V. 5.); and like ANNA, Luke ii. 36, 37. continuing in fupplications and prayers night "and day."-This I take to be a confiftent and clear view of these paffages taken together. As we may from hence infer, that there were women in the church younger than fixty years, by the Apostle's exprefs exclufion of thofe under that age from thofe offices to which women were to be chofen; as alfo that there were many who had been twice married, by his designing those who had been but once. married for the aforefaid offices; fo we may as fairly conclude, from his faying a bishopSei Ewa-ought to be-and again, if any, ἔςιν -is or be the husband of one wife-that there were many Chriftians, not who had had, but at that prefent time actually had more than one wife. If this had not been the cafe, it would have been as much out of the question to have mentioned the having but one wife, as to have faid, that none should be chofen but those who had but one head or one body, when it was not to be fuppofed that any man had

more.

As to the conceit, that, "what the Apostle fays about the bishops and deacons, is to prove that no minifter may marry a fecond " time," it is all but as bad as faying, with the church of Rome, that he ought not to marry at all.

With refpect to the bufinefs of polygamy, as to the thing itself, nothing that is here faid proves it to be more or less finful in one man than in another; that depends wholly on the

law

law of God delivered by Moses. Therefore the prudential reasons, for which he evidently excepted against polygamifts being elected to church-offices, no more affects the matter of polygamy, than the excepting against women under fixty years old, proves it finful in a woman to be younger, or that, because no woman was to be chofen to the office of a deaconess who had been twice married, therefore it was. finful for the woman to marry again after the death of her husband, contrary to 1 Cor. vii. 39. and to the exprefs advice of the Apostle, 1 Tim. v. 14.

As to the fuppofed unlawfulness of second marriages, or the notion, that if a man loft his wife, it was finful to marry again; this began very early in the church, and fpread itfelf even to this country. We find in the time of Ed. I. * about the year 1276, the parliament adopted a constitution made by the Pope at Lyons, to exclude men that had been twice married from all clerks privilege. So that if a man was convicted of felony, who would otherwise have had his clergy, and it appeared that he had been twice married, he was to be executed like other lay-people. A statute of 18 Ed. III. mitigated the rigour of this law with refpect to clerks, by making a fuggeftion of bigamy triable by the ordinary, before the juftices could proceed. But all were delivered from the bondage of fuch laws by I Ed. VI. c. 12. § 16. which enacts, that

* See Burnet Hift. Ref, vol. ii. p. 323.

04

every person, who by any law or statute "of this realm ought to have the benefit of "clergy, fhall be allowed the fame, although " he hath been divers times married to any fingle woman or fingle women, or to two "wives or more, or to any widow or wi"dows."

56

Among the fix famous articles proposed by Henry VIII. to the parliament and convocation, one was-" whether priests, that is to fay, men dedicate to GOD by priesthood,

may, by the law of GoD, marry after or "no?""After great, long, deliberate, " and advised difputation and confultation "had and made concerning the faid article, as well by the confent of the King's High

ness, as by the affent of the Lords fpiritual "and temporal, and other learned men of his Clergy in their convocations, and by the confent of the Commons, in this prefent parliament affembled, it was and is finally "refolved, accorded, and agreed. that priefs, after the order of priesthood re"ceived as afore, may not marry by the law

*

* In the eighth century, fome monks pretended, that the angel Gabriel had brought twelve articles from heaven, one of which was, that ecclefiaftics must not marry. See Jortin Rem. vol. ii. p. 43.

In the ninth century, Pope Nicholas I. made a decree to restrain priests from marrying. The bishop of Augf burg wrote a pathetic letter to the Pope, fetting forth the fad and mifchievous confequences of taking their wives from the priests. The letter is at large in Fox, vol. ii. p. 392. and well worth reading. He tells Pope Nicholas, that his predeceffor Saint Gregory (i. e. Gre

gory

of GOD. The enacting part of 31 Henry « VIII. c. 14. goes on and fays-If any perfon fhall preach--teach-or obftinately "affirm and defend, that any man, after the "order of priesthood received, may marry r or contract matrimony, he fhall be adjudged to fuffer death, and forfeit lands "and goods as a felon; and if any priest do "actually marry or contract marriage with "another, or any man that is or hath been

a priest do carnally ufe any woman to "whom he is or hath been married, or with "whom he hath contracted matrimony, or

openly be converfant or familiar with any "fuch woman, both the man and the woman shall be * adjudged felons."

That

gory IV.) made fuch a decree, but repented of it on this occafion; to use the old bishop's words as they are there tranflated-" Upon a certain day, as St. Gregory "fent to his fifh-pond to have fome fifh, his fervants "drained it, and found at the bottom 6000 infants

66

heads, which were brought to him. Upon this he "did greatly repent in himself his decree touching the fingle life of the priests, which he confeffed to be the "cause of that fo lamentable murder." The letter in Fox, as above cited, is in Latin; the tranflation is referred to p. 393, as having been before inserted; which the reader may turn to. Whether the above letter was written by the bishop of Augsburg, according to Crit. Hift. of England, p. 83. or by Volufianus bishop of Carthage, as Fox feems to think, is very immaterial.

* How ought the clergy of the church of England, fome of whom are not only married men, but, having loft a firft, are now living in comfort, honour, and reputation with a fecond wife, (fee before, p. 190. n.) to bless the day when men dared to attack the reigning fuperftition of the times, and in the face of all manner of repreach,

That all this was contrary to the law of GOD is apparent; for the priests and Levites under the Old Teftament, and the apostles and other minifters under the New Teftament, who were respectively the clergy of the time, might marry, and many of them were actually married men. I therefore mention these things, to fhew how we may be led into error, even to putting men to death, thinking we do GOD fervice (John xvi. 2.) when once the word of GOD is left for the inventions and traditions of men; and how far men may believe things which are contrary to scripture are right and good, and things agreeable to

reproach, and even of the danger of death itself, boldly vindicate those rights of mankind, with which the LAW OF GOD had invested them, but of which they had been deprived by the infolent tyranny of men like themfelves?

It little concerned Luther, and his fellow champions for the honour of the DIVINE LAW-that they were called antichrifts-fcandals to religion-revivers and propagators of the laws of Mahomet-or that the Popish Cerberus, with his three heads of IGNORANCE, SUPERSTITION, and BLIND ZEAL, threatened to tear them to pieces. They perfevered-they were fuccessful-and what they fowed in times of darkness and perfecution, we are reaping in days of light and liberty.

Thank GoD, the aforefaid Cerberus is chained up. He now will bark, and bark he may 'till he be hoarse; the man who minds him can have but little elfe to do.

The author of this book pretends not to be a prophet -but judging from what has been to what may be, he entertains not the leaft doubt, that, a century hence, the world may either wonder at the man who had wILDNESS enough to attack the prefent fyftem of things with regard to marriage, or that there were found people who were ABSURD enough to abufe him for it. This to THOSE WHOM IT MAY CONCERN-VERBUM SAT.

fcripture