is human nature, morally impoffible in polygamous contracts.

WHEN manners are corrupt, legislators wifely permit leffer enormities to prevent much greater; and this holds with regard to the divine government of the world; otherwife how can we account for the law refpecting divorces among the Jews, which was not consistent with the obligations of marriage according to precedent in Paradife? Not that this was the mere permiffion of Mofes it was a law; but to say that it was entirely his own, is to make him affume a power, that he had no right to, in his administration of the Jewish theocracy ;-befides, it would carry one further than any friend to Revelation would wish. viour fays that it was a permiffion of Mofes, merely to intimate that it was not in itself pleafing to the Deity; but Mofes, in reality, was no more than the promulger of the law. It does not appear in the Bible that Mofes enacted any law without the permiffion of the Deity; indeed, it evidently appears that they all came from God:-and that,

Our Sa

4

with respect to divorce in particular, we may very confiftently suppose to be permitted by him, to avoid fome greater mischief. It was permitted, as our Saviour fays, on account of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews; and they being, as Grotius rightly reprefents them, a people impotentis iræ—of ungovernable rage, would have ill-treated wives disagreeable to them; nay, probably would have murdered them, if they had not had the liberty of divorcing them: fo that the law of divorce was then entirely accommodated to the difpofition of a particular people; and though in fome measure a fufpenfion of the primary law of marriage-I mean with refpect to its obligations-yet temporary circumstances made it expedient. It was in some measure also a temporary inconvenience, but productive of a greater temporary good. Now who will dare to fay, that even the permiffion of a temporary evil, which is productive of a prepollent good, is inconfiftent with the divine attributes? The Deity alfo may, confiftently enough with his attribute of unchangeablenefs, upon important occafions, difpenfe with his own laws.

1

The fact of David's eating the fhew-bread, and being blameless, which was lawful only for the priests to eat, is one of the feveral inftances that might be produced: and, most probably, fome peculiarities of difpofition, which the climate might render lefs governable, might be the reafon of the connivance at the practice of polygamy. But Chriftianity and its author abhor this heathen practice, God—änò àpxñs xvioews from the be ginning of the creation, Mark x. 6.—-made the human kind male and female; and, like the rest of the animate creation, in pairs, for the propagation and education of their fpecies; and for this reafon EV TÉTO because of this, a man fhall leave his father and his mother, and pornoa-agglutinatus eritfhall be glued to his wife, and these two or, in other words, a pair, which is an exclufion of any other number-fhall be one flefl in contemplation of law, and alfo by virtue of this clofe connection, which, in the na¬ ture of it, is evidently the most inviolable bond of union, love, and friendship ;-the oneness of which cannot poffibly exist but with a pair-or, in other words, between the

twa

two only. That polygamy is unlawful under the Christian œconomy, is evident from the united teftimony of Matthew xix. 9. and Mark x. 11. which declares, that whofoever puts away his wife for any cause except ini wopía for proftitution-which evidently diffolves the matrimonial bond καὶ γαμήση άλλην and marries another, commits adultery; that is, the mere act of taking another wife to his bed, the marriage with his other being undiffolved, was adultery on the authority of the primitive inftitution of marriage :-then

* any, if supposed to relate to the word yuvana, would be improperly expreffed by alpar; because yun does not neceffarily fignify a wife; it is a general term distinguishing a woman from a man. When there is a poffeffive joined to it, then it implies the marriage-relation. But that is the true reading, is evident from the universal harmony of the Greek copies, and the quotations of all the Fathers, who understand it to be, as it certainly is, applied to any woman. Then whofoever, except for incontinence, divorces his wife, and takes in marriage à^^nu→ another woman, by this very act porxaral, commits adultery, as Chrift fays, Matthew xix. 9. and the parallel place in Mark x. 11. fpeaks the fame thing, with the addition of the words in al-against her ;-that is, from a violation of that matrimonial union, by carnal commerce with another, from which she is caufelefsly difmiffed.

polygamy is adultery; because if he, who having put away his wife wrongfully, married another, and that connection was adulterous, it follows, from a parity of reason, that he, who not having put away his wife, marries another, must be exactly in the same predicament with refpect to the primary command-the two shall be one flesh. Whitby, in his annotations on Mark x, 11, has proved this matter beyond a doubt;-to which I beg leave to refer the reader. But then the writers on the other fide of the queftion, contend that this argumentation of Chrift was intended against that latitude of divorce, which the school of Hillel had wrongly taught, This alters not the point in question, nor does it make the evidence adduced lefs conclufive-which indeed is fo plain as to force conviction on the minds of the generality of mankind. However, I pretend not to deny that a question about divorces gave occafion for our Saviour's obfervations, which queftion was particularly attended to; otherwife he cannot be faid to have replied to what the Pharifees asked him : "Is it lawful for a man to put away his