a 
 
 i 1 5 
 
 !i^ 
 
 \\\E-UMIVERJ/A 
 
 /">-* - 2 
 
 >-llBRARY0/ ^AlllBRARYO/. 
 
 i I r^ - ^ 1 I r" 
 
 I /i !! /i 
 
 5? A^ 
 
 ^OdnVD-JO^ ^(MITCHO^ 
 
 x.OF-C/\I!FO% ,<OF-CAIIFO% 
 
 ^ ^X rS" X^ N. ^ 
 
 

 
 b S v P: 
 
 I g & , 'I I . 
 
 /ERS//, 
 
 
 WOs 
 
 \\\E-UNIVERS/A .vvlOS-ANCElfj^, ^OF-CALI P 
 <-^ *~i ^ - >. ^- . ^
 
 THE 
 
 Bleffings of Polygamy 
 
 DISPLAY. ED, 
 
 IN AN 
 
 AFFECTIONATE ADDRESS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. MARTIN MADANj 
 
 Occaiioned by his late Work, entitled 
 
 TH ELYPHTHOR A, 
 
 O R, 
 
 A TREATISE ON FEMALE RUIN. 
 
 Gii'e inftruflion to a ivife man, and be nvill be yet <wifer, Prov. ix. 9. 
 
 BY RICHARD HILL, Es<^ 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Sold by J. MATHFWS, in the Strand ; C. DILLY, in the 
 Poultry j and by J. EDDOWES, in Shrewibuiy. 
 
 M DCC I.XXXI.
 
 s
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 T O 
 
 All good WIVES in the Kingdom, 
 
 The following Pages 
 ARE HUMBLY DEDICATED 
 
 BY THEIR REAL FRIEND 
 
 THE AUTHOR.
 
 t s 1 
 
 THE 
 
 Bleffings of Polygamy, 
 
 Jan. 15, 1781. 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 HOWEVER exalted my ideas of 
 friendmip may be, (and I hope I do 
 not exceed the language of humility, when 
 I fay that I truft what little I know of re- 
 ligion has rather refined than diminijhed 
 them) however great and unalterable may 
 be my regard for you, a regard founded 
 on many years experience of the real 
 worth of the perfon on whom it is placed ; 
 however highly I may refpecl: you as a man 
 of abilities and a fcholar ; above all, how- 
 ever much I may honor and reverence you 
 as a minifter of that gofpel from which 
 alone we both look for falvation ; yet, 
 B where
 
 6 T'be Bkjfings of Polygamy, 
 where truth is concerned, I mufl forego 
 every other confideration, and fay with one 
 of old, 
 
 Amicus Plato, Amiens Socrates, . Magis 
 Arnica Veritas. 
 
 But why mould I fuppofe I am adting 
 contrary to friendfliip in thus publicly ad- 
 dreffing you on the fubjecl of your late 
 work ? With pkafure I call to mind the 
 many happy feafons we have had together, 
 when fpeaking of thofe delightful themes 
 which will afford matter of joy and praife 
 to the redeemed throughout eternity, how 
 often I have been quickened and edified 
 by your Chriftian converfation ; haw often 
 comforted and directed by your j udicious 
 and feafonable advice ; whilft on the other 
 hand, you yourfelf have not difdained to 
 hearken to the words, and have not de- 
 fpifed the counfel of a friend, though fo 
 much below you in every gift both of na- 
 ture and of grace. Let me not therefore 
 harbor the thought that I can forfeit your 
 efteem, becaufe I tell you with all tha' 
 fincerity and opennefs with which I have 
 
 always
 
 rfbe &Ieffings of Polygamy, f<r. *} 
 
 always been ufed to accoft you, that I 
 moft cordially wifh your book entitled 
 THELYPHTHORA, had never feen the light; 
 as I am now molt fully perfuaded of the 
 fad truth of what I told you in a private 
 letter, when I earneftly befought you to 
 fupprefs it, viz. That the doctrine it ad- 
 vances is totally repugnant to fcripture, 
 and is calculated to do irreparable mifchief 
 in the church of God, and to the world 
 in general. Thefe in few words are my 
 undifguifed fentiments on your " TREA- 
 TISE ON FEMALE RUIN j" and yet I am 
 as fully perfuaded that your own intention 
 in compiling and writing it was perfectly 
 good, and that uprightaefs towards God, 
 and benevolence towards multitudes of your 
 poor miferable fellow creatures, at once 
 dictated your words and guided your pen. 
 
