to have as many wives as they pleafe, however he might have forbidden their parting with any of them, he could not, confiftently with himself, have forbidden their marrying another; and made that, as he exprefs-. ly does, adultery. To all which it must be added, that what the difciples obferve upon the occafion, clearly proves that they understood him to be an enemy to polygamy. For otherwife with what propriety could they have objected," If the cafe of the man "be fo with his wife, it is not good to marry Had they conceived, that whilft our Saviour forbade them to put away their wives, he allowed them to have others, they furely would not have made this complaint.

T

1

יי *

The law, of Chrift being thus exprefsly against polygamy, the whole tenor of the New Teftament is against it also. We read of none among the difciples who had more wives than one. Particular care was taken, as this evil did prevail among the Jews, and fome fo circumftanced might be converted to the Christian faith, that, yet bishops and deacons fhould be chofen from among thofe that had but one wife. The apoftle's whole difcourfe concerning marriage, in the feventh chap. of the first epistle to the Corinthians, best agrees with that idea of it we have been recommending; and he fpeaks in point to this quef tion, when he fays, verfe the fecond, "Let every man "have his own wife, and let every woman have her

J

own husband." Occafional references, too, to marriage in the epiftles, fall in with our Saviour's notion of the original purity and perfection of that fate. And this is particularly observable in the account gi

1

*Mat. xix. IO.

ven

ven us of it in the chapter whence we have taken our text. Indeed it is fufficient to remark the unity of language obferved in the text itself: "Let every one! "of you in particular, fo love his wife even as him felf, and the wife fee that the reverence her huse band. 152 1 rulan to wai adi tudi 9011

And now, the point thus eftablished by the autho ity of the law of nature, and the law of Chrift, that the conjugal relation ought to fubfift between one man and one woman only, the event of the question with refpect to the Jews will not materially affect us. Since, however, there is an intimate and important connection between the Chriftian and Jewith difpenfations, and it would be injurious to them both to fuppofe, that the law of nature and the law of Mofes do in any inftance clash with each other, it may be proper to enquire how far, and upon what grounds, polygamy obtained before the coming of Chrift. It is admitted that there were thofe among the patriarchs, and among the Ifraelites and Jews afterwards, who had more than one wife: though the practice was not perhaps fo univerfal as fome have imagined. But how was it, fay you, that any good men, men who were acknowledged to be fo by God, fhould violate the law of nature, and a law too which Chrift has fince fo exprefsly eftablished; and not be reproved and punished for fuch conduct?

་

In order to our replying fatisfactorily to this queftion, we muft, firft, fettle the true idea of the law of nature. The law of nature, of the moral law, is that code or compendium of duties arising from our relation to God and one anomer, which is discoverable by the dictates of reason and confcience. This is no doubt the law of God, and is univerfal and unchange

able;

able that is, where, fuch and fuch relations fubfift, the duties refulting from them are univerfally and perpetually the fame. But a change in the relation, or in the circumstances of the relation, may and often will occafion a change in the duty; while it ftill remains. true that the law of nature, or of God, is invariably the fame. Thus, marriage between, brothers and fifters is now generally deemed contrary to the law of vatures but in the beginning the law of nature required it; that is to fay, the circumftances of the relation are changed, and fo what was then fit and neceffary is now unfit and improper.

To apply this reasoning to the matter before us : the voice of nature in the beginning, and through most ages and parts of the world down to the prefent time, hath been against polygamy; and yet things may have been fo circumftanced in fome ftates and kingdoms, at certain periods, as to justify the tolerating it. The Athenians, having been miferably wafted by a plague, adopted this measure (which by their regular conftitution was deemed impolitic) for the purpose of repeopling their fate. And Julius Cefar, for the like purpose of increafing the commonwealth, had it once in contemplation to introduce a law allowing every man to marry as many wives as he chofe +. And it is eafy to imagine, that in the early ages of the world there might be reafons of a fimilar kind, in one place and another, for this practice, which, though they would

* Diog.: Laer. Socrat. Lib. II. § 26.

+ "Helvius Ciona tribunus plebis plerifque confeffus eft, ha"buiffe se scriptam paratamque legem, quam Cefar ferre juffiffet "quum ipfe abeffet, uti uxores liberorum quærendorum caufa, quas, & quot ducere vellet liceret.'

46

2.815b 9.1

Sueton. Jul. Cef. cap. 57.

would not abfolutely authorife it, yet might confiderably leffen the evil of it. The practice having once obtained, the inordinate paffions of men would natu-s rally enough precipitate them greedily into it. And, as the patriarchs emigrated from among idolaters and polygamists, it is not to be wondered that they brought away with them fome of the evil customs in which they had been educated. Much less is it to be wondered at, all things confidered, that their defcendents, the Ifraelites, fhould copy after their progenitors ins this particular. Such a havock had Pharaoh made among their male children, that although the pro vidence of God prevented his exterminating them, it is probable their number, when they left Egypt, was confiderably less than that of the females. And this circumftance might in their apprehenfion, render that highly expedient to which they felt them felves ftrongly prone. And the effect of example, custom, and fashion, we all know to be great. To which it may be added, that the idea of the Meffiah's originating among them, gave rife to an ardent and univerfal wish in the heads of families to be the parents of a numerous offspring, each one hoping that this il luftrious perfon might derive from his houfe. And a with that was confidered as pious, would naturally enough forward a practice to which men felt them felves allured by paffion and example.

How far all thefe circumftances may be fuppofed to extenuate the evil of that, which the law of nature in the beginning, and our Lord Jefus Chrift fince, have abfolutely forbidden, we will not pretend to deter, mine. But certain it is, that though polygamy was permitted, it was not established by the law of Mofes: And therefore it can in no fenfe be faid that the law

of

of Mofes has contradicted the law of nature. Provifion, indeed, Mofes exprefsly made against some of the evils which he clearly forefaw would be confe. quent upon it *, (and which too is a prefumptive argument against the practice itself) but this by no means proves that he commanded it. Between toleration and establishment there is a clear diftinction. This distinction our Lord has obferved in accounting for divorces; and if the permitting divorces infers nothing to the prejudice of the original law of nature in that particular, as our Lord fhews by telling us it was not fo in the beginning; I know not why the permitting polygamy among the Jews, fhould be con fidered as an argument, that the voice of nature and of God was not against it in the beginning. But there was no direct law to tolerate this practice. That it was however permitted is evident from the fact: and one may easily conceive how the Jews, who were not the best reafoners, might infer from the paffage just now referred to, that Mofes meant to permit it.

But it will here be faid, "Whatever caufes might "contribute to the prevalence of polygamy among "the Jews, is it not ftrange that their prophets should "not remonftrate against the practice when it arofe

66

to any height, and occafionally at leaft lead back "their attention to the original inftitution from which "they had departed?" It is anfwered, this they did! And a remarkable inftance we have of it in the prophet Malachi. Having reprefented the Jews as enquiring, wherefore it was that the Lord had not ac cepted their offerings? he anfwers, " Because the "Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife "of thy youth, against whem thou haft dealt treach erously:

* Deut. xxi. 15, 16, 17.