■ri^^wmf^^wr^ L \N(o>rV^, xxi. 14. the high priejl muji not take a 'ividow, a divorced woman, or prophane, or an harlot J but he muft take a virgin of his own people to wife. — the virgin of his own people is pppofed to the prohibited women, but there is no virgin among the prohibited, unlefs it be the divorced woman, a. virgin-captive : i. e. if Bifhop Patrick has rightly underftood — the prophane, ver. 7. of fuch who had proftituted their bodies, to the myfteries of idolatry, may not this give the fenfe of the fhameful thing ? — a confefllon made by the fair captive, under the efpoufals, would give the information. Lev. xxii. 12, 13. affirms, that if a priefi*$ daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father'' s houfe ; as in her youth, fhe fhall eat her father^ s meat 5 }?ut there J}j all no fir anger eat thereof. Patrick obferves, that flranger here, does not intend one who was not an Ifraelite : it is not Nechar, but Zar, which fignifies any one to whom a thing does not belong -, one, not of the /^aronical family, which feems to be a jufl criticifm ; for none of the Hebrezv women were allowed to marry llrangers in the former ienfe. Numb, xxxvi. thofe of the other tribes, were [ '7 ] were only to marry into their own tribes, if they had any inheritance or lands which belong- ed to their families, but this was not a reftric- tion to a prieft's daughter. — as to her divorced, it fhould mean one that had no child, becaufe admitted to her father's board, and to eat of the holy things, allotted only for the priefts and their family. Here arifes a confiderable difficulty, that would perplex my hypothefis, if underftood m the reftrained fenfe of the word, Garajh^ as a divorce, i. e. from the w^ife not ha- ving found favor in the eyes of her hufband. but there is another fenfe much more natural and reconcileable to the intention or fpirit of this law, vix. the divorce meaning no more than poverty and extreme want driving her from the houfe of her hufband. this fhould be the meaning of the expreffion. for in this cir- cumftance, though the hufband be reduced to extreme indigence along with his wife •, yet as a ftranger, the law forbad that either he or his children fhould eat of the offerings, facred to the prieft and his family, Lev. x. 14. compare with this another ftatute, chap. xxv. 39. if thy hr other he waxen poor., and be fold unto thee, thou jhalt not compel him to ferve as a bond fervant -, as an hired fervant.^ a fojourner fDall he be with thee until the year of jubilee. — if he, the poor man, was the hufband of a prieft's daughter, this provifion was made for his wife, during the time of his fcrvitude •, or of this her fepa- ration from him. the Hebrew word rendered, divorce, does not neceflfarily fuppofe a man's D turn- [ >8 ] turning away his wife j but is put for other kinds of expulfiQn, Gen. iv. 14. Cain fais, be- hold, ihou Lijt driven me out this day. Exod. xi. I. he fhall furely thrufl you cut. xii. 2,9' becaufe they were thruji out. xxxiv. n. behold, I drive out (divorce) i^efore thee the /Imorite. If. Ivii. 20. whofe 'waters caft out mire and- dirt, thus po- verty, want, the hufband's going into fervitude might thrujt out the wife, and fo divorce her. 4. The abfolute unlawfulnefs of the Jem^% divorcing, or voluntary putting away his He- hrew wite, is determined by that paffage in Malachi ii. 14, 15, 16. where he reproves the idolatries of Ifrael^ by an exprefs allufion to the matrimonial law — the Lord has been witnefs between thee and the wife of thy youthy againji whom thou haft dealt treacheroufty : yet is Jke thy companion., and the wife of thy covenant, and did not he make one ? yet he had the refidue., or ex- cellency of the fpirit ! and wherefore one ? that he might feek an holy feed : therefore take heed to your fpirit., and let none deal treacheroujly or unfaithfully againfl the wife of his youth, for the Lord, the God of Ifrael fait h^ that he hateth put- ting AWAY, or difmifling. fo the word Sha" lach is ufed, Exod. ix. 7 . and he did not let the people go. it ftands for negledt, Prov. xxix. 15. a child left-r-i. e. a negledled child bringeth his mother ftjame. — God hates all putting away, all negleds of t!ie wife, whom his inftitution re- quires fliopld be treated with facred regard. It follows, by fiiir dedudion, that Mofes's fufliring tlicm to put awav their wives, becaufe of [ '9 ] of the hardnefs of their hearts, cannot denote any, the leaft approbation ; but barely fuch a permifTion as he found altogether unavoida- ble, the permifllon itfelf intimated the obdura- cy of their hearts, and the record of it, is a monument of their fenfuality. Dr. Lightfoot thinks, " Mofes propofed the law of divorce to mitigate the law which de- nounced death on the adulterefs." * — if this fenfe will agree with our Lord's declaration, that Mojes fuffered this for the hardnefs of their hearts ; it would then follow, the law of di- vorce was confined to thofe wives only who had forfeited their lives by a defilement of the marriage bed. — but then a confiderable diffi- culty Will fland in our way, to zvit, how comes it to pafs that Jefus fhould fay, from the begin- ning it was not fox and yet, with the fame breath encourage the continuance of the inno- vation ? as he appears to do, when he fais, xhat fornication will juftify the putting away, whofoever fhall put away his wife, except for for- nication, which exception, would be as ample a permiflion as that of Mojes^ in the fenfe of that learned writer. Bernardinus OchinuSy an Italian, whofe dia- logues on polygamy and divorce were printed ztBafil, in the year 1563. and the tranQation at London, 1657. has fuppofed St. Paul to con- tradidl his mafter, when he fais, unto the mar- ried I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her hufhand^ &c. alfo let not the hufhand put away his wife. \ * Works, vol. I. p. 146. f Dialogue of divorce, p. 31. D 2 The [ 20 ] The Italian did not fee the manifeft diflfe^ rence. our Lord refers to the violation of the marriage covenant, when putting away may be juftified. St. Paul has in his eye the cafe of chriftian men or women having infidel ^wives or hufbands. in which circumftance, fome hacj weakly imagined that their chriftianity obliged them to a feparation : which St. Paul fais it did not, unlefs the infidel party was dilfatif- fied, and refufed the cohabitation. Ochinus again obferves, that fome fay, " be- caufe the hufband is head of the wife, and has authority over her, he may, upon the occafi- on aforefaid, put her away, which the wife can- not do to the hufband, as having no fuch au- thority." * This fuperiority can furely be no reafon of divorce •, becaufe by the very exercife of this a6l of fovereignty, the fuperiority is quite loft and gone, fo that for the man to aflert his fu- periority over the woman in putting her away, he would do juft the fame thing as aflert his authority, by an ad of refignation thereof, but although he is head of the woman, fhe is his glory, divorcing of her would then be no other illuftrious difplay of his authority, than that of ftripping off and laying afide his glory. Numb. XXX. 9. makes mention of the vow which a woman had made under her divorce as binding : but does not ^?it&. the hypothefis ; becaufe, in all probability, applicable to the di- vorced ftranger, or fair captive in her widow- * Dialague of divorce, p. 37. hpod. [ 2' ] hood, cjery vciv of a zvidow, and of her that is divorced^ ivherewith they have bound their fouls^ fhallfiand againfl her. — her father had no fuch power over her, as before marriage. Deut. xxii. 19. fais, the man who unjuft- ly brought an evil name upon his wife, detect- ed in his crime, fJoould be amerced an hundred Jhekels offilver ; and he might not put away his wife all his days — he is obhged to conftant care of her, and his teftimony againfl her, proba- bly, would never, after this vile attempt upon her life, be accounted valid or legal. — but had he proved his point, it does not appear he could have given her a divorce •, but rather that the fentence of death would have paiTed upon her. Should it be obje6led, that the fuppofed fhameful things which occafioned the divorce of the fair captive, has no foundation •, be- caufe the Je'-jjs were commanded, as in the cafe of the Midianites, to fpare no woman that had known man ? Numb. xxxi. 1 7. The reply to this would be, the cafe was fpecial, as the