 If- any thing I may offer mould prove 
 the means of convincing you how exceed- 
 ingly you have erred from the truth, your 
 wonted friendmip will caufe you to. thank 
 me ; if you mould flill retain your opinion, 
 the fame friendmip will at leaft caufe you 
 B 2 to
 
 8 The Blejpngs of Polygamy, &i. 
 
 to conclude that I mean well. In either cale 
 therefore, I hope there is nothing wrong 
 in my undertaking ; though I confefs I have 
 been long ftruggling with myfelf, before I 
 could refolve thus publicly to take the field 
 of controverfy againft you : 1 truft how- 
 ever, that in this combat, I mall make ufe 
 of no other fword than that of the Spirit , 
 which /V the word of God [A], and then 
 though (to ufe a familiar phrafe) I mould 
 give you a home tbruft, yet I doubt not but 
 we mail make up the difference without a 
 fecond on either fide, and agree together in 
 this, lhat faithful are the wounds of a 
 friend [B\ 
 
 I am fenfible it will afford a fingular 
 pleafure to many, that we have thus entered 
 the lifts' together. But let fuch unhappy 
 perfons enjoy fuch pleafure. It is of no 
 better fort than that which the malice of 
 Satan excites, or rather it is that which 
 excites Satan himfelf, when he can caufe 
 Judah to vex Epbraim, or Ephraim Judab. 
 But it is a melancholy conlideration that 
 
 [A] Eph. vi. 17. [B] Prov. xxvii. 6. 
 
 what
 
 Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 9 
 
 what will afford matter of malicious glee 
 to the children of the wicked one, will 
 prove the caufe of heart-felt grief to the 
 children of light. 
 
 Still truth Is truth, and muft not be 
 given up, though Paul mould withstand 
 Peter, or though Paul and Barnabas mould 
 feparate through the marpnefs of the con- 
 tention between them. But I mention 
 this byway of argument and allulion, not 
 by way of compariibn, at leafl fo far as I 
 myfelf am concerned. 
 
 I mall not attempt to follow you page 
 by page, but at once lay the ax to the root, 
 by ftriking at the foundation of what I look 
 upon to be the leading principle or corner- 
 ftone on which you build the dodtrine of 
 Polygamy, viz. " That if God allowed a 
 plurality of wives to his people under the 
 Old Teftament, he cannot have forbidden 
 it J:o Chriftians under the New." This 
 idea the erroneoumefs of which I mall en- 
 deavor to prove in various undeniable in- 
 ftances, has led you to offer the greateft 
 B 3 violence
 
 j o The BhJJings cf Polygamy, f c. 
 
 violence to alrnofl every text of fcripturo 
 you have produced from the gofpels and 
 epillles. Yet I bear you witnefs, that you 
 have done this, not becaufe you were un- 
 willing to admit the divine teilimony, but 
 upon fuppofition that you were making the 
 fcripture confident with itfelf, in order to 
 prove the unifon and harmony which fubfift 
 between the Old and New Teftament. 
 
 We will readily admit that Chrifl came 
 riot to deflroy the law ; not to fet up any 
 new rule of conduct, any remedial law* 
 or any more pure fyftem of morals than that 
 which was before revealed by God in the 
 ten commandments. So far from it, he 
 came to fulfill the law, to magnify and make 
 it honorable, to reftore it to its original 
 perfection, and to remove the falfe glories 
 which the fcribes and pharifees had put 
 upon it ; to bring back the laws relative to 
 marriage and divorce to their original and 
 primitive innitution. Nor do I at all dif- 
 fent from, you in believing that all thofe 
 parts of the ceremonial law, and of the 
 Jewi/h polity which are of moral intend- 
 
 ment.
 
 The Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 1 1 
 
 ment, are and muft be of eternal obliga- 
 tion ; " unlefs God be pleafed either to 
 repeal thefe laws, or to give any other in 
 their ftead, as his infinite wifdom, fees 
 good." Qbferve, I lay an uncommon em- 
 phafis on thefe words, and therefore I re- 
 peat them. " Unlefs God be pleafed ei- 
 ther to repeal thefe laws, or to give any 
 other in their ftead, as his infinite wifdom, 
 fees good." Which he certainly has a 
 right to do, and frequently (as we {hall 
 foon make appear) has done, without the 
 leaft impeachment of his own moral cha- 
 racter, or without the leaft change in his 
 own nature -, forafmuch as the one grand 
 defign which he ever has in view, and in 
 which he is without 'variablenefs or fiadow 
 of turning, is his own glory, and the good 
 of his church and people. 
 
 I would not from hence be underftood 
 to infinuate that Polygamy was ever a part 
 of the law of God. On the contrary, there 
 is no command whatever which enjoins it, 
 or even leans towards it, throughout the 
 whole Bible. No, not in any cafe what- 
 B 4 ever.
 
 1 2 %%e BJeffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 ever. Not even when a man had no ilfue 
 by a nrft wife, or though he were joined 
 to a woman of the haughty and refrattory 
 difpofition of a Vafhtl [CJ. Yet to men un- 
 married God himfelf frequently condefcends. 
 to give directions for the choice of a wife, 
 as he did by an immediate anfwer to the 
 prayer of Abraham's fervant when he ob- 
 tained Rebecca for Ifaac. So throughout 
 the whole book of Proverbs, there are va- 
 rious inftructiqns for the choice of a wife* 
 
