/strong> (hina me peiraze huma o satanas) in order that Satan might not tempt or test you. (1Pe 3:1-2<\/span>; 1Pe 3:7<\/span>)<\/p>\n 6) For your incontinency.<\/strong> (dia ten akrasian) Because of the want or lack of self-control, (of desires and impulses that lead to fornication).<\/p>\n 5. Defraud ye not one the other Profane persons might think that Paul does not act with sufficient modesty in discoursing in this manner as to the intercourse of a husband with his wife; or at least that it was unbecoming the dignity of an Apostle. If, however, we consider the reasons that influenced him, we shall find that he was under the necessity of speaking of these things. In the first place, he knew how much influence a false appearance of sanctity has in beguiling devout minds, as we ourselves know by experience. For Satan dazzles us with an appearance of what is right, that we may be led to imagine that we are polluted by intercourse with our wives, and leaving off our calling, may think of pursuing another kind of life. Farther, he knew how prone every one is to self-love, and devoted to his own gratification. From this it comes, that a husband, having had his desire gratified, treats his wife not merely with neglect, but even with disdain; and there are few that do not sometimes feel this disdain of their wives creep in upon them. It is for these reasons that he treats so carefully of the mutual obligations of the married life. “If at any time it comes into the minds of married persons to desire an unmarried life, as though it were holier, or if they are tempted by irregular desires, (372) let them bear in mind that they are bound by a mutual connection.” The husband is but the one half of his body, and so is it, also, as to the wife. Hence they have not liberty of choice, but must on the contrary restrain themselves with such thoughts as these: “Because the one needed help from the other, the Lord has connected us together, that we may assist each other.” Let each then be helpful to each other’s necessity, and neither of them act as if at his or her own disposal. <\/p>\n Unless by mutual consent He requires mutual consent, in the first place, because the question is not as to the continency of one merely, but of two; and besides, he immediately adds two other exceptions. The first is, that it be done only for a time, as perpetual continency is not in their power, lest if they should venture to make an attempt beyond their power, they might fall before Satan’s stratagems. The second is, that they do not abstain from conjugal intercourse, on the ground of that abstinence being in itself a good and holy work, or as if it were the worship of God, (373) but that they may be at leisure for better employments. Now though Paul had taken such pains in guarding this, yet Satan prevailed so far as to drive (374) many to unlawful divorce, from a corrupt desire for an unmarried life. The husband, leaving his wife, fled to the desert, that he might please God better by living as a monk. The wife, against her husband’s will, put on the veil — the badge of celibacy. Meanwhile they did not consider that by violating their marriage engagement they broke the Lord’s covenant, and by loosing the marriage tie, they cast off the Lord’s yoke. <\/p>\n This vice, it is true, was corrected in some measure by the ancient canons; for they prohibited a husband from leaving his wife against her will, on pretense of continency; and in like manner a wife from refusing to her husband the use of her body. In this, however, they erred — that they permitted both together to live in perpetual celibacy, as if it were lawful for men to decree anything that is contrary to the Spirit of God. Paul expressly commands, that married persons do not defraud each other, except for a time The bishops give permission to leave off the use of marriage for ever. Who does not see the manifest contrariety? Let no one, therefore, be surprised, that we make free to dissent on this point from the ancients, who, it is evident, deviated from the clear statements of the word of God. <\/p>\n That ye may have leisure for fasting and prayer. We must take notice, that Paul does not speak here of every kind of fasting, or every kind of prayer. That sobriety and temperance, which ought to be habitual on the part of Christians, is a kind of fasting. Prayer, too, ought to be not merely daily, but even continual. He speaks, however, of that kind of fasting which is a solemn expression of penitence, with the view of deprecating God’s anger, or by which believers prepare themselves for prayer, when they are undertaking some important business. In like manner, the kind of prayer that he speaks of is such as requires a more intense affection of the mind. (375) For it sometimes happens, that. we require (leaving off everything else) to fast and pray; as when any calamity is impending, if it appears to be a