Midianite women had been the de filers of Ifrael. Patrick obferves, " this was a peculiar cafe, wherein a middle courfe was held, between thofe that were of the feven na- tions of Canaan^ and thofe that were not. if of the latter, the Ifraelites might take the wo- men and little ones to themfelves Deut. xx. 14, 15. if of the former, every thing that breathed were to be deflroyed, ver. 16, 17, indeed the law of arms, Deut. xx. 10 — 14, is, when thou comeji nigh unto a city to fght againfi I 22 ] ii, then proclaim peace unto it. and it Jhall be^ if it make thee anfwer of peace^ and open unto thee, then it fhall he^ that all the people found therein, fhall he tributaries to thee, and they fhall ferve thee, and if it will make no peace with thee, — when delivered to thee, thoufhalt fmite every male thereof with the edge of the fword. hut the •women, * and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city — thoufhalt take unto thyfelf. '. — after this follows an exception of the Canaa- nites. From this account it is manifeft, that the rigor ufed with the Midianites was not always obferved : and that among their fair captives they might miftake in fixing their eyes on fuch whom they took for virgins. The preliminaries, which they were en- joined the obfervance of in their marrying the captive women, are remarkable, fhemuji Jhave her head, and pare her nails, very likely this was to be done in token of her bewailing her idolatrous extradlion, and renouncing thofe cuftoms. fhe muft alfo, of her own accord, put off the raiment of her captivity ; perhaps that had been worn in honour of fome idol — and bewail her father and mother, for a month, at leaji. who had been cut offin the battle. — fo the Jews mourned a like time, viz. thirty days. I-earned men are indeed divided in their fenfe of thefe prehminaries ; but it is more probable that the defign of the law-giver, was * I reckon this means the young women j fuppofed virgins . to [ ^3 ] to abate the fury of their luftful pafiions,' bv depriving her of her hair, and her greatelt or- naments ; and giving him time tor cool and fober refledion. 5. This interpretation feems to account for the total filence of the divorce of hufbands. I fee not how they could praftife divorce m the cafe of adultery, when Lev. xx. 10. made it death, and death too both to the adulterer and the adukerefs. 6. The law which obliged the next of kin to a deceafed Jew to marry his widow, if he died childnefs, is an argument againft barren- nels being the reafon of divorce under that conftitution -, for it fuppofeth unfruitfulnefs occafioned on the fide of the male, which was not to be remedied till his death, Deut. xxv, 5 — 10. moreover, the Jewefs, who had been the wife of an Tfrcielite, was not to marry a ftranger •, but mult be provided for in the tribe of her hufband. a reafon in proof of the pro- pofition, viz. that a Jeivefs could not be intend- by the wife that might be divorced on account of a matter of Ihame, if underflood of her unfruitfulnefs. The corrupt glofTes which thcjeivs had given of the law of divorce, and their vile praftices in the tim^e of Chrift's miniilry, ought, by no means, to be taken for the lenfe of Mofes. — for Lightfoot has obferved from the talmu- dicd writers, that they put away their wives upon any, and almofb every trifling pretence. [ 24 ] " As if fhe was not of a good behaviour,' and not modeft, in the fenfe and tafte of her hufband. If a man hate his wife let him put her away, excepting only that wife which he firft mar- ried. If the wife was not a good cook, and did not pleafe her hufband in faking or roafting his meat; he muft put her away. If fhe become, by the hand of God^ dumb, Befides many other things too immodeft to be mentioned. R. Akibah faid, if any man fees a woman more handfome than his own wife, he may put her away •, becaufe it is faid, if Jloe find not favour in his eyes^ * Patrick fais, the Jews extended their rea- fons of divorce, even to a (linking breath, -f That mailer in reafoning, Locke^ has fome- thing upon divorce, perhaps as httle worthy of him, as any thing that ever dropped from his pen. for having fpoken of the human offspring, he fais, " — but though thefe are ties upon mankind which make the conjugal bonds more firm and lading in man than in the other fpecies of animals ; yet it would give one reafon to enquire, why this compadl, where procreation and education are fecured, and in- heritance taken care for, may not be made de- terminable, either by confent, or at a certain time, or upon certain conditions, as well as any other voluntary compacts, there being no ne- * IVo'-ks, vol, II. p. 14.6, 147. f On Deuf.xx'i. i, ceflity [ 25 ] ccfiity in the nature of the thing, nor to the ends of it, that it fliould always be for life ; I mean, to fuch as are under no reftraint of any pofitive law, which ordains all fuch ■ contracts to be perpetual." * The beil apology I am able to make for this excellent man, is, he was a batchelor, and had no adequate ideas of the fubje£i he wrote tip- en-, otherwife, he would have known, that the conjugal fociety will bear no manner of com- parifon with the brutal couplings ! and the union, he would have found, to be much too facred and interefting to bear a dilTolution from any other hand than that of death, for many aged pairs, who have lived, even to an half century of years, in love and harmony, I doubt not, could with as much eafe refign life, as fub- mit to a previous determination of the conju- gal fociety. The very inftitution has this afpefl in the original ; they two fl^all he one flejh, and what God hath Joined together^ let no man put a/under. our blelTed Lord has delivered himfelf on this fubjeft, in the very fpirit of the original, no chriftian man, may, with impunity put away his wife, if flie has not defiled his bed. and becaufe they are no more twain ^ but one flejhy^ a. voluntary feparation is unnatural, and in- confiftent with the inflitution. The difciples of Jefus objed to the fenle he gave of the conjugal law ; they fay, if the cafe of a man be fo with his wife^ it is not good, ex- E pedient * Of Government y B. ii. ch. vii.Ss6l.8i. [ *6 ] pedicnt or proper to marry, the tie, they think, is much too rigorous and unyielding, their former conceptions of the law, had more lati- tude of fentiment and praftice. Jefus replies, ell ghe net place, accede or yield to this word, or fenfe of the law : but to them it is given, i. e. the Jews might all of them fee that this is the natural, obvious fenfe of the original inftitu- tion of marriage, it is of the very nature of the conjugal union, that the bond be indiflbluble. all who marry fliould fo underfland it •, yet there are numbers who will not yield to this unforced conftruftion. Thus I have underftood Matth. xix. ii. om •jTXvlc; yniii^vn rov Xoycv, aAA' ok SiSorxi. all do HOt give place to this law, neverthelefs to them it is given, the conjunftion axxa, is fo rendered, Rom. v. 14. and if our Lord has his eye on the cuftom of divorce as a violation of the law of marriage, the fenfe is eafy. — as to the inftances which follow of Eunuchs, they are the excep- tions to matrimony itfclf, which then had place among the Jews -, but did by no means affect the fenfe given of the matrimonial law. fome of thefe were phyfically incapable of matri- mony-, others fuperilitioufly made celebacy elTential to religious character •, however the reafonablenefs of the law is fuch, that he who is able to receive it, let him receive it. q. d. put no difficulties upon him. This fenfe I prefer to that of our Lord's in^ tending, '* all cannot live pure and chafte with;- out marriage : but fome only who have the gift of continejice." my reafons are, becaufe in ^ th? [ V J the inftances ofEunucbs, two of the three forts, argue great defedls and injuries to the bodily frame, viz. thofe born imperfeft, and thofe maimed by men. and as to the other, the third fort, the mortification appears to have been the refult of a rehgious frenzy ; namely, per- fons taking it into their own heads, that cele* bacy is a quahfication for the kingdom of hea- ven, furely none of thefe intend a divine gift. — but of this in the proper place, when we come profefledly to treat on the fubjefl. The inftru6lion given, plainly reftores the loft genuine fenfe of the conjugal law to its primitive dignity and glory ! it cenfures and condemns the unhallowed freedoms which tha Jew had taken with that inlHtution ; more par- ticularly in the article of divorce. — The infti- tution in its pure fenfe, beft ferves the interefts of focieties. and Bifhop Patrick obferves, " that for 500 years or more, the Roman ftate fiourifh-' ed without the ufe of divorces." but admit that they did allow a diflblution of the marriage contract by confent ; yet, this is no good au- thority, when we advert to the original, the divine law. neither Ihould it have any weight in the argument, that in bilateral contracfts a- mong men, in commercial or civil life, a dif- folution of covenants may take place by mu- tual confent : " for Civilians properly deny, that marriage is a contract ; becaufe it relates to perfons, and their infeparable union, which are not things in commerce." — * but if in bi- lateral contracts the obligation cannot be diffol- * Heinccdus on uniV. Law, Vol. I, Se^. 