the instruction of the Corinthians, in their particular circumstances, but calculated for all perfons, places, and times; otherwise Scripture would cease to be, what it really is, a rule of life. And how this Scripture, which prohibits mãσa natapoía-all uncleanness, αισχρότης—moral turpitude—and even μωρολογία foolish talking, (Eph. v. 3, 4.)—can be conceived to allow polygamy, I do not perceive. If it was allowed, how could a man, with any propriety, be faid to love his wife as himself, which appears to be his duty from Eph. v. 28?—or how could "a godly feed” (Mal. ii. 15.) be produced? How could a man be figuratively faid to drink waters out of his own ciftern? (Prov. v. 15.)—or how live joyfully with the wife that he loved? Ecclef. ix. 9.

66 man,

If we turn back to Rom. ch. vii. 3. we fhall find, that "if while her husband "liveth, a woman is married to another she must be denominated poíxanis"an adulterer;"-keeping in mind the duty of marriage founded upon mutual exclufive right, as taught by the fame Apostle, who frequently

frequently refers to Gen. ii. 24. which must be confidered as MAGNA CHARTA, with respect to matrimony; we may conclude, that the man who marries another while his wife liveth, excepting in both cafes legal divorce, is equally an adulterer;—because, as I have already said, the marriage-obligation is equal-which, except we admit, we destroy that oneness conftituting its very effence. And this very fame doctrine is taught by Chrift, as appears from Matthew chap. xix. 9. as has been already fully explained.

THE evidence of Eph. v. 31, 32. seems alfo confequential enough, with respect to the prefent queftion, to deserve attention :it represents marriage as a figure of Christ and his Church; but a plurality of wives totally destroys the analogy which the marriage-state bears to Chrift and his Church. The members of a church collectively are but one :—we being many are one body in Christ, Rom. xii. 5. Then feveral individuals, or members, compofe the body; for one individual is not a church.

"The vifi

" ble

"ble Church of Chrift is a congregation of "faithful men," Art. of the Church of Eng. xix.-If thefe obfervations be true, then the position is not admiffible, that every member of the church is distinctly the fpoufe of Chrift; for each member is but a part of the compofition of the body, which conftitutes a church, and therefore not the fame in his individual as in his collective capacity. If this is a fcriptural illustration of the matter, then what a late writer fays on the fubject is very unfcriptural, and no anfwer to, or refutation of, this question"If a man hath two wives, how can he be "one flesh with both-or each one flesh "with him?"-a queftion that will always remain unanswered. The learned Beza, on 1 Cor. vi. 16. fays, "Nor is it true, that

66

a polygamist is one with each of his feve"ral wives, when he is rather divided into

46

as many parts as he has wives."

I HAVE always confidered 1 Tim. iii. 2. as very unfavourable to polygamifts :-Here a bifhop is commanded to be μιας γυναικὸς ἄνδρα the bufband of one wife-not given to the practice

practice of divorcing one wife merely to take another, as was prevalent among the Jews and Greeks;-nor to be a polygamist. A bishop was to be 'Ais-blameless-and fo a bright example for others :-and others, if they do not follow this example under a head-an exemplary defender of the faithare not blameless. The church-reprefentative fhould be ΣτυλΘ- καὶ ἑδρίωμα ἀληθείας—the pillar and ground of truth;-certainly then TV HATED—the collection of believers may fafely be influenced hereby. From which it appears, that the prohibition of a bishop from wanton divorce and polygamy, feems to imply the like restraint with respect to all other men, if it concerns them at all.

THE feveral Scripture truths that I have adduced, in an united view, form a moft conclufive proof of the unlawfulness of polygamy; and they might be further corroborated by remarking, that husband is always in the New Teftament that criterion of truth-joined to the fingular number wife, not only in our tranflation, but also in the original Greek. I prefume, that if more

than

And it

than one wife had been intended for a man at the fame time, wIVES, in the plural, would fometimes have been joined to the fingular HUSBAND; but as that is no where the cafe, I fuppofe it was not defigned. Befides, if polygamy had been intended for a Christian practice, our Saviour would certainly have faid fomething about its regulation, and not have exhibited the original inftitution of marriage, which, in itself and obligations, is totally repugnant to it. And it may be further obferved, that St. Paul, in his relative duties, would certainly have taken some notice of polygamous contracts, and their feveral duties, particularly the fubordination of the wives; without which there could be no family peace:—and it is also equally neceffary, for the fame valuable end, that the' duty of the husband to each should be clearly marked out, and their particular duties to him and each other as fubjects to the fame head. But fince I find nothing about these matters, and as I cannot conclude (but blafphemously) the Chriftian morality imperfect, and when I take into the account the invariable appeals of the New Teftament to the original infti

tution,