and thee. This fcripture is too plain to need any comment. I will therefore, after obferving that pn no more fignifies power, than it fignifies an horse, horfe, only add, that if SAUL'S wives had not been given into DAVID's bofom, in the plain and * usual sense of that expreffion, the circumftance itself could not have afforded that ftriking aggravation, fo beautifully intimated in Nathan's parable, of the rich man's fparing to take of his own flock, and his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him, but taking the poor man's lamb, &c.

The learned Dean, as well as fome other commentators on this famous paffage, go still farther, and tell us, DAVID could not enjoy thefe widows of SAUL as wives, because in fo doing he would have committed inceft, they being mothers-in-law to MICHAL, SAUL'S daughter, who was DAVID's wife. But where is fuch an union forbidden? I have carefully examined the degrees of affinity and confanguinity wherein marriage is forbidden, and do find a man must not marry his own mother-in-law, (Lev. xviii. 8.) but as to his wife's mother-in-law, there is not a trace of fuch an impediment. As for MICHAL'S own mother, she, if living, must be put out of the queftion. See Lev. xviii. 17.

These things being confidered, the observations of fuch commentators evaporate into

*Deut. xiii. 6. 7 Nwx-uxor finus tui. Mont.The wife of thy bosom.

juft

just what NATHAN's parable and remonftrance must do, fuppofing fuch criticisms to be true; that is to fay, into-nothing at all. DAVID'S ingratitude to GOD, and to his * WORTHY URIAH-were not fo marked by NATHAN, because DAVID had a number of women whom he could not enjoy; but becaufe he might have enjoyed them whenever he pleafed therefore his taking URIAH'S wife was the more inexcufable, and his rebellious ingratitude againft GOD, who gave him fo many women into his bofom, the more aggravated.

Thefe truths have not failed univerfally in their influence, but have forced themfelves into the confciences of fome; who, not being able to refift their conviction, have confeffed that "Polygamy was allowed of GOD to "the Jews, but yet it is + forbidden to Chrif"tians"-which is just as true as if it was faid, that "the people under the Old Tef

tament were men and women, but Chrif"tians ‡ are not; for to fuppofe that the buman

* 2 Sam. xxiii. 39.

+ Polygamy is prohibited among Chriftians, but was allowed, by Divine appointment, among the Jews. Chambers, Tit. Polygamy.

Or to fay with fome of the antient fathers, who were wifer than the fcriptures, that the crefcite & multiplicamini of the Old Teftament has nothing to do with Chriftians under the New Teftament-Quia hodie, repleto mundo, non tam neceffarium quam olim; and again-hoc dictum pertinere ad tempora ante Christum, non ad nos qui alio vivimus ævo-mundum jam non defiderare illud crefcite & multiplicamini. "The com

I 4

"mand

human fpecies is changed, is not more abfurd, than to fuppofe a change either of the original defign of God in the institution of marriage, or of the sense and meaning of the feventh commandment, as forbidding or condemning that now, which was not forbidden or condemned, either by the one or the other, for fo many ages before. As for the positive law of the feventh commandment, it is attended with fuch pains and penalties in the breach of it, that it is impoffible but that fome inftance of God's disapprobation of polygamy must have been met with, had that been within the meaning of it; otherwise the abfurdity must follow, of fuppofing a fufpenfion of this law for 1500 years after it was ordained of GOD, delivered to Mofes, and by him to the people at Mount Sinai—and all this for the indulgence of mortal fin in one fex, while it was punished with death in the other.

In the first place, I would obferve in general, that polygamy, in its proper fenfe, as practifed under the Old Teftament by the people of GOD; that is, the taking two wives together at once, or one to another, and cobabiting with both, is not so much as * men

"mand-Be fruitful and multiply, &c. is not neceffary, $c as once it was, because the world is filled with peo"ple. That belonged to the times before CHRIST, not to us who live in another age-the world now wants not that-Increase and multiply."

*Unless incidentally, 1 Tim. iii. 2. I Tit. i. 6. where nothing is faid, either good or bad, as to the matter itself in general,

tioned any where, that I can find, from the firft chapter of Saint Matthew to the last of the Revelation of Saint John, inclusive: therefore it cannot be faid to be * condemned. The famous paffage in Matt. xix. which has been already confidered, and will be more fully hereafter, certainly relates to † divorce, and, properly speaking, not to polygamy; for this, fimply confidered, does not come in queftion. The people there, fo far from intending polygamy, meant nothing lefs, for they meant to have but one wife at a time; elfe why were they for divorcing one, in order to take another? Their fin was this, not the taking and cohabiting with more than one at a time. They imagined themselves totally free from the first, before they married the fecond.

The New Teftament was not to introduce a new law concerning this, nor any thing else. Nothing is to be found there which was not in the Old Teftament, only as to the manner; the matter is one and the fame. Otherwise, how could Paul derive any ftrength to his argument, Gal. iii. 10. by citing the fanction

*Judge Blackstone fays, very gravely-Comm. vol. i. P. 436.- Polygamy is condemned by the law of the New Teftament."

+ So our tranflators undoubtedly thought; for in the fummary of the contents printed at the head of the chapter, they only fay-"CHRIST anfwereth the Pha"rifees concerning divorcement." ver. 3-10. So Mark x. 2. "Touching divorcement."

Here the word λany, Matt. xix. 9. is fuppofed to fignify another (i. e. any other woman) according to our tranflation. But that this may not be the fenfe of it, fee after.

3

of

of the old law, to prove the neceffity of falvation by grace? If the law be in a fingle inftance altered, or changed in one fingle point, how can it be faid by an infpired apostle of CHRIST-Curfed is every one that continueth not in ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them?—which, as it never had, fo it never can have but one sense and meaning; and our LORD fhews, that it not only condemned the act, but the very thought of adultery. Did it only begin to do this, when CHRIST faid, Whosoever looketh upon a woman to luft after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart*? Matt. v. 28. (but then this muft mean fuch a woman + as

adultery

66

* Per yuvaina autem intelligitur uxor alterius. By "the word yuvaina-woman-the wife of another is "understood. 2 Sam. xi. 2, 3, 4. Job xxxi. 1, 7. "Prov. vi. 27. Ecclus ix. 7, 8, 9. xxvi. 9. Sufan.

viii. 9, 32.

"See Wetft. on Matt. v. 28. + The word yuvn-like the Hebrew is certainly a general term, and fignifies a woman, as diftinguished from a man; and in this fense it is used Matt. xiv. 21. Acts v. 14. & al. freq.

But this cannot be the fenfe of it here; for if it be finful to look with defire on any woman whatfoever, then it would be finful for a man to defire his own wife, to whom he is actually married, or a virgin to whom he is contracted; and this would lead us into all the abfurdities of the antient mifogamifts, who held marriage itself to be finful.

In this place, therefore, it certainly means a woman confidered as related to a man; and that, whether betrothed or espoused only (See Matt. i. 20, 24. Luke ii. 5.) or that hath cohabited with her husband, (Luke i. 5, 13, 18.) for with no other can adultery be committed; and it is very evident that our Saviour's difcourfe is on that fubject; as forbidden and condemned by the feventh commandment, which He is explaining.

Γύνω