1%^. by Turn- hul. E 2 ved. [ 28 ] ved, only by mutual confent ; much lefs can the marriage covenant by the mere will of ei- ther the man or the woman, and even with mu- tual confent, where the bed has not been defi- led, the feparation has no warrant in the fenfe of Jejus^ or the original inftitution. it is a lawlefs fituation. Having thus largely treated on divorce, I will proceed to the fubjecls of polygamy and celebacy in the next chapter. CHAP. II. Of Polygamy and Celebaey, SOME have faid, ^^ I hat polygamy is alkw ed of under the gofpel conjlitution** Previoufly to a difcufTion of this matter, fome things may be noticed. — Ihould it be granted that propagation and a convenient edu- cation of children, are the two great ends of conjugal fociety j it might be eafily proved, that thefe very ends are bell accompliihed by monogamy, or fingle intercourfe in wedlock, yet, if in fome inftances, thefe ends fail in the pure and fimple intercourfe i the interefls of fociety are no more injured in thefe refpedls, than they are by thofe who remain celebate. but where-ever the conjugal union is made with reafonable and human intention, it is in- finitely preferable to the impure, and worfe than brutal conjundipiis, only defigned to fi- liate luft. * - However [ 29 1 However the defenders of polygamy fay, la favor of it, — *' that it does not hinder propa- gation. — nor render the offspring uncertain. — that the people of God have approved of it. — that edu- cation of the offspring is not injured by it. — and that the hujband's vigor, or the wife^s bdrrennejs has made it proper.** Thefe are bold and fpecious declarations, yet if polygamy be found inconfillent with a juft obfervance of the matrimonial law, thefe affirmations will then appear to be, in truth, fophiftical and trifling. — in confutation of the firft article, vi-z. that polygan^ does not hinder propagation^ I refer my reader to Dr. Delany^s re^ flexions y &c, — he has Ihewn, *' that the increafe of the human fpecies is manifeftly checked, and their miferies multipUed by that permif- fion, in every region of the habitable world- and that monogamy is that right and regular commerce of the fexes, that true focial union of the affections and interefts which God in- tended and nature demandeth. fo that whoe- ver confiders all thefe evils, and abhorreth not polygamy the parent of them all, that man has a foul utterly eftranged from all focial and bene- volent affedions -, from all true love of liber- ty, and reverence of virtue •, and from all awe, honour, and veneration ofthefupreme being.'* This writer has with much labor and judg- ment demonftrated the great injury that poly- gamy is of, refpeding the increafe of the hu- mMi fpecies, where-ever it is permitted, be- fides, an objeftion would have lain againll the Mofaic account of the creation of man, and of r 30 ] of the inftitution of marriage, if fingle com- munion were not, in fa6l, the befl and moft cffcdual method of peopling the world, but the obfervations of many learned men, prove the pointj beyond any reafon of debate. To proceed with the argument ; we may allow to the polygamifts, *' that it is not the forms fo properly as the tie of marriage^ that innds one man to one woman.''* but then, even the forms are needful in fociety. how elfe would any claims of defcendants, in the right of anceftors, be made good ? fome form, no matter what, any that is agreed upon by the community for the fatisfadion of the public, perhaps the lefs private the ceremony, and the better, it would have a tendency to prevent impofitions, deceptions, and mal-pradices, the frequent occafion of great infelicities to per- fons and families, the very nature of the con- trail feems too facred, and the connections it has with fociety too many and important to admit of privacy and concealment in the cele- bration of the nuptials. " every one knows how marriages were made among the Romans^ confarreatione, cccmptione^ ufu : of which ways the two former were attended with many ce- remonies : and the legitimes tahsll^^ or at lead confent of friends, preceded all, atifpicia were ufually taken, public notaries and v/itnelTcs aflifted, i^c. among the Greeks^ men and wo- men were efpoufed by mutual promifes of fi- delity ; befides which there were witnefles and dotal writings — at the wedding facrifices to ^iana and other deities.— all nations have fome form [ 31 ] Form or other on thefe occafions. — there Is no coming together after the manner of man and wife upon any other foot." * Incapacity feems to be hinted at in the pro- pofition, as dehvered by the polygamift : which, if concealed from the other party, will be a good plea for the feparation. but it is highly reafonable to fuppofe that a known incapacity, a real natural impotency in the woman, will ever be attended with an indifpofition to ma- trimony, the law of Mofes never confidered a woman betrothed under fuch difability, that I can difcern. and defedive men are prohibited marriage with an Ifraelite woman, Deut. xxiii. beginning, which may be the meaning of the phrafe, they Jh all not enter into the congregation cf the Lord. The unnatural difabilities do not wholly de- ftroy the difpofition towards the fexes, as may- be feen in that apocryphal book, Ecclef. xxx. 20. which intimates a propenfion without the generative ability, however this, by no means, perplexeth the argument ; becaufe the difabi- lity is known, the cafe is not equal, or of like kind with that of a natural impotency, where the defire has no place, thefe inftances do not properly belong to polygamy ; for though there fliould be no divorce upon the difcove* ry, yet, if the impotency would not admit the confummation of marriage, they never were one flejh. * WoolafloTis religion of nature, p. 156, 157. note and text. [ 32 ] I (hall ufe the term, polygamy^ for a man's having more than one wife at one and the fame time •, without any regard to the term bigamy or digamy : bccaufe if monogamy be tranf- greffed, for the fame reafon that a man has two wives, he might have twenty, add to uni- ty, I would call it, in this cafe, polygamy. If polygamy was connived at under the Mo- fate inftitution, will that be an argument in its favor ? no furely, fince Mofes fufFered it only for the hardnefs of their hearts. — the de- fenders of polygamy, I would remark by the way, will not readily plead for the woman ha- ving more than one hufband. yet from the (Condition of mankind their plea is as good as that of the men : for if the proportion of males to females was among the Jews, what it is nearly all the world over, viz. as 13, to 12, * there was as much room for the Jewefs, as the Jew. i" but hence it is evident, there was no fuch thing as the poflibility of a Jew having two Jewejfes at once, without injuring the na- tural claims of his brother Jew. polygamy could not then be tolerable among that people, but from the addition made to the females by the captive women. * I have not mentioned the manner of proof, but thofe who confult Mr. Derham% table, or Dr. Arbuthnot on the fubjedl ; may fee a demonftration. •f In the account our Lord gives to his difciples, Mar. x, II, 12. both the man and the woman are fuppofed put- ting away, luhofoemer Jhall fut aivay his 'u>ife — and if a ivo' man put aivay her hvjbarj. it is the very fame word in both « Dr. r 33 ] " Dr. Belany has underftood, Lev. xvlii. i8. as an exprefs law againfl polygamy j neither Jhalt thou take a wife to herjijier^ to vex her, to uncover her nakednefs^ bejides the other in her life. — not only the Sadduces of old, but the Cardites, (a learned fed among tih^Jews) at prefent, have fo underftood this law. and fo the Chal- dee paraphraft. nay, the idiom of the Hebrew tongue requires this fenfe. * The Jews were wont to look upon all the bebrew women as fifters, and all hehrew men as brethren ; defcending from one com.mon father or origin, Jacob, they therefore could not take two hebrew v/omen to wife, but they would thereby difturb the peace of the family, and raife jealoufies and diftraftions in the breafts of thofe warm competitors. — the confequence was not fo certain or inevitable in their taking female captives •, becaufe over them the he- hrew wife would exercife authority, and claim a fovereignty. — the writer above-mentioned fais, " this was the reafon why Mahlon'% next kinfman refufed to redeem Ruth., his v/idow, i:iz. becaufe it was not lawful for him to mar- ry her, having already a wife of his own, Ruth., \\'. 