 [C] A very amiable and fenfible lady one of th<j 
 beft of WJMCS, and beft of mothers, made the following 
 remark to me on the note in the firft vol. of Mr. Ma- 
 dan's Treatife, p. 182 " I do not perceive (faid file) 
 that queen Vafhti did any thing unbecoming a good 
 and an obedient wife, in not coming to the feaft at 
 king Ahafuerus's command ; fo far from it, that fear, 
 of expofing her hulband feeins to have been the mo- 
 tive of her refufal ; for it is exprefsly faid, that the 
 king's heart was then merry with wine, and the very 
 meflage itfelf fhewed, that (he was fent for that he and 
 hi?, guefts might look on her &?au!y ; fo that the modefty 
 of the queen might well be fhocked on the occafioii, 
 and ihe had great, reafon to fear, left had (he at this 
 time prefented herfclf to this royal but intoxicated af- 
 iembly, the confequences of her coming would have 
 been much worfc, th^n of her Hay ing a way." 
 
 with
 
 The Elejfings of Polygamy, Gff. 13 
 
 with the higheft commendations of a good 
 one, and the dreadful lot and condition of 
 the poor man who has the plague and tor- 
 ment of a bad one. Yet throughout the 
 whole, God fpeaks in the fingular number 
 (wife} and never in the plural (wives). 
 Nay there is one paflage, which if we give 
 the words their plain, eafy fcope, (and I 
 fhall not attempt to twirl or darken them 
 by any interpretation of my own) will near- 
 ly amount to a pofitive injunction of Mono- 
 gamy [D], and confequently to a direct pro- 
 hibition of Polygamy. The words are thefe, 
 Drink waters out of thine own cijlern -, and 
 running waters out of thine own well. Let 
 not [E] thy fountains be difperfed abroad, and 
 
 rivers 
 
 [DJ For the benefit of the plain Englifh reader I ob- 
 ferve once for all, that Monogamy means the mar- 
 rying or having only one wife at a time. Bigamy 
 means having two wives at a time, and Polygamy 
 (which Mr. Madan chieily defends) having many 
 
 wives at a time. 
 
 
 
 [E] Though I muft confefs myfelf to be no He- 
 brasan, yet a friend of mine who has a critical know- 
 ledge of that language, allures me on the authority of 
 the learned Mr. Kennicot, that this word (not) Hands 
 
 in,
 
 14 *he Blefflngs of Polygamy, 
 
 rivers of waters in the Jlreets. Let tbcm be 
 only thine own and not ftrangers with thee^ 
 Let thy fountain be bleffed, and rejoice with 
 the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the 
 lev ing bind, and p leaf ant roe -, let her breajls 
 fatisfy thee AT ALL TIMES, and be thou ra~ 
 vijhed always with her love [F], 
 
 But it is not my defign in this place to 
 produce texts of fcripture againft the doc- 
 trine of Polygamy. All 1 would infift 
 upon is, that there never was any poiitive 
 command of God which enjoined it, and 
 that therefore it never was any part of the 
 divine law. That he permitted it, either 
 for the reafons that he permitted bills of 
 divorcement to be given, or to prevent the 
 
 in fome manufcripts ; and indeed there is no making 
 good fenfe of the paflage without it ; but on the con- 
 trary, it appears to be a contradiftion of what goes 
 before and what follows after, and the omiffion of it 
 is exaftlyofthe fame kind, as you tell us the printer 
 was guilty of, whom archbifhop Laud fined fo heavily 
 in the ftar-chamber for leaving the fame word [notj 
 out of the feventh commandment. 
 
 [F] Prov. v. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 
 
 Jews,
 
 *Tbe Blejfings of Polygamy, Gfa. 15 
 
 Jews, who were a particular and diftindt 
 people, from intermarrying with idolatrous 
 nations, is not to be controverted; and 
 that he bleffed the perfons and heard the 
 prayers of his own people who pra&iled it, 
 and did not illegitimatize the offspring of 
 thofe polygamous marriages is alfo paft dif- 
 pute. Still fufferance is no law, even at 
 the time it is granted; (elfewe make God 
 the author of all fin, fince no fin could 
 have exifted without his permiffion) much 
 Jefs ought it to be extended and conflrued 
 as a law to after ages and people under dif- 
 ferent difpenfations, and different circum- 
 ftances. I will not, however, reft the irTue 
 on the diftindtion between a permiffion and a 
 command i I will even fuppofe (though I 
 cannot allow what never appears to have 
 been the cafe) -that God under the Old 
 Teftament ordained certain laws in favor 
 of Polygamy. Still he who ordained thofe 
 laws had an equal right to change or abro- 
 gate them as he thought fit and meet : and 
 as his holy and fovereign will is the only 
 rule of right and wrong, I mall now prove 
 by feveral undeniable in. fiances that what 
 
 is
 
 1 6 he Blfffing* of Polygamy , &c. 
 is agreeable to the mind of God at one time, 
 and even matter of duty in his creatures to 
 comply with, may at another time be ab- 
 folutely wrong and finful. 
 