visitation of God’s wrath; or when we are involved in any difficult matter, or when we have something of great importance to do, as, for example, the ordaining of pastors. (376) Now it is with propriety that the Apostle connects these two things, because fasting is a preparation for prayer, as Christ also connects them, when he says, <\/p>\n This kind of devils goeth not out but by fasting and prayer. (Mat 17:21<\/span>.) <\/p>\n When, therefore, Paul says, that ye may be at leisure, the meaning is, that having freed ourselves from all impediments, we may apply ourselves to this one thing. Now if any one objects, that the use of the marriage bed is an evil thing, inasmuch as it hinders prayer, the answer is easy — that it is not on that account worse than meat and drink, by which fasting is hindered. But it is the part of believers to consider wisely when it is time to eat and drink, and when to fast. It is also the part of the same wisdom to have intercourse with their wives when it is seasonable, and to refrain from that intercourse when they are called to be engaged otherwise. <\/p>\n And come together again, that Satan tempt you not Here he brings forward the reason, from ignorance of which the ancients have fallen into error, in rashly and inconsiderately approving of a vow of perpetual continency. For they reasoned in this manner: “If it is good for married persons sometimes to impose upon themselves for a time a voluntary continency with mutual consent, then, if they impose this upon themselves for ever, it will be so much the better.” But then, they did not consider how much danger was involved in this, for we give Satan an occasion for oppressing us, when we attempt anything beyond the measure of our weakness. (377) “But we must resist Satan.” (378) What if arms and shield be wanting? “They must be sought from the Lord,” say they. But in vain shall we beseech the Lord to assist us in a rash attempt. We must, therefore, carefully observe the clause — for your incontinency: for we are exposed to Satan’s temptations in consequence of the infirmity of our flesh. If we wish to shut them out, and keep them back, it becomes us to oppose them by the remedy, with which the Lord has furnished us. Those, therefore, act a rash part, who give up the use of the marriage bed. It is as if they had made an agreement with God as to perpetual strength. (379) <\/p>\n (372) “ Ou qu’ils soyent tentez de se debaucher en pallardises;” — “Or are tempted to defile themselves with whoredoms.” <\/p>\n (373) “ Un seruice agreable a Dieu;” — “A service agreeable to God.” <\/p>\n (374) “ Solicite et induit plusieurs;” — “Enticed and induced many.” <\/p>\n (375) “ L’affection du coeur plus ardente et extraordinaire;” — “A more ardent and extraordinary affection of the mind.” See Institutes (volume 3.) <\/p>\n (376) “ Comme quand on vent elire ou ordonner des pasteurs et ministres;” — “As when persons wish to elect or ordain pastors and ministers.” <\/p>\n (377) “ Par dessus nos forces, et la mesure de nostre imbecilite;” — “Beyond our strength, and the measure of our weakness.” <\/p>\n (378) “ Mais (dira quelqu’vn)il faut resister a Satan;” — “But (some will say) we must resist Satan.” <\/p>\n (379) “ Qu’il leur donnera tousiours la puissance de s’en passer;” — “That he would give them always the power to do without it.” <\/p>\n (5) Except it be . . . that ye may give yourselves<\/strong>i.e., that ye may have leisure.<\/em> Any such separation should be temporary, and with consent of both parties. Even then it must not be from mere caprice, but for some religious purpose, such as a special season of prayer. (See Exo. 19:15<\/span>; 1Sa. 21:4<\/span>.) The alteration in the Greek text of the word give<\/em> into the present tense, so as to make the word prayer refer to daily devotions, and not to special and exceptional seasons, and the interpolation of the word fastingnot found in the older MSS.are a striking example of how the ascetic tendencies of a particular ecclesiastical school of thought led to their amending the sacred text so as to make it be in harmony with their own views, instead of reverently regarding it as that by which those very views should be corrected.<\/p>\n And come together again.<\/strong>Better (as in the best MSS.), and be together again.<\/em> This is still an explanation of the purpose of the separation, not to be a lasting one, but that we may again return to the state of union. The text here bears further traces of having been altered so as to make it seem that the Apostle meant that the return to matrimonial life should be only to a temporary union, and not to a continuous state of life. The proper reading implies the latter, the word be being used as in Act. 2:44<\/span>.<\/p>\n For your incontinency.