6. he could not redeem for hirnfelf left he fijculd mar his own inheritance, i" " The cafe of mankind fine e the fall, fay fome, varies much from what it was in innocency •, far then the foundnefs of their bodies, and the -purity of their minds did keep out of the way, all the hazards of barrennefs, fickvefs., uncleannefs and * Refexiois, p. 72, 73. f Ibid, p, 69. F " crcfs' I 34 I crofsnefs of humour ; and therefore a ftngle mar^ ridge, as being the mofiperfe^ coalition of friend- fh'rp and inter efi, was proper for that flat e,^* This is to give up the argument for poly- gamy ; becaufe if a fingle marriage was moft proper for a more perfect ftate, it furely will be moft proper for a lefs perfect ftate of man : fince the more infirmities and humours are introduced in the lefs perfe(ft ftate, the lefs able men are to deal with or manage well a multiplication of them, which there muft be in polygamy, the firft law, inftead of lofing its Itrength, receives confiderable addition to its force from the more difordered ftate of man. if therefore polygamy could ever have been fuitable to human nature, it would have been to that of innocency ; but upon a degeneracy would lofe its fitnefs. " Lamech is allowed to have been the firfl po' lygamiji," Light foot remarks upon his being fo, " it gave him the horror of confcience, that he reckons his (in feventy times greater than Cain^s. which occafioned the complaint he made to his two wives," Gen. iv. 23. * " Abraham and Jacob are faid to be folyga- mipr Abraham^ s wife urged him to fuch licentiouf- nefs ; yet preferved and exercifed a defpotic power over Hagar. and very barbaroufly pro- cured the banilhment both of her and her off- * Works Vol. I. p. 3, and 693. fpring. [ 35 ] fprlng. — the cafe of Jacob was very peculiar : he was prompted to polygamy by the vile im- pofition and fraud of Laban, the father of his wives. Ifaac^s character is pure and unftained. '* Some farther fay, when a man had marri- ed more wives than he could maintain^ to prevent any indireEl ways in getting rid of them^ this fair one of divorce was allowed by God •, and po- lygamy was pra^lifed without either allowance or contrcul as the natural right of mankind.^'* This is very bad reafoning. divorce was ne- ver allowed by God. and polygamy menprac- tifed contrary to the voice of reafon and reve- lation, it could never be countenanced by the Governor of the world, as it violates the natural rights of mankind, which appears from the equality of the fexes. " Not lefs idle is it to fay, polygamy is no where marked among the blemifhes of the patri" archs.^^ Does it, in any one inftancc, raife their re- putation .'' was it not the fertile fource of fa-^ mily broils, contentions and confufion } " But we are told, David's wives are term^ ed by the prophety God's gift to hijn'* It is true that Nathan tells David^ 2 Sam. xii. 8. God had given him his majler's wives into his bcforn. but then, what fais, ver. 1 1 .'' beheld I will raife up evil againft thee out of thine own houfe, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes^ and give them unto thy neighbour, and he ftJall lie with thy wives in the fight of the fun, this God foretold, as what he foreknew his neighbourj that is, his fon Abfalom would dc^ )c 2 >shQ [ 36 ] who went in to his father's concubines in the fight of all Ifrael^ chap. xvi. 22. this is a gift cf God-, that has been mentioned in defence of polygamy, but furely fuch a one, that no man in his fenfes would be very fond of. it im- ports a dreadful curfe that fell on polygamy. A defender of it will affirm, " that Jefus defigiied to raife mankind to the higheji degree of ptrity and chajiity ; and therefore our Lord and St. Paul do prefer afingle life to a fnarried Jlate, as that 'ujhich qualifies us for the kingdom of heaven'^ Here is taken for granted, what is incapa- ble of proof, the direft contrary to this is the truth of the cafe, as applicable to mankind in general, neither Jefus nor Paul thought a fm- g'e life ordinarily preferable to a married flate. jpecial cafes do not affedl, fo as to weaken or deftroy a general rule, the very defign of Chrift's mifiion and character rendered him an unfit fubjed: of the matrimonial law. he was to be a quickening fpirit to mankind, in contradiftincftion to the firfty^^^;;z's being made a living foul, i. e. the animal parent of the fpe- cies. a propagation of our race was not analo- gous to the divine character of the author of our religion -, the appointed refurreftion, the medium of the fpiritual and future life of man. ■ — ahb St. Paul's remaining celebate, was j^rounded on his fituation ; whofe travels, la- bors, and perils v/ere mere abundant than thofe of the other apoftles, i Cor. xv. jo. compared with ix. 5. and he gave it as his opinion, that f 'jch of the Corinthian chriftians who found no incon- [ 37 ] inconveniences from the fingle ftate, would have lefs trouble in the flelh, under the vio- lence of perfecution. but he never prefumed to fay, that the celebate was a more holy ftate than the matrimonial, he knew better. — no- thing can juftify a contempt of marriage, tho' there may be many circumftances that will juftify, in fome perfons, the celebate. St. Paul had the moft honourable fentiments of matri- mony, though he did not think it expedient for himfelf. he enjoins a fpecial regard to wi- dows, who had brought up children, i fim, v, 3 — 10. he would have the younger women marry, bear children, guide the houfe, give no occafion to the adverfary to reproach chrif- tianity ; as though it forbad, or difcountenan- ced marriage, the tenets which prejudiced men againft matrimony, and made the abfti- nence a religious thing, he brands with the name of, the do5irine of demons, chap. iv. i, g. Very great ftrefs has been laid on i Cor. vii. 32 — 36. wherein the apoftle diftinguifheth the carefulnefs of the wife, from that of the vir- gin : yet, each have their burdens, and objects of folicitude. the one has affeclions or paflions, giving her pain, left her hufband lliould find any thing difagreeable in her temper and be- haviour, during the perilous feafon : fhe has her cares and anxieties about her hufband. the other has another kind of diftrefs, her heart fills with fearful, terrifying emotions, left un- der the fiery tryal, fhe fliould not demean her- felf fo as to pleafe the Lord, the apoftle, dif- cerning thefe extremes in the married and un- married women, would have them both with- out [ 38 1 out carefulnefs. he is earneflly defiroiis that both may fupport a decency and comelinefs of deportment in the public worlliip, and in all their devotions : that they might attend on the Lord without thofe drawings of the paflions, which were convulfive ; uzje^Kr^^arug, ver. 37. fo the word may be rendered, which is tran- flated, without diJlra5fion. — St. Paul is concern- ed about the credit and reputation of the chrif- tian religion j and from a view of what infla- med and diflurbed the paflions, he is fo very felicitous that the chriftian might be as free as pofTible from all thofe fpafins and convulfions which detraft from the glory of the profeflion. he would have chriftianity appear, what it really is, a rational, and not an animal reli- gion, there is not any thing that can be more dangerous than the paflions taking the lead, either in religious or in civil life, in the reli- gious, thefe are the confequences, — reafon is excluded as no judge of dodrines ; and revela- tion