 The jirjl inftance I bring mall be 
 adduced from that almoft original com- 
 mand of God. Be fruitful and multiply 
 [G]. Now it is moft certain that this 
 command muft have been fulfilled by the 
 marriages of nearefb relations at the time it 
 was given, and for feveral years afterwards, 
 as alfo immediately after Noah's rlood ; and 
 this without any fin whatever in the perfons 
 Ib marrying; but when the world was 
 peopled and the reaibn for fuch marriages 
 no longer fublilted, then God forbad them 
 both to Jews and Gentiles as unlawful^ 
 wicked, and incefluous. But if we were 
 to adopt your grand argument in defence 
 of Polygamy on this occaiion, then we muft 
 lay, that " God himfelf having inftituted 
 or permitted an incefluous intercourfe, 
 amen** the immediate defcendants of Adam 
 
 o 
 
 and Eve and of the generations of Noah, 
 
 [G] Gen. i. 28. 
 
 under
 
 T?je Bleffings of Polygamy, 
 
 Under that great primaeval command /;/- 
 creaj'e and multiply, and having blefTed the 
 perfons and heard the prayers of thofe who 
 pradlifed it, and having adopted their iffue 
 as legitimate, therefore inceftuous marriages 
 can never be finful under the gofpel, and 
 he who prefumes to fay that a brother may 
 not now lawfully marry his own filler, 
 attempts to be wifer than Jehovah himfelf, 
 adopts the principles of Mahomet, Cerin- 
 thus, and Socinus, and in fact fets God and 
 his Son Jefus Chrift at variance with each 
 other." How nearly this is your own 
 language upon much more flender proof 
 cf what you have advanced, let thofe who 
 have read your book judge. 
 
 The fecond inftance I mention in proof 
 of what I have faid, (hall be taken from 
 the alteration of the fabbath. For the fe- 
 *venth day God refted from all the work 
 'which he had made, and he bleffed and fanc- 
 
 [H] Gen. ii. 2. 
 
 In
 
 1 8 ^he Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 In conformity with this early inftitution 
 of the fabbath as a day of reft, the anci- 
 ent people of God the Jews, obferved and 
 hallowed the feventh day with the moft ri- 
 gid feverity, and you yourfelf bring fome 
 terrible examples of God's jealoufy over 
 this law of the fabbath, as contained in the 
 fourth commandment, and of his indigna- 
 tion againft the breakers of it 5 particularly 
 in the fearful cafe of the man who was or- 
 dered to be ftoned to death for gathering a 
 few fticks on the fabbath day [I]. But 
 he who is ike-Lord of^Sabbatb, has thought 
 fit to change his own inftitution ; and the 
 day on which he rofe from the dead, viz. 
 the firft day of the week, is now the great 
 Chriftian fabbath, as the feventh day was 
 that of the Jews. Whether the Jewifh 
 fabbath were or were not typical of the 
 Chriftian fabbath, has nothing to do with 
 the prefont queftion. The fabbath day is 
 plainly changed. A poor man may now as 
 lawfully gather his fticks on a Saturday as 
 oh any other day, and none but a Jew or a 
 
 [I] Numb. xv. 32, 33, Sec. 
 
 Sabba-
 
 he &kjfings of Polygamy, 
 
 Sabbatarian would deny him the priviledge. 
 Nay even if he were to do it on a Sunday, 
 efpecially for any neceffary purpofe, I can- 
 not fuppofe that the rigor of the inftitu- 
 tion of the fabbath fo far fubfifts, as that 
 he would thereby incur the wrath of God, 
 any more than by kindling a fire for pre- 
 paring his neceiTary food on the fabbath day, 
 which however was pofitively forbidden 
 under the Mofaic difpenfation. 
 
 In the third inflance I bring I mall go 
 farther, and mew that God under fome 
 particular circumftances abfolutely com- 
 manded that to be done as an indifpcnfible 
 duty, which under others he has abfo- 
 lutely forbid as a moil atrocious crime, 
 and backed both his command and his 
 prohibition by the feverefl penalties, and 
 this was in the cafe of marrying a brother's 
 wife after the death of the brother. Who- 
 foever did this under the Levitical law, 
 committed an ad: of fin and of unclean nefs, 
 and the curfe of barrennefs was pro- 
 nounced againft the woman with whom 
 he was guilty, as it ilands, Lev. xx. 21. 
 
 y
 
 2o rfhe Biffing* of Polygamy, 
 
 If a man Jh all take his brother s wife, It is 
 an unclean thing : he hath uncovered hi* 
 brother s nakednefs, they fhall be childlefi-. 
 But if the elder brother died without irTue, 
 then it became a duty abfolutely incum- 
 bent on the next brother to marry the wi- 
 dow, and to raife up feed unto his brother> 
 and the difobedience to this law was pu- 
 nimed with death in the cafe of Onan [K]< 
 
 The fourth inftance I produce is from 
 Ezra's exhortation to the people and to the 
 priefts to put away their ftrange wives [L}, 
 which no doubt he did by the direction, 
 or at leaf! by the full approbation of God 
 himfelf, for the order' was given immedi- 
 ately after he had addreifed God in the rnoft 
 folemn manner by confefTion, humiliation, 
 and prayer. _ Yet from the very firft infti- 
 tution of marriage, thofe whom God had 
 joined together, no man could put afunder. 
 And when any man and a virgin had be- 
 come one fiefh (according to your own 
 
 [K] Gen. xxxviji. 8, 9, 10. 
 [L] Ezra . x. i, 2, &c. throughout. 
 
