were, to execute his plans of wickedness, "" at a time when he thinks the unfeasonable"nefs of the hour, and the darkness of the "night, will conceal him from the eyes of "all." This man is, in Job, called 8—an adulterer, or defiler of other men's wives. That the fame character is meant by the fon of Sirach, is evident, from comparing Ecclus xxiii. 18. with Job xxiv. 15; and the punishment faid to await him, Ecclus xxiii. 21. with that affigned to adulterers, Lev. xx. 10. Deut. xxii. 22, 24. Another reafon of the difference, that is to fay, why polygamy fhould be allowed to the man, and no fuch liberty belong to the woman, arifes alfo from the inferiority evidently stamped upon the woman by the GOD of nature, by whom she is placed under the abfolute power of her husband, fo that she cannot dispose of her perfon, on any occafion, or to any purpose whatfoever, to any other but to himself, asmay appear from Gen. iii. 16. She is not at liberty to make any contract whatsoever, without her husband's confent-even religious vows are utterly void; fhe cannot perform them if the bufband difagreeth thereto. Numb. xxx. 8. The wife is TOTασσoμεvy Twidiw dvdpi-subjected to her own proper husband, i Pet. iii. 1. The apoftle Paul ufes the fame expreffion, when he fays, Rom. xiii. 1. Let every foul be fubjected (inoτascot) to the higher powers. But none of these things are faid on the fide of the man-even in teaching in the congregation, the apostle marks out the woman's inferiority-1 Tim. ii. 11. Let the woman learn in filence with all fubjection-I fuffer not a woman to teach, nor to ufurp authority over the man, but to be in filence. Again, the fame apoftle faith-The head of the woman is the manthe man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man; neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 1 Cor. xi. 3, 8, 9. It appears then from the nature of things, as conftituted by the Creator him felf, that the man hath powers which the woman hath not, and therefore may use a freedom of action which the * woman cannot. The apostle's faying, the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man, reminds me of the manner in which CHRIST vindicated his difciples, when they were accused by the Pharifees of breaking the fabbath, because they plucked fome ears of corn on the fabbathday-He faid unto them, The fabbath was made for man, and not man for the fabbath, wherefore the Son of Man is LORD alfo of the Jabbath. The reader may transfer this argument, by parity of reafon, to the other fubject which we have been speaking of; and it furnishes a proof, by no means inconclufive, why a man may be a polygamist, but a woman not. But we may go farther, and obferve, that *Befides all this, it may be faid, that the more wives a man hath, the more children he is likely to have; but this cannot be on the woman's fide; for fhe cannot breed the oftner by having more men than one.-Such a mixture is known to be even deftructive of conception, fo that the more men a woman may have, the less likely is the to breed at all. This furely affords a ftrong proof that pos lyandry (as it is called) is contrary to nature. without this difference, the grand ends of GOD's moral government, with respect to the commerce of the fexes, would not have been provided for. The very laws themselves, which were made to fecure thofe ends on both fides, must have become mere cyphers. If polygamy had been permitted on the woman's fide, what muft become of that law-Deut. xxii. 22. If a man (if any man whatfoever) be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. So thou shalt put away evil from IsRAEL? If the having more wives than one at a time had been forbidden the man, what, in numberless inftances, must have become of Deut. xxii. 28, 29. If a man (was before-if any man whatsoever) find a damfel that is a virgin which is not betrothed-and lie with her-fhe fhall be his wife; because he hath bumbled her, he may not not put her away all his days? The first of these laws (as that of Lev. xx. 10.) was apparently to fecure the man against the treachery of the woman—the second (as Exod. xxii. 16.) to fecure the woman against the treachery of the man—and both to fecure the world from that confufion and mischief which must be brought upon it (and are daily brought upon it by our disregard of thefe laws) by the treachery of either. As the woman had the bufinefs of parturition allotted to her, the muft neceffarily be looked upon as the repofitory of those bonds and cements of human fociety, without which ît cannot * fubfift; fuch as family defcents, pedigrees, genealogies, inheritances, and all communications and diftinctions of relationship. Therefore the Creator did, in his infinite wisdom, fet bounds to the commerce of the fexes, on the part of the woman, which could not be passed under pain of death. Whoredom and fornication are, for the same reafons, alfo inimical to thofe bonds of human fociety above-mentioned, introductory of all manner of confufion and wickednefs, incon The rabbinical explanation of the word -in Exod. xx. 14. has fomething very striking in it. R. Levi faith, that "this word, abfolutely and fimply, denotes congress with the wife of another man. Nor is it ufed "but where a married woman is concerned. The reason "of this precept is, that the world fhould be peopled "agreeably to the will of GOD. The bleffed GoD "willed, that all creatures of the world fhould bring forth fruit according to their refpective fpecies, and "that one fpecies fhould not be mixed nor confounded "with another. He willed that the fame fhould obtain "with respect to the human offspring, that it might ap66 pear whofe child every man was, and that the feed of one fhould not be confounded with that of another. "Moreover, many corruptions are found in adultery, which occafion the breach of many commandments. GOD commanded to honour parents; but in case of adultery they cannot be known. So we are forbidden any intercourse of marriage with fifters, and other relatives; but adultery tends to deftroy thefe laws; for, where this is, men cannot know their own relations.' Thus fpeak the Rabbins, agreeably to the fcriptures, and matter of fact, therefore are worth attending to in this point. The reader muft furely fee, very evidently, reafons for the feventh commandment on the woman's fide, which cannot apply on the man's, and why adultery, or defiling a man's wife, was made fo penal to both parties concerned, 66 fiftent fiftent with the law of marriage, and the probable caufes of ruin and deftruction to the female fex.-Therefore, as feduction and dereliction muft, in the very nature of things, lead to these, the pofitive law of God forbids any man to take a virgin, and then abandon her. As to what has been said touching the harmony of the Old and New Testaments, and the perpetual obligation of the moral law as to its immutability, fo that what it once forbad it always forbids, and what it did not forbid can never be forbidden-it is a point of fuch infinite confequence, as to deferve a recapitulation-and as I cannot fum up the matter in words more clear and forcible, than our church has done in her feventh article, I will introduce the conclufion of this chapter with that found and fcriptural account of the matter: "The Old Teftament is not contrary to the "free |