itfelf becomes eclipfed by myftery. that gigantic monfter, tranfuhfiantiation, was thus begotten, and has ever fed on the garbage of ignorance. The afcetic, monkifh tribe have egregioudy perverted the fenfe of fcripture, and brought a reproach on marriage, as a lefs holy ftate than the celebate. by which means many fliock- ing, enormous villainies have been perpetra^ ted ; too horrid for an human eye. * * La loi du celebat a caufe bien des maux et a intro- duit dans le moHde et dans Teglife une infinite de crimes et d'abominations. O/^^rv.v/.ri traitejiropurcte. Sei^-JU, Cap. HI. Art. 8. Ta r 39 ] To fuppofe the holinefs of men as arifing From a felf-denying negledl of a divine inftitu- tion, is no fmall abfurdity. had fanatics been a- ble to fhew that matrimony was not ordained till after the fall of man, fome fhadow of tri- umph might be allowed them, as it is, the plac- ing holinefs merely in abftaining from marri- age, may bear fome refemblance to the abfur- dity of punifhing Judaifm with death, at the very time the very perfons pay a fupreme ho- mage to a Jewefs ! witnefs, the Popijh inquifi- tors. Men may be fo clrcumflanced as that a finglc life will be to them moft eligible, the evil there is in celebacy is the making it meritorious ; a ftate of fuperior purity ; and a qualification for the kingdom of God ! — I pretend not to fay, there is any law of God or man, that obliges all individuals capable of marriage, to come under thofe engagements, what I contend a- gainft, is, the fuperjiition which appears in the church-fenfe of celebacy. The advocate for polygamy allows the new teftament to fay. " z/ ^ man takes another woman, after an unjuji divorce of his wife^ he commits adultery -, but if fo, the wife has that right to the hujband, that he miifi touch no other, this is plauftble, and all that can be brought from the nezv tejiament "sXjhich feems convincing ; yet it will not he found of weight j for if the Lord deftgned to antiquate polygamy^ fo deeply rooted in the men of that age, he, or his cpofiks, mufi have done it more plainly."^ Ivet I 40 ] Let us examine how plainly he has done It, and not implicitely fwallow the advocate's ac- count of the matter, fee Matth. v. 27, 28. thoujhalt not commit adultery, but if a man look on a woman to lujl after her, be hath committed adultery already with her in his heart, which is farther explained. Chap. xix. 4, 5, 6. he that made them at the beginning, made them male and female ; end f aid, for this caufe fhall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain fJjall be one flefh. wherefore they are no more twain, but one flefh. what therefore God hath joined together^ let no man put afunder. Could the doftrine of monogamy be more plain and exprefs ? adultery is the violation of the marriage bed. looking on a woman with luft- ful defire and intention, is unlawful in any man. i. e. having a lafcivious eye, with the defire bafe and dillionourable, in the gratification of which her virtue would be debauched, and her chaftity facrificed. The original inftitution is propofed to eve- ry chriftian difpofed to marriage, as the in- variable law and rule of his condu6t. a law that effectually fecures monogamy from all violence ; they twain fhall be one flefh ; and up- on the conjugal fociety, they are no more twain ; hut one fleffj. Is it pofTible thefe words can be fo miftaken as to be underftood to mean, they twain floall not be one flefh ? yet polygamy would ftamp this fcnfe on the words, one might indeed as reafonably conclude, that twain intends, three, four, five, or fifteen, that two are [ 41 3 ire equal to thr.ee ; and that three are no more than one. Dr. Hatmnond has thus paraphrafed, Matth. xix. 1 1. " all men are not capable of that pru- dential aphorifm [that a fingle life is more pro- fitable and fit for their turn than marriage] but thofe only, whom God has fome way more than ordinary fitted for it, by fome fpe^ cialgift.'* This inftance among others, fhews, that whatever the Church has confecrated, or ftamped an holinefs upon, has been implicite- Jy received and fwallowed, even by learned men, without any examination, do any need. the fpecial gift of God to qualify them for re- jefting an inftitution of his own, defigned for all men } — or, fhould not the Dr. rather have thus commented on the text ? all men are not difpofed to attend to the law of mar- riage, tho' it is the only method in which God would have mankind propagated, he never encouraged polygamy or divorce; but by bis own inftitution he i?iade two to be one fiefio. -^ he firft made woman out of the man, an help- meet for him •, or as the Hebrew word kenegdo, like to him ; whereby marriage is mofi: effec- tually recommended to all mankind, as found- ed in nature •, and as the re-union of man and woman." * The advocate for polygamy will even allow, •* that monogamy is the mofi -perfstt coalition of friendfhip and inter efi." * Patrick commer.!. in loco". G Poly- [ 42 ] Polygamy fliould not then be countenanced among reafonable creatures, "who are enjoined th^ perf earing of hoUnefs. and we chriftians know, that this is the will of God, even our fan^ifica- tion. that we ahjlain from fornication : and e- very of us pofTefs his veflel [body] in fanciiji- cation and honour^ not in the luft of concupifcence ; like the Gentiles^ 'who knew not God. and to a- void fornication, every man is to have his own wife^ and every woman her own hufband, but polygamy will not admit of every man hav- ing his own wife, and every woman her own hutband : it is not reconcileable herewith. — finally, there is fomething fo fingular and pure in the conjugal affection, that it is compared to the love which Chrifi bears to his church, un- der which fimilitude, every chriflian hufband is to love his wife even as himfelf j and every chri- fiian wife is to reverence her hufband. is it pofli- ble that any thing can be faid more repugnant to polygamy ? can a man love more than one wife, at one and the fame time, with this pure afieftion, even as himfelf? or any woman fo re- verence her hufband ? " there is not any thing involved in the dodrine or precept ; it need not be fought out, as it has been faid, by -the fecret of logic, neither are there any dark words ufed about it." both polygamy and di- vorce, except in the cafe of adultery, are con- \demned in the very letter and fpirit of the new teftament writings -, tho* they were pradifed both by Jew and Gentile. CHAP. [ 43 3 CHAP. III. Obfervations 7noral and folitkaL Ohf. I. 'T^ H E original inftitution of mar- J|[ riage, as cxprefsly recorded by Mofes, is a moral proof of the divine authority of his hiftory. for, the hiitorian does not model his account of the matrimonial inftitution from the practice of the Patriarchs, nor from the cuflom of his own times ; but in contradifli- on to both, no popular, nor political fcheme guided the pen of the Jew lawgiver in record- ing the original law. on the contrary, a per* fed knowledge of God's defign, and of the voice of providence about this ordinance, are obvious in the^very face of the account, it ftands perfedly clear of all prieil or king- craft, and Mofes himfelf praftifed upon this original law ; for he had no wife but Zippo- rah. ' — an example worthy the imitation of e- very legiflator. — According to Cooper^ in his entertaining life cf Socrates, the purity of the matrimonial law, was ftridlly obferved by that great philofopher, 400 years before Chrift, who had no wife but Xantippe. * Ohf. II. The fenfe which Jefus has given of the inftitution, purged away the obfcurity * See his note, p. 157. G 2 which [ 44 ] which the lufls of men had brought over it ; and leaves all inexcufable who have the gofpel, and yet v^ill not fee their duty, he allows of no divorce, but from a defilement of the marriage- bed, the pandedt ot the canon-law furely can- not invalidate his authority, or enervate the reafon on which he has thus delivered his judg- ment. — the univerfal order, peace, and happi- eefs of fociety, are bell promoted by his fenfe of the law i therefore to repeal it, becaufe of fpecial inftances, is as great an abfurdity, as it would be in civil fociety, to repeal a ftatute law, highly conducive to the weal of the public, be- caufe of fome particular perfons who would be aggrieved by it. — the delicacy moreover with which Jefus delivered his fenfe of the original Jaw, conveys an idea of his wifdom and