It

which forbad, abfolutely forbad, both. is therefore as impoffible that CHRIST should condemn polygamy as adultery, as that He fhould allow adultery as lawful commerce; because the first was adding to the law, which never forbad it, the other diminishing from the law, which pofitively for bad adultery with another man's wife. Exod. xx. 14. explained Lev. xx. 10.

To fuppofe that Gop fhould ever revoke, alter, or change thofe moral inftitutes, which were revealed under the Old Teftament for the regulation and government of mankind, is to fuppofe fome defect in the DEITY, fome want of prefcience to forefee mifchiefs which might arife, and which were not fufficiently guarded againft. This argues an imbecillity or weakness of understanding and knowledge, like that of human legiflators, who make laws to remedy evils as they arife before them, but cannot tell what a day may bring forth; and therefore repeal at one time, the law which they made at another. When we argue for the immutability of the law, we argue for the perfection of it, which is, in other words, to contend for the perfection of HIM that made it.

When God created the heavens and the earth, He gave them a law which cannot be broken; by this law the material univerfe is governed, and will be governed to the confummation of all things. The leaft departure from it, either by addition or diminution, would throw the whole into diforder, confufion, and

ruin. So with refpect to the moral world, the laws which GoD once gave for the regulation and government of this, are equally Jure and fedfaft; and it is owing to a departure from thefe, that diforder, confufion, and ruin are the portion of wretched man.

The divine law, as delivered from GoD by Mofes, may be compared to a golden chain; the feveral ftatutes which compofe it are the links. Now we know, that whichever link of a chain be broken, all that is fufpended by it must fall to the ground. That the fecurity and protection of the weaker fex against the deceit, violence, and cruelty of the stronger, depend wholly on the law of GOD, is a truth which none, who admit that GOD ever gave a law, will difpute. And fhall we fuppofe that CHRIST came into the world to weaken that fecurity, by deftroying fome of the links of the chain on which it is fufpended? and this by introducing a new law, fo contrary to the law which was given by Mofes, that men, in fome fituations, cannot obey the one, without tranfgreffing the other? This is making CHRIST's acts like the threatening of Rehoboam, 1 Kings xii. 11. Whereas my father did lade you with an heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father bath chaftifed you with whips, but I will chaftife you with fcorpions.-But far, far be it from us, to impute fuch a proceeding to Him who came not to deftroy men's lives, but to fave them. Luke ix. 56.—That no fuch thing is chargeable upon Him, will appear ftill more plainly, on our taking a

nearer

nearer and more critical view of thofe paffages' of the gospels, in which CHRIST is fuppofed to condemn polygamy as adultery. The first which I shall take notice of, as introductory to the reft, is Matt. v. 31, 32. It hath been. faid, Whosoever fshall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I Say unto you, that whosoever shall put away bis wife, faving for the cause of fornication, causeth ber to commit adultery; and whofoever fhall marry. ber that is divorced, committeth adultery. Here our LORD fhews that there is but one lawful caufe of divorce in the fight of GOD, fo as to fet the husband entirely free from the wife. The Jews, on the contrary, had been taught by the rabbies, that a man who wanted to get rid of his wife, had nothing to do but to give her a bill of divorcement, and this for any cause whatfoever. But CHRIST fhews, that fuch unjust divorces had no operation on the bond of marriage; fo that marrying fuch a divorced woman, was as much an act of adultery, as if the man had taken her while The cohabited with her husband. CHRIST

*

The Jews themfelves held, that there were two forts of men who never could divorce their wives: Firstthose who failed in their proofs against them on the trial mentioned Deut. xxii. 13-19.-Secondly, thofe who had laid hold on them and lain with them, without betrothment or efpoufals, Deut. xxii. 29; for in both those cafes it is especially faid-He may not put her away all his days. As for us Chriftians, we fuffer a man to take and divorce as many women as he can feduce, provided they have no other claim upon him, than what the pofitive law of GOD gives them.

did

did not declare this, as if it had been lawful under the Old Teftament, and now made unlawful by fome new law of His, but on the footing of the primary inftitution of marriage from the very beginning, as will appear when we farther confider the paffage in Matt. xix. on which the conceit is founded, that " palygamy is forbidden by the law of "CHRIST." Suffice it to obferve at prefent, that in this place of Matt. v. 31, 32. nothing is faid about polygamy, or a man's having two wives.

Our LORD fays-caufeth her to commit adultery. How fo?-Firft-by laying her under the temptation, which may be fuppofed to be not a little heightened by her refentment against her husband, who had firft ufed her ill, and then divorced her; efpecially where this was done for the fake of taking another woman whom he liked better. Secondly

-fhe was tempted to it by the very terms of the bill * of divorcement, which was to the following effect

"Such

*The bill of divorcement was, as practifed by the Jews, attended with fo many circumftances of difficulty (as may be feen in Selden, Ux. Hebr. lib. vi. c. 25. p. 514.) that it seems to have been an invention rather to prevent divorces, than to promote them. However, it is very clear from our LORD's difcourfe with the Phafees, Matt. xix. that they were not only used, but abused, to a very great degree,

It is remarkable that at Rome, from the foundation of the republic to the first divorce, there was a space of 520 years; though the men had a power of divorcing their wives almoft at plcafure. This affords no fmall proof

of

"Such a day, fuch a month, and year, I "fuch a one, of fuch a place, do, of my own free confent and choice, repu"diate thee A. B. my late wife, banish "thee from me, and restore thee to thy

own liberty, and thou mayeft hence"forth go whither, and marry whom, "thou wilt. And this is thy bill of "divorcement and writing of expulfion,

according to the law of Mofes and Ifrael. Signed by two witneffes." See Univ. Hift. vol. iii. p. 149.

The people having been taught that fuch a bill of divorcement was a valid diffolution of the marriage, the woman of course believed, that the, having received it, was free to marry any other man, as much as if her hufband had been dead; and thus was the caufed, by this deceit, to marry another, by which, in truth, and in the fight of GOD, the com→ mitted adultery.

of the chastity and good behaviour of the Roman matrons during that period. And indeed the account we have of that first divorce, need not leffen them in our esteem; for Carvilius Ruga did not divorce his wife for any fault in her, but because he had no children by her: therefore, thinking himself bound by a foolish oath, which the Cenfors at that time caufed people to take, he put her away, and married another. See Ant. Univ. Hift. vol. iii. p. 148. note W. and vol. xii. p. 216.

In after times, the Roman women grew fo debauched and profligate, that when Severus mounted the throne, he found on the roll of caufes to be tried, no less than three thoufand profecutions for adultery. He had formed a fcheme of reformation, which from that moment he abandoned as impoffible, See Alexander's Hift. of Wom. vol. i. 252.

The