 inter-
 
 of Polygamy, &e. 2i 
 
 interpretation of the text, Deut. xxii. 28, 
 29.) He could not put her away ALL HIS 
 DAYS, feeing he had humbled her. You 
 will fay, that this command of Ezra re- 
 fpected idolatrous wives and fuch only, and 
 therefore thefe marriages were void ab initio* 
 I will grant your afTertion, but then you 
 cannot abide by it yourfelf without throw- 
 ing down the :;rand pillar which fupports 
 your doclrine of Polygamy; viz. that when 
 any man 'whatever has become one flefh 
 with any maid or virgin, this union is an 
 abfolute marriage in the fight of God : He 
 cannot put her away all his days, feeing be 
 hath humbled her. I fay therefore, you mufl 
 either raze one of the principal foundation 
 ftones on which you build the doctrine of 
 Polygamy ; or otherwife, you muA allow 
 the truth of what I am attempting to 
 prove, viz. that under particular cafes and 
 circumftances, God frequently permits and 
 allows that, which under different cafes and 
 circumftances he difallows and forbids, and 
 vice verfa ; {till having nothing in view but 
 his own glory and the good of his creatures ) 
 C fo
 
 22 Toe Biffing* of Poly gamy i 
 
 fo that he ev-er remains unimpeachable iti 
 his character of the God which changeth 
 not, the fame under the law, as under the 
 gofpel i the fame yefterday, to day, and for 
 ever. 
 
 Fifthly, Under the Jewifh law bills of 
 divorcement for other caufes than adultery 
 were permitted : by which the wife was 
 difmifled from the houfe ; and had liberty 
 to marry another man ; in which cafe, fhe 
 could not return again to her firil hufband, 
 Deut. xxiv. i, 2, &c. [MJ. But thefe di- 
 vorces 
 - ' \ -\^^ ' 
 
 [MJ The words in our tranfla'tion are juft as follow, 
 When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and 
 it come to pafs that fhe find no favor in his eyes, be- 
 caufe he hath found fome uncleannefs in her : then 
 let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in 
 her hand, and fend her out of his houfe. 
 
 And when fhe is departed out of his houfe, fhc 
 may go and be another man's wife.- 
 
 And if the latter hufband hate her, and write her 
 a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and 
 fendeth her out of his houfe ; or if the latter hufband; 
 die> which took her to be his wife; 
 
 He*
 
 Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 23 
 vorceswere pronounced abfolutely unlaw- 
 ful by Chrift himfelf under the gofpel ; 
 and whofoever put away his wife, and mar- 
 ried another was deemed an adulterer - y as 
 was alfo the man who married her that was 
 put away. This is clear from our Lord's 
 own words to the pharifees when afking 
 him of this matter. Mofes becaufe of the 
 hardnefs of your hearts Juffered you to put 
 away your wives : but from the beginning it 
 ivas not fa. And I fay unto you, ivhofoever 
 jhall put away his wife, except it be for 
 fornication, and Jhall marry another, com- 
 mitteth adultery: find whofo marrietb her 
 'which is put aivay doth commit adultery [NJ* 
 
 As I mall have occafiori in the feqiiel 
 to confider this important fcripture more 
 at large, I mall only at prefent make fome 
 animadverfions on a diftinclion which you 
 
 Her former hufband which fent her away, ma'y riot 
 take her again to be his wife, after that fhe is defiled : 
 for that is abomination before the LORD, and thou 
 flialt not caufe the land to fin, which tlie LORD thy 
 God giveth thee/cr an inheritance, ver, i, 2, 3, 4. 
 
 [N] Matt. xix. 8, 9. 
 
 C 2 endeavor
 
 24 tte Bleffings of Polygamy, ?<:. 
 
 endeavor for obvious reafons to eilablifh 
 between the permiiTion of Mofes, and the 
 permifllon of God himfelf in this matter 
 of divorce. It is true indeed, our Lord 
 fays, " Mofes fuffered you," but are we 
 from thence to fuppofe, that God connived 
 at what was finful, bccaufe he either could 
 not or would not thwart the will and 
 pleafure of Mofes ? Is all fcripture given 
 by infpiration of God, or is it not ? Did 
 holy men of old fpeak as they were moved 
 by the Holy Ghoft, or did they not ? Was 
 Mofes the vicegerent and legiilator of God, 
 or was he not ? In a word, did he act by his 
 own authority [O] or by that of Jehovah 
 himfelf ? I muft certainly conclude that 
 what was permitted or enjoined by the will of 
 Mofes, was permitted and enjoined by the 
 will of God ; and that to talk of Mofes 
 fuffering a thing to be done which God did 
 not fuffer, is to fet God and his own law- 
 
 [O] My friend has almofl ventured to aflert this, if 
 not quite. His words are thefe ** The only in- 
 ilance in which Mofes afted by his own authority 
 was in the matter of divorce." 
 
 giver
 
 The Ble/Jings of Polygamy, &c. 25 
 
 giver (or rather the executor of his own 
 law) at abfolute variance. Our Lord fays, 
 Did not Mofes give you the law, and yet 
 none of you keepeth the law ? Are we there- 
 fore to conclude, that Mofes gave the 
 whole law by his own authority ? We 
 have juft as much reafoti to do fo, as to 
 fuppofe that he gave one jot or tittle of it 
 by his own authority, whether we diftin- 
 guifh it by moral, ceremonial, or judicial. 
 But what puts the matter beyond alldifpute, 
 is, that the whole of the divine law, in the 
 very midft of which ftands the pafTage in 
 question, is ufhered in with the greater! 
 folemnity, as containing the mind and will 
 of God himfelf, delivered to his fervant 
 Mofes, who it is faid, was faithful in all 
 things, for the ufe of the people over whom 
 he was appointed. And the conclufion of 
 it is fummed up in the following moft 
 ftriking words. This day THE LORD 
 TUT GOD HATH COMMANDED 
 THEE to do thefe Jlatutes and judgment* : 
 thou jhalt therefore keep and do them with all 
 thine heart> and with all thy foul. 
 