con- fummate knowledge, and we may add, when the plainnefs of the gofpel morals is compared v/ith the beil fyfterns or pandeds of law, an in- genious judicious eye will difcern its divine ex- cellence. Obf. III. Marriage is not fo properly a pofi- tlve inftitution, as it is a moral duty, arifing from a lavy written on the hearts of the fexes : ■ I mean, the defire implanted there by the very hand of nature ; obliging where it is fo im- planted. " the inflinct argues a more peculiar and earneft care in nature, to have this inftitu- tion obferved with the utmoft ftricflnefs, as the immediate caufe of the fafety and welfare of mankind : whilft, diHrufting, as it were, the bare force of reafon, ihe affills and feconds it "vvi^h [ 45 ] with, fo violent an inftindt, that men cannot, without great difficulty, bend the contrary way/' — * there is an immutable reafon in this law, whilft the world continues what it is. and becaufe divine providence proportions thefexes, nothing but a violation of this law can occali- on that injuftice and cruelty feen in the negled: of fome of the virtuous fair. — Obf. IV. From the ftate of mankind, and the exprefs voice of the divine law, the appe- tite or defire to the fexes cannot be reafonably indulged till the ends of it may be admitted ; that is to fay, it fhould not be gratified before the man is capable of attending to the care of his offspring, and even then, the inflitution allows not of fuch gratification but within the facred limits of the conjugal union : fince it is a contradiction to the original ftatute, for any man to fuppofe himfelf at liberty to indulge in whoring or fornication, in fuch cafe, he either joins himfelf to a debauched woman, and fo be- comes one body with her' who is the ftrange wo- man, that forfaketh the guide of hsr youth, and- forgetteth the covenant of her God ! or elfe, he is guilty of violating the virgin chaftity, and thereby of expofing her to negleft, fhame, and inevitable ruin, in both which cafes there is a manifeft infult on truth, in the one, it is a cri- minal, difhonourable proftitution of his own body ; in the other it is a double proftitution and debauchery. * Ft'fendorfi Ivff.^c. B. VI. C. I. Seft. t. The C 46 ] The due government and reftraint of the ap- petite, is requifite to the virtue and glory of the youth, it mull be done, till he arrives at pro- per age, and can enter the conjugal ftate with probable views of being comfortable and hap- py in the union, in entering on this alliance, as a reafonable creature, he fliould not merely confult the appetite ; but he ought to difcerri a fuitablenefs of temper and circumftance, in order to gain the probability, a contract fin- cerely made, upon mutual profeffions of love and efteem, will leave no room for after-re- proaches. — in truth, the marriage tie is of too jnterefting a nature to be contraded without fome deliberation, prudence, at leafl, fo much thoughtfulnefs fhould be exercifed, as to can- vafs the nature and defign of the union, and attend to its perpetuity. A youth of fourteen has ufually thecapaci- ty, upon trial, of knowing whether the trade to which he is put, is likely to be agreeable to him, or not j and he can alfo form fome no- tion of the term of his indenture, he is to reckon upon it as the feafon of his educating for that labour and commerce or intercourfe with man, upon which his own future fupport and ufe- fulnefs will very much depend, lefs thought- fulnefs and care ihould not furely be admitted at a more mature age, and in an engagement which concerns his mod intimate focial delight, the fecurity of his confidence j yea, the very being and well-being of pofterity. — Plutarch in his life of Lycurgus obferves, " that the molt proper allurement to marriage, is the fweet con- ( 47 i conftraint and unfophifircated "dilates of na- ture, from that myllerious agreement and fym- pathy of minds which alone can make men happy in a married flate." — thus it appears, that the inftinct in and of itfelf does not make the duty neceffary •, but other relative circum- ftances muft have their weight in this determi- nation. Obf. V. Perfons in the conjugal ftate, ap- pear to be indifpenfably obliged to unity in af- fedion, as well as perfon. the difgrace, the obloquy brought on the holy flate of matri- mony, from difcordancies, jarrings and con- tentions, are a very wide occafion of pain- ful refledion. yet, it is not polTible to con- ceive of greater abfurdity, than fuch difagree- ments, where the interefts are mutual and in- , feparable. and one may conclude upon it, J that where-ever the hufband or the wife takes pleafure in difcompofing the mind, and break- ing the peace of the other ; there is an infatu- ation equal to that of phrenzy or madnefs: be- caufe the confequences muft unavoidably have an effedt upon their own happinefs^ — if it does not bring on their prefent ruin, it is a negative on their virtue, and determines them unwor- thy the approbation of their maker. — In all inftances, where there is an offspring, there is not any thing can bid fairer for entailing a curfe on the rifing family. — the Spe^ator has finely defcribed the happy marriage thus, " where two perfons meet and voluntarily make choice of each other, without principally regard- t 48 ] regarding or negleding the cireumfiances of fortune or beauty, thefe may ftill love in fpitcf of adverfity or ficknefs : the former we may irt fome rheafure defend otirfelves frorh, the other is the portion of our very make, when you have a true notion of this pafliort, your humour of living great will vanilh out of your imaginati- on, and you will find love has nothing to do with ftate. folitude, with the perfon beloved, has a pleafure, even in a woman's mind, be- yond Ihow or pomp." * But there is another paper, in which he obferves, " the married condition is hardly ever unhappy, but from want of judgment or temper in the man. the truth is, we generally make love in a ftyle, and with fentiments very unfit for ordinary life : they are half theatrical, half romantic, by this means we raife our imaginations to what is not to be expected in human life : and be- caufe we did not before-hand think of the creature we were enamoured of, as fubjecfb to difhumour, age, ficknefs, impatience or ful- lennefs, but altogether confidered her as the object of joy, human nature itfelf is often im- puted to her as her particular imperfedion or defedl. — the rule to be obferved in the matri- monial life, is, to preferve always a difpofition to be pleafed. — when the affe(5tion is well pla- ced, and fupported by the confideration of du- ty, honour, and friendfliip, which are in the higheft degree engaged in this alliance, there can nothing rife in the common courfe of hfc, * No. 149. or [ 49 ] or from the blows or favours of fortune, in which a man will not find matters of feme de- light unknown to zfingU condition.-^ Ohf. VI. Whoring and polygamy are bane- ful to fociety-, becaufe deftructive of order and rectitude, if viewed juftly, they would be de- tefted by the human, the brave, the generous ! for lying, theft, and murder are as capable of defence, concubinage, keeping, whoring, de- bauch the mind ; lead into expenfive meafures, and make men difhoneft. — that refpecfl, that veneration due to human nature, can never be paid by thofe who contemn the precept, thou, Jhalt mt commit adultery, — The delicacy obferv- ed among the ancient Greeks^ refpeding the reputation of the female chaftity, may be (e^w in Oreftes convincing Tphigenia in Tauris, that he was her brother, one token more. of what myfelf have feen, I will produce. In thy apartment Hands the ancient fpear of Pelops — Upon which Mr. ^ejl concludes, " that the Grecian women, efpecially virgins, were kept with great ftriclnefs and referve in feparate and retired apartments, into which no man, except their neareil relations, fuch as fathers or brothers, were permitted to enter." * •\ No. 479. * See his tranflation, p. 186, H The [ so ] The apartments, the lodging rooms of the chafte virgins were held lacred. It is every where a mark of bravery and true generofity, in men, to be found the guardians and protedl- ors of the virgin's moft valuable poiTeflion •, ra- ther than that of bafely enfnaring, deluding, or furprizing and difpoffefiing her. Whoring and polygamy, have an ill afpe6l on the care of infants, and on their proper e- ducation. parents fliould unite in a concern for their interefls. but that very mutual con- cern depends on a confidence that they are the offspring of faithful embraces, and though this cannot have place where there is no ground for the confidence j yet the weal of a people much depends on a virtuous education of children, and no fyftem of laws whatfoever can fupply the want of it. the bufinefs of every fefllon at the Old Bailey, would give an ilkiftration of this remark. — the latitude taken in the above refpecls, violates, and then difcharges that native, pure, unitive principle which fupports the happinefs of conjugal fociety.