<\/strong>Better, because of your incontinency;<\/em> the reference being, as in 1Co. 7:2<\/span>, to the moral condition surrounding them, and to the influence to which a man thus separated would be subject. The Corinthian Christians are here solemnly reminded that this sin, as all sin, is from Satanbecause the Corinthians at large did not regard it as sin at all, but even mingled sensuality with worship.<\/p>\n 5<\/strong>. <\/strong> Defraud<\/strong> Deprive. <\/p>\n Consent<\/strong> Not by the sole will of one alone. <\/p>\n For a time<\/strong> Says Olshausen, “Probably it was an early custom, previous to the festivals, especially before Easter, for people to devote a lengthened time to solitary prayer, in which beautiful custom originated Lent.” <\/p>\n Fasting<\/strong> Omitted, according to the best authorities. Indeed, it is remarked by Stanley that this chapter has an unusually large number of false readings, interpolated by ascetics, to whom the apostle did not seem rigid enough.<\/p>\n Come together again<\/strong> Greek, , be at the same <\/em> ordinary habit of matrimony. <\/p>\n For your incontinency<\/strong> Rather, through your incontinence, <\/em> or incapability of self-control.<\/p>\n ‘Do not defraud one the other, unless it is by consent for a time, that you my give yourselves to prayer, and may be together again , so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.’<\/p>\n Indeed to refuse intercourse and proper lovemaking without good reason is to defraud one’s partner, and therefore sinful. It is failing to recognise their justifiable needs, and to recognise those needs is man’s duty (1Co 7:3<\/span>). An exception may be made, by agreement, for a short break, for the purposes of a time for prayer and spiritual advancement, but this should not be overlong and they should then come together again after a reasonable time in case Satan gets the opportunity to tempt them due to their inability to control their desires.<\/p>\n Notice here that the abstinence is not because sexual relations within marriage are somehow ‘sinful’ but simply in order to concentrate more on the particular spiritual activity in mind.<\/p>\n Satan is here seen as the shadowy background figure who will take any opportunity to cause men to fall.<\/p>\n 1Co 7:5<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Defraud ye not one the other<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Do not in this matter be wanting one to another, unless it be by mutual consent for a short time, that you may wholly attend to acts of devotion, when you fast upon some solemn occasion: and when this time of solemn devotion is over, return to your former freedom and conjugal society; lest the devil, taking advantage, should tempt you to a violation of the marriage-be <\/p>\n 1Co 7:5<\/span> . Withhold not yourselves from each other, unless it were perhaps<\/em> ( nisi forte<\/em> , comp 2Co 13:5<\/span> ; Luk 9:13<\/span> ) that ye did so as occasion emerged<\/em> ( ), by agreement for a time<\/em> (supply .; see on Luk 9:13<\/span> ). The obvious meaning is euphemistically expressed by <\/em><\/strong> .; <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , Theodoret.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> [1075] ] introduces the design<\/em> of the concession just made . : in order that ye may have free leisure for prayer<\/em> may be able to give yourselves to it without being drawn away and distracted by sensual desire and the pleasures of sense. What Paul means is not the ordinary praying of the Christian heart, which ought to ascend (1Th 5:17<\/span> ; Eph 6:18<\/span> ), but such extraordinary exercises in prayer<\/em> as they might have determined specially to devote themselves to for a longer period (a series of days). We are not to assume that such domestic devotions, as the apostle here plainly supposes to be engaged in by husband and wife in common, had been already then connected with Christian festivals<\/em> ; probably they were still entirely dependent upon the wants and wishes of individuals. But the idea of cohabitation being excluded for a time by religious exercises, is found both among the Jews (Exo 19:15<\/span> ; 1Sa 21:4<\/span> ) and the heathen. See Wetstein and Dougt. Anal.<\/em> II. p. 111 f. Comp Test. XII. Patr.<\/em> p. 673: , .<\/p>\n ] still dependent on , indicates the being together again for matrimonial intercourse. With respect to , [1077] comp on Act 1:15<\/span> .<\/p>\n . . [1079] ] design of the <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> : in order that Satan may not tempt you to sin<\/em> (to breach of the marriage-vow) on account of your incontinency<\/em> , because ye are incontinent; for “Satanas vitiorum scintillas excitat,” Grotius. , which occurs again in the N. T. in its older form of <\/em><\/strong> , Mat 23:25<\/span> , comes from <\/em><\/strong> (<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> )<\/em><\/strong> , and is the opposite of Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n