commit adultery, and fo the husband, by causing her to do it, is particeps criminis, as an acceffary before the fact, and may be faid himself to commit it; as a man who hires, or causes another to commit a murder, is himself * guilty of murder ;-as David, 2 Sam. xii. 9; Abab, 1 Kings xxi. 19.

This interpretation is not new; for Wetftein, on Matt. xix. 9. mentions fome copies, in which for poxatα-committeth adultery, is red-ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι—caufeth her to commit adultery ; and in one—μοιχαταιτοτ ̓ ἐςιν αναγκάζει μοιχευθηναι—committeth adultery ; that is, compels her to commit adultery. I will conclude this point with obferving, that, in all this, there is not the least hint or glance at

"Committeth adultery] that is, maketh her to com"mit adultery, to wit, the former wife which he sent away from him; comp. Matt. v. 32. He is rightly "faid to do it, who occafions it to be done. It is the "custom of the Hellenists," (Jews, who fpake or wrote in Greek)" to exprefs words of the form Hiphil by ac❝tive verbs." As Rom. viii. 26. where the SPIRIT'S making interceffion for us, is His caufing us to pray in a right manner for ourselves; juft as His crying Abba, Father, (Gal. iv. 6.) is His enabling us fo to cry. Accordingly the apostle, Rom. viii. 15, fpeaks of Him as the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. See Guyfe Paraph. on Rom. viii. 26. and note.

Many exemplifications of this doctrine, as very fenfibly and properly adopted into the law of England, appear in our law-books; but in none more clearly, than in the cafe of Lord Audley, who was indicted for a rape on his own wife, he holding her while another ravished her; he was convicted-and executed. He was likewife as evidently guilty of adultery, as the ravisher himself was. See State Try. vol. i.

polygamy, as condemned, or even mentioned, in thefe texts.

The learned Grotius, whom I have mentioned and quoted, at the beginning of this chapter, as maintaining a new law of CHRIST on the fubject of polygamy, "afterwards

changed his opinion," (fee note, on Grot. de Jure, lib. ii. c. 5. § 9.) "as is plain from his annotations on Matt. v. 32. "where he fhews, that in that place, and "other like paffages of the gofpels, polygamy " is not condemned, but only the abuse of "divorce, from whatever caufe it proceeds.' "Hence (adds Barbeyrac) in that excellent little work-De Verit. Relig. Chrift.-he only fays" The Chriftians follow the ufage of the Germans and Romans, who

66

66

22

66 were

Grotius, in the paffage here alluded to, doth not quote Tacitus fairly, whofe words are" Severa illis matrimonia. Nam foli prope barbarorum fingulis "uxoribus contenti, exceptis admodum paucis, qui non

libidine, fed ob nobilitatem, pluribus ambiuntur "nuptiis." Which proves, that the Germans were, in a degree at leaft, polygamifts. On voit par les dernieres paroles, que, quoique cela fût rare parmi eux, il y en avoit pourtant des exemples; de forte que c'etoit plûtôt une mode, qu'une chofe regardée comme illicite. Barbeyrac on Grot. de Jure, lib. ii. c. 5. note 12. Fr. tranf. "One fees, by the laft words, that though polygamy was rare among "the Germans, there were however examples of it; fo that its rarity rather arofe from fashion than from its "being looked upon as unlawful." As to the Romans, they were alfo polygamifts; for though they lived but with one, who was called uxor, a wife; yet their liberta, and ancilla or ferva, with whom they alfo cohabited, amounted to the fame in point of fact.

Suet.

" were content with one wife. Lib. ii. § 13; " and in the note there introduced, he only " refers to 1 Cor. vii. 4." This text, with the verses preceding it, we have very fully confidered in the last chapter.

Since the first Edition of this work was published, I had a book put into my hands, the title page of which announces its being written on a popular occafion, that is to fay,

the affair of Lord Grofvenor's action against the D. of C." This book is entitled, "Free Thoughts on Seduction, Adultery, and Divorce." The author ftyles himself a Civilian, and, by many parts of the book, seems to be an adept in his profeffion. His remarks are keen-his obfervations fhrewd.-There are fome things in which he may be thought to have gone too far; but there is a stricture on the subject of polygamy, as vulgarly fuppofed to be prohibited by OUR SAVIOUR, Matt. xix. 9. which I will infert here, juft as I find it, leaving it to my readers to make their own remarks upon it.

"It is indeed pretended, that the ftrictness "of conjugal difcipline, fuppofed to be re"commended by the apostle, is confirmed by

Suet. in Vit. J. Caf. faith-that " he made a law, by "which every man, for the fake of propagating children, might marry as many wives as he pleased." M. Antony had two wives at the fame time. So had Craffus, and doubtless many more, whofe names have not reached us.

Bb 4

"our

"our SAVIOUR himself; who is conceived "alfo to have prohibited a man's having more than one wife, as well as a wife's having more than one husband.

68

But this fuppofition is groundless: for, 66 as I before obferved, from our Saviour's "own words, He came not to deftroy the law "or the prophets, but to fulfil them. Now, "under the law, polygamy was allowed; as plainly appears not only from practice but

66

66

precept

*

In faying, Thou shalt not commit adultery,' the law did not fay-thou shalt not "have more than one wife; as it does when, respecting idolatry, it fays, Thou shalt have "" no other gods but me."' It is faid, Thou fhalt not lie with another man's wife;' it "did not fay-Thou shalt not lie with as many ""wives as thou wilt of thy own. On the con66 trary, it appears to have been commonly

"It were taking up the reader's time to little pur"pofe, to prove what is fo generally known; the learned "Selden, in his Uxor Ebraica, fhews fully that a plura"lity of wives was not only allowed of among the He"brews, but amongst almost all other nations, and in " all ages. In the Eaft it was almoft univerfal, as it 66 remains at this day. The ancient Romans indeed did not practise it, though it was not prohibited. Mark "Anthony, I think, was the firft who led the fashion of "having two wives. This fafhion lafted between three "and four hundred years, when it was prohibited by an "exprefs law, under the reign of Theodofius. The Em

peror Valentinian however permitted it in a fuller ex"tent; nor did the Chriftian Bifhops of these times "make any oppofition to this reintroduction of polygamy. Juftinian and the latter councils put a stop to it.

permitted

permitted to have two or more. If a man have two wives, one beloved and another "bated,' &c. Deut. xxi. 15. And again, 2 Sam. xii. 8, the prophet Nathan, reproaching David, fays, Thus faith the LORD GOD, I gave thee thy mafter's house and thy mafter's wives into thy bofom."

"It is true that, after the world became "to be fomewhat populous, and perhaps "fome communities apparently too nu"merous for the land they poffeffed, the *practice of polygamy was prohibited by "the civil magiftrate, for the political ends of Society.

"According to the laws of Juftinian, it "was not lawful to have two wives at a time, nor even a concubine with a wife. The 66 canons of the church also confirm this prohibition, under pretence of its being " founded on the words of our Saviour, in "His reply to the Pharifees. But if we

*There are writers, indeed, who have laboured to "prove, that polygamy does not tend to population. But, "however ingeniously they have argued, they haye "contradicted all the experience both of ancient and "modern times. If there are fome countries, in which "at this day polygamy is allowed, and yet they are not

more populous than others where it is prohibited, the "fact may be accounted for, by various other reasons. "The defolation, occafioned by the plagues, wars, fa"mine, and licentiousness of thofe countries, would pro"bably have long fince depopulated them entirely, had not polygamy been allowed."

❝ turn