 C 3 It
 
 2 6 The Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 It is therefore part all doubt, that the 
 law of God, and the law of Mofes, in every 
 iota and punctilio, were one and the fame ; 
 and that Mofes in no cafe whatever fufFered 
 any thing which the divine will did not 
 authorife him to fufFer : Mofes could no 
 more have permitted the cuftom of writing 
 a bill of divorcement, than he could have 
 fufFered the divorced woman* who ha$ 
 been defiled by another man, to return to 
 her firfl huiband, which he by the very 
 fame authority which enjoined every other 
 part of the law, ftriclly prohibits in the 
 following words 5 ^nd if the latter hufband 
 hate her, and write her a bill of divorce- 
 ment, and giveth it in her hand, andfendetb 
 her out of his boufe or if the latter hujband 
 die, which took her to be his wife. He, r for- 
 mer hujband which fent her away, may not 
 take her again to be his wife, after that jhe 
 is defiled; for that is abomination before the. 
 Lord : and thou Jhalt not caufe the land to 
 Jin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for 
 0n inheritance, Deut. xxiv. 4, 5. 
 
 I con-*
 
 The BleJJings of Polygamy, &e. 37 
 I conclude all I have to offer on this 
 head, by remarking, that when our Lord 
 fays, Mofes becaufe cf the hardnefs of your 
 hearts fujfered you to put away your wives \ 
 jt is juft the farne as if he had faid, " Be- 
 caufe of the hardnefs of your hearts this 
 cuftom was fuffered by the law of Mofes ;'* 
 but to fuppofe that Mofes permitted it in- 
 dependent of God's authority, is to fuppofe 
 that though God by his own infinite wif- 
 dom framed one part of the law himfelf, 
 yet fome inconveniences occurring relative 
 to the laws of marriage, which he was not 
 at firffc aware of, he left it to Mofes to 
 make the beft of a bad bargain, and to get 
 the people out of the fcrape as well as he 
 could. Befides, if diftinctions of this fort 
 are once fet up, in order to countenance any 
 favorite opinion, we are not to wonder, if 
 the words of Paul or Peter, or James or 
 John, be thought of lefs confequence than 
 the words of Chriftj .which would foon 
 make way for the introduction of every abo- 
 minable and peftilent herefy; as we know 
 it already has done among many, who talfc 
 cf the authority of the four gofpels, in a
 
 28 'The Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 ftrain as if they were to be regarded with 
 higher veneration than the reft of the in- 
 ipired writings. 
 
 Where it fuits your own purpofe, you 
 find fault with bifhop Patrick, for faying, 
 " Mofes himfelf fuppofes as much /' 
 which you obferve, " looks as if Mofes 
 was fpeaking by his own wifdom -" which 
 the bifhop did not at all mean to infer. 
 But where it militates againft your plan, 
 and the bifhop fays, that " divorce (under 
 the law) was allowed of God," there you 
 t( take the liberty to obferve, that it is beft 
 to keep to the expreflion of fcripture, and 
 that our bleffed Saviour does not fay, that 
 God allowed divorce, but Mofes allowed or 
 permitted it." However in both cafes, the 
 bimop fpeaks on the fuppofition that what 
 the legiflator permitted, the Lawgiver had 
 authorized, and that God and his law 
 were in perfect unftSn. 
 
 * ^ 
 
 Before I quit this fubjeft I mall only 
 obferve, that the divorced wives here, were 
 not idolatrous wives, and yet they were 
 
 furFered
 
 The Blej/ings of Polygamy, GJV. 29 
 fuffered ^:o be put ? way, and even to marry 
 another man, living the firft husband j 
 which is a full anfwer to your objection 
 concerning the command given by Ezra to 
 the people to put away their jlrange wives. 
 The fame may be faid of that paflage, 
 Exod. xxi. 10. If he take him another wife , 
 her feod, her raiment, and her duty of mar- 
 riage Jhall he not diminijh. Mofes is here 
 fpeaking of the very particular cafe of a 
 man who mould fell his daughter to be a 
 maid fervant with a matter who humbled 
 her, or as it ftands in the text, who dealt 
 deceitfully with her. And yet though he- 
 had been one Jlefo with her, God gave him 
 liberty to put her away if foe pleafed him 
 not, and to marry another. Whatever this 
 fcripture may prove for you, it certainly 
 proves this againji you, viz. That the law, 
 which declared that where a man enticed a 
 maid, and lay with her, he might not put 
 her away all his days, was not in all cafes 
 invariable j yet this is one of the principal 
 texts on which you ground the doctrine 
 of Polygamy, and argue in defence of it 
 from the invariable nature of the law of 
 2 God.
 
