with both (which I take to be the true and genuine notion of polygamy); nor is it used in any other fenfe, but to denote the defilement of a married woman. OUR SAVIOUR, who conftantly appealed to the Hebrew fcriptures for what he delivered to the people, can hardly be supposed to have advanced a doctrine fo unfupported by them; and that before an audience of thofe very Pharifees, who we are told, Luke xi. 54. were laying wait for him, feeking to catch fomething out of His mouth, that they might accufe Him. Again-by making CHRIST declare polygamy to be adultery, they charge Him with afferting a falfhood, both in point of law and fact, by declaring all fuch after-taken women not to be the real wives of the men who took them; for if they were, adultery must be out of the question. Let us examine this on the footing of fcripture. It is faid, 1 Sam. xxv. 42, 43, ABIGAIL became DAVID's wife, and DAVID also took AHINOAM of JEZREEL, and they were alfo both of them his wives. So witneffeth the Holy Ghost, and this, though ver. 44. tells us, he had at that very time another wife living. By faying they were also both of them his wives (for that must be the meaning of in this context) it is making each one flesh with him, fo that he could not divorce either; and if either had gone to another man, fhe would have been an adultrefs, and the man who took her would have been an adulterer. I fay this, taking it for granted that the Holy Ghoft would not have called them his wives, s

לנשים

I

—fibi in uxores. Mont.-unless they really were fo. See alfo 1 Sam. xxvii. 3. Thus, on the authority of the Hebrew scripture, an after-taken woman is as much a man's wife who takes her, as the first istherefore it is neither true in point of law or fact, that a man having one wife, and taking another, committeth adultery; for which reafon it is impoffible CHRIST fhould ever fay fo, and thote who make Him fay fo, wrest His words from their true meaning.as this portion of fcripture will neceffarily fall under farther confideration hereafter, I will now return to the hiftory of LAMECH.

*

-But

Whether he did right or wrong does not appear, for it is only faid-LAMECH took him two wives. His being "of the degenerate "race of CAIN" made it not a jot the worse, or a tittle the better, any more than the fame thing done by JACOB made it either the one or the other, because he was "of the bleffed "race of SETH." The invention of music, which was afterwards made such confiderable use of in the temple of GOD-of agriculture and the care of cattle-of working in brass and

It is very certain that the whole law of Mofes, even the ceremonial part of it, was at this time in all its force and obligation-therefore to reprefent CHRIST, who came to vindicate its honour, and enforce the respect due to it, as laying down a propofition in direct contrariety to the whole tenor of the Jewish law, is to reprefent Him as uttering a downright falfhood, and this in the face, as it were, of the whole Jewish nation, which He fo conftantly referred to the writings of Mofes, for the truth of what He faid.

iron, were all found out by LAMECH's children; yet I cannot conceive that they are the lefs innocent in themselves, or lefs ufeful to mankind, than if they had been found out by ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and JACOB. We can only fay of fuch obfervations on fcripture, that they are very filly; but if the word of GOD is to be corrupted, in order to ferve as a foundation for them, they are very wicked. See Deut. iv. 2. xii. 32. I only mention Mr. Henry, but I might name others; one who goes fo far in corrupting the text, that he reprefents it as the command of God, that "two, and no more, fhould be one flesh, Gen.

והיו לבשר The words fimply are

ii. 24. ns-Et erunt in carnem unam. Καὶ ἔσονται οι δύο εις σάρκα μίαν. Matt. xix. 5. They twdin Shall be one flesh. The words oOTAL OF SUBthey two fhall be, &c.-relate to the man and his wife, mentioned in the fame verfe, and anfwer to the Gen. ii. 24. which fignifies they fhall be-meaning the w' and

the man and his wife, Gen. ii. 24. So that though here be a small variation between they fhall be, and they twain shall be, yet it is merely verbal in point of quotation; the fenfe is just the fame, whether, fpeaking of a man and woman, we fay-they, or they twain: but adding the word only, or they two and no more, is a very material alteration, fo material, as to alter the whole fenfe of the paffage, and to make every polygamist that ever lived, an offender againft the original inftitution of marriage. Rather than fail in this,

even the learned Beza himself will condefcend to talk nonfenfe. On 1 Cor. vi. 16. where the apoftle cites our LORD's words→→ Fwa shall be one flesh" this & duo," fays he, " is not mentioned by Mofes, but is rightly

added, as well in this place as in Matt. " xix. 5. and Mark x. 8. because there is "only mention made of a man and of one "wife, but not of wives; nor is it true that a " polygamist is one with each of his several "wives, when he is rather divided into as "many parts as he has wives." Though this learned man represents a polygamist as Fudges xix. 29. reprefents the Levite's concubine, whom he divided, together with her bones, into twelve parts, and fent her into all the coafts of ISRAEL, yet the polygamifts which we read of in fcripture were as entire individuals, in a moral as well as a natural fenfe, as thofe who had but one wife; otherwife each woman could not have called the man her husband, I Sam. i. 8, 22, 23. nor could each woman be called his wife, ver. 2. Now whatever parties, being united, in God's account are man and wife, they are alfo + one flesh, there

fore

31

It is, in our law, commonly faid, that each jointenant is feifed of the land, which he holdeth jointly, per my & per tout by the half, or by part, and by the "whole." "Et fic totum tenet, & nihil tenet-fcil.-totum "conjunctim, & nihil feperatim, fays Lord Coke."-"And thus he holdeth the whole, and holdeth nothing-that is to fay, the whole jointly, and nothing feparately." COKE LITT. 186. a. LITT. § 288.

This phrafe, according to the Hebrew, denotes all relationship, whether of affinity by marriage, as Gen.

L 4

ii.

fore it is true," that a polygamist is one with “ each † of his several wives"—that is to fay, in the legal fenfe above-mentioned ; nor can all the reasonings of men prove them otherwife, 'till they can prove themselves wifer than He is who declares them to be fo. And I do verily believe, that if a man had seduced any wife of a polygamift, and had been arraigned before the judges of Ifrael on that ftatute, Deut. xxii. 22. be muft, as well as the woman, have been condemned to die, notwithstanding what Beza has faid, or what all the reafoners in the world could have faid on the fubject of polygamy, in arreft of judg

ment.

But there is a text in the Old Teftament, which is looked upon by fome to be a direct forbiddance of polygamy; for it ftands in the margin of our Bibles-Thou shalt not take one wife to another. If this be right rendering of the Hebrew, then the faints of old time

ii. 24. or confanguinity. See Gen. xxix. 14. Judges ix. 2. 2 Sam. v. I. Chron. xi. 1. 2 Sam. xix. 12, 13. So that the conjuration of Beza, and other commentators, who have found out that a man can only be one flesh with one woman, may also find out that but one of his relations can be of his bone and of his flesh, or be called fo with any propriety. In Lev. xviii. 6. a man's near of kin is in the Hebrew -remainder of his flesh. Eng. Marg, -every near relation being, as it were, a remnant, or remainder of the fame flesh and blood of which we ourfelves confift.

Even as CHRIST, the husband of the church (comp. If. liv. 5. with 2 Cor. xi. 2.) is as really one with every feveral believer, as with the whole church collectively; or as the head is one with each and all the members of the body. See poft.