— civil policy would of itfelf direct the magiftrate or minif- ters of ftate, if honefb, to dilcourage all irre- gular intercourfe of the fexes ; and to confult every method of encouraging regular marri- age, for the end of government is fadly neg- le(5led, where othv'ir conjunctions have the pub- lic connivance. — our fine gentlemen of liberal education value themfelves much upon their acquaintance witli the opinions and practices of the antients : even fome, who fcruple not to take great liberties ! and yet, the anticnt Greeks held [ SI J held marriage -necefliiry to fupport the repu- tation and honour of the human race -, " be- caufe upon the point of extradion of the can- didates for the Olympic games, the Eleans were fo very fcrupulous, as to admit none, wIk) could not declare his father and mother, and fhew that there was no baftardy or adultery in his lineage. — which, in all probability, was the reafon or ground of that law by which tJie candidates were required to enter, -together with their own names, thofe of their fathers, and of their country.'* * It gives one pleafure to think, the modern unbeliever cannot call this a fupernatural, or a doclrine of revelation, it feems not to have been any other than a fcheme of policy, built on wife obfervation, on truth and nature ; co- incident with the defign of thofe public games, which had many civil advantages in view. — fuch as rendering men more capable of public fervice — inftigated to fuch labors and conflids from the lure of public applaufe ! at the fame time, the vic1:or was accuik)med to facrifice to the gods, he invoked the mufe to celebrate their praife. — whence came thefe inftitutions ? — are they allowed to give us the moft advan- tageous idea of the Pagan world ? — with what face can men violate and trample under foot the fenfe of the politeft heathen, as well as the inftitution of the divine oracle itfelf — c* but if marriage be ridiculed, becaufe a dodrine of revelation, the fame ridicule fattens -on the * Wejl on the Olympic games, p. 1 16. H 2 fenfe [ 52 ] ■ fenfe o^ Greece, given in the fummit of her wifdom, virtue and glory. What great obloquy and reproach fixes up- on Britms ! not pagan, not mabonwiedan, not popiih, but chriftian ; and yet accuftomed in adultery and whoredom, in uncieannefs and grofs impurities •, in all the infamous trade of bawding and pimping, and this too, from the great, even down to the day-laborer ! — ! But as all human laws, calculated to fecure property, and preferve order, have their per- fection in the degree that they have the divine law, or reafon as the bafis of them •, fo every in- dulgence of the great, which would deftroy the foundations laid by God and reafon, are fo far from deferving imitation, that they merit our warmeft indignation ! however, the face of example is fuch, that the vitious pra(5lice of men in high ftations, fpreads its poifon ordi- narily very wide in the community, but thofe men are very unjuffcly deemed true -patriots, whatever their rank, who fcandaloufly endea- vour to deflroy the public virtue. Would Britons univerfally conform to the eternal law, in this article of chaftity, encoura- ging matrimony, difcouraging whoring and fodomy ; in fuch reformation of our manners, it would foon be obvious, that God has made man upright : and that the wretchednefs and diforder which now fpreads over us, was en- tirely owing to our having found out many in- "jeniions. Olf. [ S3 ] Obf. VII. The placing of hollnefs in celeba- cy, proves the dotage of the world. — in the prifline ages it was never fo thought of. un- der the Mofaic conftitution it was altogether reproachful, the cafe of Jepththah^s daughter, I underlland as an inftance of celebacy being an abomination, fhe feems to have been made a curfe, by her father's devoting her to the celebate life, it is a lefs fhocking fenfe than that of his offering her a burnt offering, Jtidg. xi. ^i.'— Shall furely be conjecrated to the Lord, or I will offer it up a burnt offering, many good critics have obferved the Hebrew particle, vaUy rendered and, would here be better expreffed by the difcretive particle, or. This reading and fenfe is more agreeable to the air and fpirit of the hiftory. — Jephthah''^ grief had its pointings from her being his only child, hence, from her perpetual virginity, his family would be extind. and her afking two months on the mountains to bewail her virgi- nity, [not the lofs of her life, but her virgini- ty] that is to be perpetuated, was a proper meafure taken to confirm and eftablilh her re- folution ; having folemnly put herfelf under the obligation of her father's vow. His doing with her according to his vow : I prefume could not mean putting her to death ; for human facrifice was hateful to God ; and was in itfelf inhuman ! but he did with her ac- cording to his vow ; and Jhe knew no man. here what he did is explained, and how the empha- fis lies, his vow prevented her marriage, the fenl'e [ 54 ] fenfe becomes yet more confplcuous, from the cuftom oi the daughters of Jfraely going annu- ally to confer with and confole JephibaFs daughter, four days in the year, fo the critics, cd confola7idum — ad dloquendum — ut dijfei'erunt — t(t coUoqtierentur cum filia Jepththa^. if they conferred with her yearly four days, fhe mufb then be living. Dr. Patrick takes notice that fome interpret the hehrevj word '^hannotb, to difcourfe with her ; and cites De Dim, as un- derftanding the offering only to mean, her be- ing feparated from men, and devoted to per- petual virginity. If it be faid the vow fo underflood was il- legal. I fee no inconvenience in granting it was fo. the hiftory fais nothing either in praife of JephthaFs, vow, or his performance of it. and admit that it was ever fo much contrary to the fenfe of the Mofaic law, who could difpute it with their judge and general, a martial man, who had juft obtained a fignal vidlory over their enemies ? and moreover, in the perfor- mance of the vow, fo underflood, he himfelf perhaps fuffered the moft from it : at fartheft, only he and his daughter felt the painful weight, there is, however, a fliining inftance of filial piety in her fubmitting to the reproach, for the peace fake of her aged father. — The hiftory, thus underftood, prefents us with a lively picture of the deteflation ^tje-sjs had of celebacy. and indeed among the mife- ries which befel their nation, this is mention- ed as one, the fire confumed their young men \ und their maidens zvere not given in marriage, PC [ 55 ] Pf. Ixxviii. 63. chrifliianity cannot change ot alter the nature and truth of things, lb that fandlity placed in celebacy muil be, what it ever was, a vile pofition. celebacy, when pre- ferable to marriage, ought to have reafons fubfilVing of another nature than the religion of the thing : for in no one inftance among the Tons of Jdam, can it plead merit on its own account, or make the leall pretenfion to fuperior purity. The learned and judicious Dr. Lardner lias amply fhewn, that this miilake became a part of the Manicbean fyftem, which had place to- wards the end of the 3d, or beginning of the 4th century — " their ele6l were forbid to mar- ry, and were required to forbear eating flefli • and drinking wine. — but their auditors, the fecond order among them, they did not hin- der from marrying and having wives. — hov/- ever marriage in the auditors, was rather tole- rated than approved in the Maniche^in fcheme, for they thought they would need a purifica- tion.'