 30 The Bleffings of P oh gamy, 
 
 God. But your grand miftake feems to 
 
 lie in confounding the moral, with the ju-. 
 dicial law, and in not perceiving that the 
 latter, though blended with many excellent; 
 moral inftitutions, cannot poifibly fubfift, 
 neither was intended to fubfift in any 
 other nation than that peculiar one for 
 whofe ufe it was framed. Such were 
 the laws relative to theft, reftitution, 
 damages, trefpaffes in cafes of truft, ufury, ( 
 witchcraft, oppreffing of ftrangers., bribes ^ 
 punifhment of fervants, 6c. &c. &c. 
 which are mentioned in the 22d and 23d, 
 chapters of Exodus, as well as in the book 
 of Deuteronomy, and particularly the law 
 of retaliation, which has fo much in it of 
 moral intendment, that a late writer in 3 
 pamphlet intitled " A Letter to the New; 
 Parliament," feems almoft as anxious for its 
 revival, as my friend Mr. Madan is for the 
 revival of Polygamy, and endeavors to prove 
 that our Saviour never meant to abolifh it. 
 Yet there is no reafon to doubt from our 
 Lord's own authority, Matt. v. 38, 39, 
 that this law is now fuperfeded for that 
 
 more
 
 BleJ/ings of Polygamy, &c. 3 f 
 more benign and evangelical fyftem which 
 enjoins us to return good for evil. 
 
 Other inflances might be brought, but 
 let thefe fuffice : and indeed I think if I 
 had mentioned only one of them, that one 
 would have been fufficient to eflablifh my 
 polition, that God coniiilent with his own 
 invariable nature and attributes, may, and 
 does frequently permit, and even ordain 
 that to be done, under fome cafes and cir- 
 cumftances, which under others he abfo- 
 lutely forbids as wreng and linful. That 
 therefore, notwithftanding he may have 
 allowed and did allow Polygamy to have 
 teen practiced by his own people under 
 the law, (though he never gave the leaft 
 fhadow of a command for it), in order to 
 preferve them as a peculiar people and 
 diftinct nation, and to fulfil his royal pro- 
 mife, thai they Jhould be as the Jiars of hea- 
 ven for multitude [P] j yet thefe ends be- 
 ing 
 
 [P] It is a maxim founded on truth and on gene- 
 fal experience, that the fame cuttoms in one country 
 have a quite different effeft in another, accord- 
 ing
 
 32 The Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 ing now anfwered, God under the gofpe!, 
 has been pleafed to reduce the laws of 
 marriage to their original institution , when 
 he brought the firil woman to the nrfc man, 
 and commanded that a man from thence- 
 forth mould leave his father and his mo- 
 ther, and mould cleave unto his wife, : and 
 they twain fliould be one flefh 3 upon which 
 
 ing to the different laws, genius, and circu nuances of 
 the people, and according to the different ages of the 
 world in which they live. Upon which account, 
 though Polygamy may have been friendly to popula- 
 tion among the Jews, and might without much in- 
 convenience fubfift with their political government, 
 yet it would certainly have a very different effect in 
 the prefent period among profeflbrs of Chriftianity, 
 and even among the modern Jews, as well as be at- 
 tended with a long chain of evils , of which the Ifra- 
 elites of our day feem fully fenfible, by having given 
 up the practice of Polygamy, and by contenting thera- 
 felves with one wife. And indeed, when our Lord 
 .himfelf firft made his appearance upon earth, a Poly- 
 gamift was fcarcely to be found amongft the Jews ; 
 which is a very fufficient reafon, why in his public 
 miniftrations he gave no particular commands to his 
 hearers to put away all their wives except one, when 
 perhaps not one of thofe hearers who received his 
 teftimony, had any more wives than one to put 
 away. 
 
 account
 
 Blejjmgs of Polygamy, &c. 33 
 
 account Polygamy is fo far from being al- 
 lowed under the New Teftament, that it 
 ranks under the general name of adultery, 
 as I mall endeavor to evince, by reftoring 
 feveral paflages of holy writ to their plain 
 eafy natural fenfe, which I am heartily con- 
 cerned to avow, have been dreadfully ob- 
 fcured and miiinterpreted by the forced 
 conftruction you have put upon them ; 
 but before I do this, I mail fpeak of the 
 very dreadful and mocking confequences 
 which mutt inevitably attend the eflablifh- 
 ment of your plan. 
 
