might not be the fame with refpect to both, because of the great neceffity for the clearness of family defcents, pedigrees, and genealogies, which the wife by fortuitous connections would render quite uncertain. Now as much depended on the certainty of genealogies, especially that of our Saviour's from Abraham and David, probably the woman might be more feverely punished for this reafon only-for I can conceive no other :but as this reafon has ceased, which could only make a difference between the unfaithful wife and the unfaithful husband, they must now be confidered as equally guilty, because equally tranfgreffing the divine law in a diffolution of the marriage-bond. Every man, in his fober senses, that is capable of arguing from the nature and reafon of things, must always (if he is not inconfiftent) conclude, that the magnitude of the crime of adultery is equal in husband and wife. But it is difgraceful to reason, and characteristic of the most narrow principles, to say, that the wife, guilty of adultery, ought to be punished most severely, while the husband is left at large without any punishment at allS

for

for I cannot conceive marriage to be a punishment-I repeat it, while the husband is justified in it, as well as left to revel at large; which must be the cafe in the indiscriminate and unbounded practice of polygamy.

DEUTERONOMY XXV. 5, is looked upon by writers in general as antiquated; but I will confider its principles and tendency fo far as to enable me to difcover, whether or no, in a particular cafe, it made polygamy a duty. "If brethren dwell together, and "one of them die, and have no child, the "wife of the dead fhall not marry without "unto a stranger: her husband's brother "fhall go in unto her, and take her to him "to wife, and perform the duty of an huf"band's brother unto her." The reafon of which follows in the next verfe: "And it "shall be that the first-born"-male child, for the Samaritan copy renders it of the mafculine gender-" which the beareth, fhall "fucceed in the name of his brother which

“is dead, that his

Ifrael." verfe 6.

name be not put out of

This then was evidently

for the preservation of families, which, with

the

the difabling law of Lev. xxv. 23, for keeping inheritances in families, further provided for by the rule of lands returning to their owners at the Jubilee, verfe 28, as alfo Numbers xxxvi. 8, 9, for the diftinction of tribes, and their respective property-or, in other words, to prevent the alienation of inheritances from that particular tribe to which they belonged-were of the greatest consequence in the fcheme of Providence with refpect to the Meffiah: for these regulations fecured liberty of perfon, equality of fortunes, and order of families. Whence was fecured Christ's being of the feed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, and family of David; and alfo Bethlehem was preferved in the tribe of Judah and family of David; and hence the prophecy concerning the place of our Saviour's birth was literally fulfilled. mention these things as the very foundation of those laws, which fhew that they are wholly local and temporary, evidently cal-' culated for a particular people, under particular circumstances:-fo I conclude that the obligation of Deut. xxv. 5, has ceased with the reasons of it, and all others of the like defcription.

S 2

I

defcription. It appears from Gen. xxxviii. 8, that it was a law among the patriarchs ; but it was lefs rigorous under the Mofaical than the Patriarchal dispensation: For with. refpect to the former, if the man did not like to take his brother's wife," (Deut. xxv. 7.) he was not compellable, and his only punishment for refufal was a flight temIt can porary contemptuous treatment. hardly be supposed then that it made in this one cafe polygamy a duty, when any man whatsoever, in the capacity of a brother, or rather of a relation, had a power of refufal.. If, like a writer on the other fide of the question, I was ingeniously to turn every little circumftance to my purpose, however foreign or unapplicable, and however infignificant magnify its importance, I might make much of the circumftance of brethren dwelling together-I might fay, with great plaufibility, that it intimates their being of the fame family and house; but when married, they could not be in that predicament, but must be of another family and another house; and hence I might exclude all married men from the obligation of this law.

If the first kinfman, whofoever he was, as well as the reft, had a power of refufal, we may very properly exclude married men; but by the exclufion of men of this description, the intention of this law was not likely to be prevented; because, on this law, any of the kindred of the deceased childlefs hufband might marry his widow, for the purpose of preserving his name, who were confidered in this cafe as brothers. Then, if this is matter of fact, which we must admit, except we refufe the clear evidence of the Bible, there could be no inconvenience in the exemption of married men. That having a wife already is a fufficient apology for refufal,-or, in other words, that married men were exempt from the obligation of Deut. xxv. 5,-is evident from the cafe of Mahlon's next kinfman and Ruth his widow, as is recorded in Ruth iv. This fhews there were exceptions to the law, the univerfality of which has been much contended for, for certain evident reafons-though contrary to the context and this particular cafe. The kinsman, undoubtedly, had many reasons for his refufal, and, among the rest, his being married

S 3