* but no wonder, " for notwithftanding their great pretenfions to reafon and fcience, they did not efcape fuperftition. — they had numerous rites, and there was not a feet that rendered themfelves more mlferable by afte<5l- ed aufterities than the Manicheans.'''' *— thus fais that impartial and ufeful hifiorian. Celebacy chofen under the idea of purity, is an egregious perverfion of truth, vows of it made by perfons only as religious obligati- • CreMb. Part II. Vol VI, p 225, 258, 264, and 418. ons [ 56 ] ons are the moft ftupid compliments that can be paid the deity, exprefling contempt of an inflitution of the God of nature, an infatuation that could never have exifted, but from the wildnefs of an enthufiaftic fuperftition. an elated clergy that fcrupled not to enjoin what- ever fubmifllons could be made to their pride, vanity, and worldlinefs, have nurfed. and reared, if they did not at firft beget the im- pofture. — the bare letter of a text has been ufed in fupportof the celebate : thefe are they which were not defiled with zvomen, for they are vir- gins, tho* it evidently means I'uch who had not gone into idolatrous cuftoms, nor admitted of bafe, effeminate corruptions of the true religi- on, for every revolt to idolatry was ftiled by . the prophets, whoredom and fornication, and very pertinently, fince idolatry encouraged thofe bodily proftitutions. the purity or virgi- nity imports a fleddy adherence to the doc- trines of Jefus, in a time of great degeneracy and apoftacy. Diodati on Luke ii. 36. thus writes, " this feems to be added for to fhew this woman's great chaftity and devotion : who being left a widow in the flower of her age, had continued in her widowhood to dedicate herfelf wholly to works of piety in the temple, according to the manner of holy women in thofe days.'* — but very unluckily for him, he refers to i Sam. ii. 22. where we are told of the prieft's ly- ing with the women who affembled at the door of the tabernacle. — what he fais of Anna may be no more than imaginary i for her living with an [ n \ an (one) Iiufband feven years from her virgini- ty, will as well fignify or intend feven years from the time of her marriage being confum- mated. for the age of life when fhe married is not fpecified : and fhe might have been thirty or forty, or more years old, when fhe married, nayj for aught we know, flie might be paflthe age of child-bearing when her hufband died, fhe was now, when the hiftorian makes mention of her, a v/idow, and her age eighty-four years. not eighty-four years fmce fhe buried her I]ufband. in thefe circumflances fhe was jufti- fiable as to her remaining a widow : and as fne had the prophetic fpirit, the temple was a pro- per place for her habitual refort. but then, the temple v/as not a nunnery, there is not, upon the face of the account, any thing in the life of Anna that countenances the afcetie -, tho' it is faid fne remained a widow under fuch cir- cumflances. A female author, of fine tafte and genius, has painted the vow of celebacy as acceptable to God. thus, in letters from the dead to the livings *' the Lady who had died in the convent at tlorence^ is made to tell her lover, that, not- v/ithftanding her love-pafTion had been vio- lent, yet her vow of chaftity faints and angels had heard, the all-feeing fkies were invoked to vitnefs the chafte enaag-ement -, it was fealed above, and entered in the records of heaven. — and fhe had refolved never to attempt an cfcape from the holy retreat, to v/hich her vows had confined her : but rather to fall a victim to the facred names of chaftity and I truth.— [ 58 ] truth. — and that heaven accepted the facri- iice." * But how miftaken the imagery ! this kind of vow mufl even have been hateful to heaven, as it mihtates with truth, heaven may pity and forgive the error, but can never approve the facrifice. — the pafiion to the fexes is purely na- tural ; it every way becomes the dignity of reafon, the fanclity of religion, and the gran- deur of the human mind improving for im- mortality, there is a pleafure in the unadulte- rated conjugal affedion, peculiarly interefling and folacing. Obf. VIII. Popery cannot be the true reli- gion! it is demonifm and notchriftianity •, be- caufe it teacheth men to defpife the command- ments of God. it has placed holinefs in a cho- fen neglecl and contempt of God's inflitutions. — popery encourageth whoring, and difcou- rageth matrimony, what God has fanflified, fhe calls prophane. what he has condemned, that Ihe has approved, popery is the quintelTence of abfurdity and contradiction, it exalts Peter, gives him the keys, as iffupericr to all the o- ther apoftles •, makes him a firfl rate faint, not- "withftanding his marriage, in the fenfe of this church, one would have thought, matrimony might confift with the moft exalted purity of the fons o'i Adam : iov papijls have derived even their infallibility from this prince of the apoftles, tho' he continued, during his apoftle- * Letter iv. fliip, [ 59 ] (hip, in the holy (late of matrimony ! i Car. ix. ^, — the Pope'% obligation to celebacy is not from the authority of St. Peter^ nor in imitation of his example *, but mull be a magical refine- ment made upon his excellency, and whoring ad libitum, in the fenfe of the pontiff, is a de- gree of chaftity much [uf trior to the indul- gence of wedlock. — they ftupidly enough pre- tend to miracles, wrought in fupport of the ce- lebate life. — but what kind of veneration can poffibly be due to the reclufe monk, ufelefs to his generation ? what to the cooped-up nun, whofe days have been breathed or yawned o- ver in an unnatural retirement from man, for whomjhe was made, i Cor. xi. 9. bred up in an auk ward hypocritical averfion to the conjugal Hate ? fo far from becoming the glory of the man, fhe has withdrawn from the ftation, by nature, appointed for her : and in this retire- ment has been the fcandal of her fex. An excellent writer, in his remarks on the Jefuit Cabal, fais, " the number of monks in the church, was wholly owing to the zeal of thofe fathers, who made it their bufinefs to recommend and extol the monallic life, as the perfedion of the chrillian life, and the very pattern of an heavenly one. thefe monks lived alfo then ( i. e. in the fourth century) as they do now in monafteries, founded for their fole ufe and reception, and under a folemn profef- fion or vow of perpetual chaftity ; voluntary, as we may imagine at firft ; till, by their fre- quent violations of it, they were gradually tied down by more ftrifl and forcible reftraints. and I 2 if [ 6o ] if they did not immediately encroach on the rights of others, and engrofs their eftates, and beco-me tools of the Pcpes ; yet fuch effects were fure to follow from the very nature of their inllitution : for it is not poITible, that fuch nu- merous focieties of crafty, ambitious fpirits, re- commended by a reputation of wonderful fanc- tity, could long fubfift without acquiring both righcs and eftates, and attaching themfelves to that power, which was the beft able to pro- tect them in fuch ufurpations. and we find ac- cordingly, that they made it their care, from the very beginning, to feduce the heirs of rich families into their monafteries, againft the will, and to the utmoft grief of their parents, and to conceal them there, from the knowledge and the fearch of their friends, nor are we to fup- pofe, that any of their late encroachments are derived from any written flatutes or rules, by wh:ch modern monks are governed, in diflinc- tion from the antient •, but from fuch acts only as experience would teach of courfe, and ta- citcly prefcribe to all focieties of the fame kind." * The celebacy of the RcmiJJj clergy, has, can have no better fupport than that of its prefer v- ing their independency, and availing them of certain dominion over the properties and con- fciences of men. every end dangerous to civil fociety is promoted, and not a fingle good one fecured thereby, the oppolition in v/hich it i^ands both to the laws of natural and revealed * Pages 103, 104. religion. [ 6i ] religion, is very diredl. for fais Puffendorf, *< it is a great abfurdity to imagine that God al- mighty is delighted with fuch inventions of men, fuch inftitutions and ways of living, as are difagreeable to human and civil fociety, as it is tempered by the dictates of reafon and the laws of nature." * — in another place he fais, " it appears, that not only thofe perfons do live in a ftate repugnant to found reafon, who maintain themfelvesby robberies and villainies j but thofe too, who withdraw themfelves unne- celfarily from the common duties and offices of life : fuch are the modern hermits and monks, as well as fome of the antient philofo- phers." i* the inftitutions of i:^\r