reproach? We alfo find the offspring legitimate, and inheritors of the land of Canaan; a plain proof that Jofeph and Benjamin were no baftards, or born out of lawful marriage. See a like palpable inftance of GOD's miraculous bleffing on polygamy in the cafe of Hannah, 1 Sam. i. and ii.-These inftances ferve alfo to prove, that, in GoD's account, the fecond marriage is just as valid as the first, and as obligatory, and that our making it lefs fo, is contradictory to the divine wisdom.

I

*

3dly. God bleffed and owned the iffue. How eminently this was the cafe with regard to Joseph, fee Gen. xlix. 22—26; to Samuel, fee 1 Sam. iii. 19. It was exprefsly commanded, that a bastard, or son of a woman who was with child by whoredom, fhould not enter into the congregation of the LORD, even to his tenth generation. Deut. xxiii. 2. But we find Samuel, the offspring of † polygamy, miniftring to the LORD in the tabernacle at Shiloh, even in his very childhood, cloathed with a linen ephod before ELI the priest. See this whole hiftory, 1 Sam. i. and ii. Who then can doubt of Samuel's legitimacy, confequently of God's allowance of, and bleffing on polygamy? If fuch fecond marriage was in GoD's account null and void, as a fin against the original law of marriage, the feventh commandment, or any other law of GOD, no mark of legitimacy could have been found on

ἐκ πόρνης. LXX.

+ See Appendix, No 1. vol. ii.

the

the iffue; for a null and void marriage is tantamount to no marriage at all; and if no marriage, no legitimacy of the iffue can poffibly be. Instead of fuch a bleffing as Hannah obtained, we fhould have found her and her husband Elkanah charged with adultery, dragged forth and toned to death; for fo was adultery to be punished. All this furnishes us with a conclufive proof, that the having more than one wife with which a man cohabited, was not adultery in the fight of GoD or, in other words, that it never was reckoned by Him any fin against the feventh commandment, the original marriage-inftitution, or any other law whatsoever.

4thly. But there is a paffage (Deut. xxi. 15.) which is exprefs to the point, and amounts to a demonstration of GOD's allowance of polygamy. If there be to a man w

-TWO WIVES-(Compare Gen. iv. 19. 1 Sam. i. 2. xxx. 5.)-the ONE BELOVED, and the ONE HATED, and they have borne bim children, both the BELOVED and the HATEDand if the firft-born be to the HATED, then it shall be, when he maketh his fons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the fon of the beloved firft-born before the fon of the hated, which is indeed the firft-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his firength, and the right of the first-born is bis.

* "Herein is a law, tacitly implied at least, for a man "to have two wives." Ant. Univ. Hift. vol. iii. p.

141.

On

On the footing of this law, the marriage of both women is equally lawful, GOD calls them both wives (for fo the word ' must be rendered in this place, as the context fhews plainly) and He can't be mistaken, if He calls them fo they certainly were fo. If the Second wife bore the first fon, that fon was to inherit before a fon born afterwards of the * first wife. Here the iffue is exprefsly deemed legitimate, and inheritable to the double portion of the firft-born; which could not be, if the Jecond marriage were not deemed as lawful and valid as the firft.

The wisdom of this world, as at present conftituted, would fay-the man was an adulterer -the fecond wife an adulterefs—our law would make the man a felon―our ecclefiaftical courts would pronounce the fecond marriage null and void the iffue would be baftardized-and our devout people would lift up their hands and eyes, and deem the whole a monstrous piece of wickednefs! Which view of the matter is most agreeable to the mind and will of GOD, must be left to the judicious reader to determine.

Dean Delaney, who cannot venture to deny absolutely that this text relates to polygamy —yet, in a note, endeavours to get rid of its evidence, by faying, that " this one expref"fion-ber's that was hated-fee our transla"tion-makes this law appear rather to be un

*This could not happen where there were two wives in fucceffion.

"derstood

"derstood of the children of two fucceffive "wives."-But the Hebrew runs thus-7'71 nxuwbanjan-and the firft-born fon be to the hated-fo that the ftrefs laid on the words of our tranflation, ber's that was hated, is good for nothing. See Reflections on Polygamy, p. 56.

The learned Dr. Rutherforth has also taken no fmall pains, to get rid of the conclufive evidence of this text in favour of the divine allowance of polygamy. That learned profeffor, in his lectures which he red at Cambridge, on Grotius de Jure, found this text, in the plain and obvious meaning of the Hebrew, by no means conformable to the pofition which he had laid down, that polygamy was contrary to the law of nature; he therefore is for fuppofing the two wives to have been in fucceffion, and that the first-born was the son of the first wife. See Institutes of Natural Law, b.i. c. 15.

But it is very extraordinary, if this were the case, that it fhould not be fo expreffed. This is a point of too much confequence, to be established on words, which do not carry that meaning, and no other, on the face of them: fo far from it, the only terms used in the description of the women are-" The one "beloved and the one bated,"—who can fay which was which?-confequently, prefume to determine, of which wife the firft-born was, in point of time?

Dr. Rutherforth, as well as Dr. Delaney, in his treatment of all fcriptures which oppofe his law of nature fcheme, puts one in mind of Kolben's account of the Rhinoceros-

9

"This

"This creature, in order to get at his prey, "marches towards it in a right line, tearing "his way very furioufly through all oppo"fition of trees and bushes. When he is upon the march, he is heard at a great diftance, forcing his way through thick bushes, "and fnapping of trees."

66

66

As for Grotius and Puffendorf, they both allow that the Jewish law permitted polygamy, as they both declare; and both mention this text as one proof of it. See Grot. de Jure, lib. ii. c. 5. § 9. Marg. Puffend. lib. vi. c. 1. § 16.-The like may be faid of the great Mr. Selden, Bishop Patrick, and every other learned commentator, who had not a very interefting reafon for imitating Peter Kolben's Rhinoceros above-mentioned.

One particular occafion of this law feems to have been, what had happened in the case of Leah and Rachel, Jacob's W] 'n—two wives-the one beloved and the one hated.-See Gen. xxix. 30, 31. Reuben was the first-born of Leah-Jofeph of Rachel. Jacob difinherited the fon of the bated, and gave the right of the first-born to the fon of the beloved-but this was not a mere act of caprice, and undue preference, against the law of inheritance, upon account of Jacob's partiality to Rachel; but an act of justice, on account of Reuben's crime, who had gone up to his father's couch, and defiled his concubine Bilbab.-He therefore difinherited him, as a punishment, and the birth-right thus became Joseph's, who

was