"turn to the text, we shall find that no fuch "prohibition is there either expreffed or implied.

66

"I fay unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. Matt. .. xix. 9.

66

Very true, but if, without putting away "his wife, he marry another, (as was the cafe "with Jacob; when, after marrying Leah, "he married also her fifter Rachel) it does not appear that he would commit adultery.

"It is the putting away the first wife only, "that made the marrying a fecond, adul"tery. Nor is even this a direct commiffion "of that fin, but an indirect one; as fuch "difmiffion of the firft would naturally tend "to make her form a connection with fome "other man; which would be direct adultery. "This is plain from the words, in which "the fame prohibition is expreffed in another place, by the fame Evangelift, I say unto 6 youa that whofoever shall put away his wife, "Saving for the cause of fornication, caufeth "ber to commit adultery.' Matt, v. 32.

"It is true that some of our most learned "divines have been of opinion, that the adul

tery lay in marrying the fecond wife, and "not in the putting away of the first. But in "this they have fhewn themselves to be "better canonifts than cafuifts. Even Bishop "Cofens fays, it is not the difmiffion of the "first wife that is adulterous, but the mar

«rying

rying of the fecond. But this is clearly "mistake; not only, because polygamy was allowed at the time when our SAVIOUR'S injunction, refpecting a man's putting away his wife, was promulgated; but be"caufe the contrary appears on the very face of the text.

"The Pharifees did not afk Jefus about "the lawfulness of a plurality of wives; but "merely about putting away their wives: and "though he answered them in a fuller man

ner than they seemed to require, he can"not be fuppofed to mistake the full drift and fenfe of their query.

"The question was, Is it lawful for a " ¶ man to put away his wife for every cause?" "The reply is, Whosoever shall put away " his wife, except for fornication (and fhall

marry another) committeth adultery.' That "is, indirectly, by depriving her of the

protection of a husband, and reducing her to the neceffity of accepting that of fome "other man; agreeable to the words of the text before quoted, caufeth her to commit adultery.

66

"Our Saviour indeed goes farther, and "explains his meaning diftinctly, in adding, "And whofo marrieth her which is put away, "doth commit adultery. But how fo, unless "the criminality depended on the incapacity "of the first husband to put her away ? This "indeed made it adultery in the man marry

ing a woman thus unjustly divorced, be

"cause

"caufe fhe was ftill the firft man's wife, and "not lawfully separated *.

66

66

"That this was certainly the meaning of our Saviour, cannot be doubted. Mofes, "fays he, because of the hardness of your hearts, Suffered you to put away your wives. Or "rather, as the tranflators have more properly expreffed it in Mark x. 5. for the hardness " of your heart.

"A mere English reader might, from the "former expreffion of Matthew, take occa"fion to fay, that the term wives in the plu"ral, is no more applicable to the individual "than that of hearts; and that the former

"The legality of the divorce appears evidently to "depend on the fornication on the part of the woman, "which ipfo facto diffolved the marriage; or, what "amounted to the fame thing, gave the hufband a right

to do it at pleasure, by giving his bill of divorce; and "this feems to be particularly expreffed in reply to the "queftion, Whether a man might put away his wife for "every caufe?' and alfo to the additional queftion, "Why then did Mofes command, to give a writing of di"vorcement, and to put her away; i. e. for every, or 66 6 any caufe?'-It is this circumftance, viz. the fa"cility of men's divorcing their wives at pleasure, that "accounts for the non-ufage of polygamy in countries

where it was allowed by law. It has been already "obferved, that the ancient Romans did not indulge "themselves in polygamy, though permitted; but this "was for a good reafon: they wifely chose not to have "two wives in the house at the fame time, and therefore *repudiated one before they took another; and this "they did as often as they pleased, with no other for"mality than that of fending a message to the wife by "a flave, giving notice of their intentions, after the "manner of the Hebrews."

"word,

"word, as well as the latter, must be meant "of their wives collectively, and not of the "wives of each feverally: but the original is « in both places the fame-Προς την σκληροnapdiav upar-Beza has it-pro duritia cor"dis veftri-for your hardness of heart, in the fingular number; but it is dimittere uxores veftras-put away your wives, in the plural, conformable to the original.

"That this is the true fenfe of the text, " is farther confirmed by the remark which "the disciples of Jefus made on it, in the fucceeding verfe.

66

"It runs in the vulgar tranflation thus: If the cafe of the man be fo with his wife, it " is good not to marry.

"But the verfion is here also palpably "defective. By the man, may be mistaken

66

"<tion.

ly understood, a particular husband; and by "his wife, may in like manner be understood "his fole and only wife; but the word his, is foifted into the text; it is indeed usually printed in Italics, to denote the interpolaThis prohibition is expreffed, on "the contrary, in the moft general terms. "Si tale eft hominis negotium cum uxore, fays. "Beza: conformable to the original-s σε πως εςιν η αιτία τε άνθρωπε μετα της γυναικός, "not the particular cafe between any one "husband and his fole wife; but the matri"monial commerce (negotium) between the "fexes in general; or, as Vafor explains "it, the condition or relative fituation

" of a husband refpecting his wives. Si ed "eft conditio viri, &c.

If any other argument were neceffary, "to establish the fenfe of this reply, which "our Saviour gave to the defigning Pharifees;

perhaps fome confirmation of it may be "drawn from the queftion, put to him "by the Sadducees, with a defign equally * finifter.

"A woman, fay they (fucceffively) married feven bufbands, At the refurrection whose "wife fhall fhe be?-Had a plurality of wives "not been permitted by the divine law, it "would have better answered their end, if

they had proposed the fame problem, with

a change of terms; and afked him, if a "man had fucceffively. feven wives, to which "of them, at the refurrection, would the "husband belong?"

In justice to our author, I cannot conclude my quotations from him, without giving, in his own words, the caveat which he enters, against the practice of polygamy." But I

am not pleading either for the piety or "morality of polygamy. Under the Chriftian "difpenfation, and in times like thefe, F " conceive one wife to be enough, if not too "much, for any one man. Add to this, that, "whether it be contrary to the law of GoD or not, it is expressly contrary to that of man; being forbidden in England by the " written laws of the land." Our author might have strengthened this part of his argu

ment;