humble shepherd, and would have conferred any other benefits, well might the prophet fay, "Wherefore haft thou defpifed the "commandment of the Lord?" If this is a just representation of 2 Sam. ch. xii. 7, 8. then there is not a word about polygamy, either good or bad-so of course it is here neither approved or condemned.

SINCE writing the above, I have looked into Patrick's Commentaries *, wherein it is afferted, on the authority of Maimonides, that, among the Jews, " no fubject might "have fo much as the horse of a king, no

66

more than his fceptre and crown; much "lefs his widow, or one divorced, who was

to remain a widow to the day of her death." And it is further afferted: "The wife of a king is to be married to none else; for even the king cannot legally marry the "widow of his predeceffor; or one divorced by him ;"-which puts the matter out of all doubt, and refers to Selden, lib. i. de Uxore Heb. cap. 10. and Carpzovius upon Schickard's Jus Regium, page 441.

Vol. II. page 308.

WITH refpect to 2 Kings, ch. xii. 2. and 2 Chron. ch. xxiv. 3. approving the fact of Jehoida's taking two wives-if, indeed, fuch approbation is really implied by their united teftimony-I cannot conceive any thing in proof of polygamy; because it does not appear that they were both taken at the fame time; that is, both wives to the fame hufband at the fame time :-nor does it appear who they were taken for. The Hebrew. verb fignifies to take for one's felf a wife, as well as to take a wife for another, and is used in both these fenfes in the Bible. (Ezra, ch. ix. 2. and Nehem. ch. xiii. 25.) If we fuppofe Jehoida taking them for himfelf, which is the most probable opinion, and fupported by the best authorities, then the. first wife muft be either dead or divorced; for it was contrary to the law-as recorded in Lev. ch. xxi. 13, 14.-for a High Priest to have more than one wife at a time. Jehoida was the High Prieft is evident :-indeed, the many circumstances related of him, plainly speak him of that order, fuch as his conduct and management of things relating to the Temple, and particularly his anoint

That

ing the king. As he was an exemplary promoter of the honour of God, and a reformer of religion in Judah, I cannot even suppose that he violated the law by being polygamous. But if it be contended that him is the relative to Jeboah, the king, because the chief fubject of the hiftory,-yet it does not appear that those wives were brought to him both at a time. The Scripture is silent as to the circumstances of time and place with respect to taking those wives :-to fay then that they were both wives to the king at the fame time, is not only unjustifiable, but abufing the filence and conciseness of the Bible. In "all those days wherein Je“hoida the priest instructed the king," he might very easily have two fucceffive wives; and Scripture does not warrant us to speak, Gyor suppose, any thing else. That those wives were in fucceffion is fcriptural and natural to suppose; and I am the more inclined to be of this opinion, when I find the Bible giving testimony to the rectitude of the conduct of the king, while that conduct was directed by the immediate inftruction of the High Prieft. I cannot conceive the Bible approv

1

ing any thing that was a violation of the law-now as polygamy was a violation of the law-ergo, I conclude it is not approved here. To fay nothing of Lev. ch. xviii. 18. God in the beginning gave a folemn sanction to monogamy, and fhewed his approbation of that conjunction of the fexes only; therefore the contrary is not matrimonial, but meretricious;-but to fay, from the testimony of 2 Chron. xxiv. 3. that God there difapproves what he once folemnly approved by his own folemn actor that he has changed his mind upon the subject—or that the nature of good and evil are changed,-are affertions that deferve a feverer name than mistakes.

PROCEEDING to look further into the historical part of the Bible, we find nothing immediately for our purpose, nor in the doctrinal or prophetical revelations of the divine will, till we come to Malachi, except general dissausives from uncleannefs and abuse of the marriage- ordinance; which our ingenious opponents, I doubt not, are prepared to confine to fome particular cafe; and if T 2

any

any thing was hinted to be implied, it would be difgraced with the appellation of an ignorant comment, notwithstanding their own practice and dexterity of forming doctrines by implication and construction :—a liberty which they seem inclined to deprive us of. But to return to Malachi :-We are told that he was the last of the twelve leffer prophets, who prophefied only three hundred years before Christ, and who feverely reproved the people for their gross violations of the law, as also the priests, for a fhameful and fcandalous neglect of their duty. The priests, who should keep knowledge, and from whom the people should learn the law, they being "the meffengers of the Lord of hofts,"chap.ii. 7.—had " departed out of the way" themselves-had "caused many to stumble "at the law," (verfe 8.)-and, befides other things, they had been " partial in the law," verse 9. And hence, probably, proceeded that unholy practice among the people, which the prophet reproves, of putting away their Jewish wives, and taking heathen women— expreffed in the Bible by the daughter of a ftrange god-to wife in their stead, directly

contrary