 THE Jews (as I before obferved) being 
 a diftincT: people, and feparated by the na- 
 ture of their laws and worfhip from all 
 other nations under heaven, their great 
 Lawgiver in his dire6tions given to Mofes, 
 fo fuited their laws and government to 
 their peculiar fituation, and their lituation 
 to their laws and government, that thefe 
 laws were enforced without any other dif- 
 ficulty than what the refractory difpofition 
 of that people fometimes occalioned, 
 though in general they fubraitted them- 
 
 felves
 
 34 20* BhJ/ings of Polygamy, &c. 
 fdves peaceably to the decifions of Mofes, 
 and were unanimous in fuffering thofe pe- 
 nalties and punimments to be inflicted en 
 offenders which their laws enjoined ; and 
 when they were not fo, God in a miracu- 
 lous manner frequently interpofed to the 
 deftruction of the difobedient. As they 
 were under a particular inftitution by their 
 judicial law in other refpects, fo they were 
 in matters relative to marriage^ divorce, 
 fedudtion, whoredom, adultery, 8cc. not 
 that the nature of thefe could at all alter, 
 or that be finful or not finful in a Jew 
 which was net the fame in another perfon,- 
 but there were certain temporal punim- 
 ments annexed to the breach of thefe laws, 
 which did not fubfift among other nations, 
 and alfo certain miraculous methods of 
 trying and detecting the guilty, which were 
 only known among themfelves. Such was 
 the law of jealoufy { Q ] to difcover the un- 
 
 faithfulnefs 
 
 [QJ Xbmbi v. 14. And if thefpiritof jealoufy come 
 tipon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and fhe be 
 defiled ; or if the fpirit of jealoufy come upon him,. 
 and he be jealous of his wife, and fhe be not defiled :; 
 
 15 TUeni
 
 Elejjings of Polygamy* &c. $j 
 faithfulnefs of a wife. And fomewhst 
 a-kin to it, (though not to be called mira* 
 
 culous) 
 
 15 Then fhall the man bring his wife unto the 
 prieft, and he fhall bring her offering for her, the 
 tenth part of an ephah of barley-meal ; lie (hall pour 
 no oil upon it, nor put frankincenfe thereon, for it is 
 an offering of jealoufy, an offering of memorial, 
 bringing iniquity to remembrance. 
 
 1 6 And the prieft fhall bring her near, and fet her 
 before the Lord. 
 
 17 And the prieft fhall take holy water in art 
 earthen veflel, and of the duft that is in the floor of 
 the tabernacle the prieft fhall take, and put //into the 
 water. 
 
 1 8 And the prieft lhall fet the woman before the 
 Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the 
 offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jea- 
 loufy-offering : and the prieft fhall have in his hand 
 the bitter Water that caufeth the curfe. 
 
 19 And the prieft fliall charge her by an oath, and 
 fay unto the woman, If no man have lien with thee, 
 and if thou haft not gone afide to unclean aefs with 
 another inftead of thy hufband, be thou free from this 
 bitter water that caufeth the curfe : 
 
 20 But if thou haft gone afide to another inftead of 
 thy hufband, and if thou be defiled, and fome mart 
 hath lien with thee befide thine hufband : 
 
 21 Then the prieft fhatl charge the Woman with 
 ail oath of curfing, and the prieft fhall fay unto the 
 
 woman,
 
 36 The Bluings of Polygamy, &i\ 
 
 culous) was the cloth of virginity, where- 
 by to make known the reality of a 
 
 maid [R]. 
 
 woman, The Lord make thee a curfe and an oath 
 among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy 
 thigh to rojt, and thy belly to fwell ; 
 
 22 And this water that caufeth the curfe fhall go 
 into thy bowels, to make thy belly to fwell, and thy 
 thigh to rot : And the woman lhall fay, Amen, 
 Amen. 
 
 23 And the prieft fhall write thefe curfes in a 
 book, and he fhall blot them out with the bitter 
 water. 
 
 24 And he fhall caufe the woman to drink the 
 bitter water that caufeth the curfe ; and the water 
 that caufeth the curfe fhall enter into her, and become 
 bitter. 
 
 25 Then the priefl fhall take the jealoufy-offering 
 out of the woman's hand, and fhall wave the offer- 
 ing before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar. 
 
 26 And the prieft fhall take an handful of the offer- 
 ing, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the 
 altar, and afterward lhall caufe the woman to drink 
 the \vater. 
 
 27 And when he hath made her to drink the wa- 
 ter, then it fhall come to pafs that if fhe be defiled, 
 and have done trefpafs againfl her hufband ; that the 
 water that caufeth the curfe fhall enter into her and 
 teccme bitter, and her belly fhall fwell, and her thigh 
 
 fhali
 
 The BleJ/ings of Polygamy t &c, 3^ 
 
 maid [Rj. But as thefe laws now no 
 longer fubfift, and evidently ended with 
 the whole external Jcwifh policy, How 
 vVould it be poffible to adopt your fyflem 
 among Chriftians in the prefent day^ fo far 
 only as the knowledge of virginity is con- 
 cerned. Suppofe any artful woman who 
 had a mind to marry fome rich or great man> 
 were to complain toanymagiftrate, or in any 
 court of law, that he had enticed her and 
 humbled her, and therefore (he had a claim 
 upon him to make her his wife ; fuppofe 
 
 lhall rot : and the woman lhall be a curfe among her 
 people* 
 
 28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean j 
 then (he lhall be free, and (hall conceive feed. 
 
 29 This is the law of jealoufies, when a wife goeth 
 afide to another inftead of her hufband and is defiled ; 
 
 30 Or when the fpirit of jealoufy cometh upori 
 him, and he be jealous over his wife, and fhall fet 
 the woman before the Lord, and the prieft lhall exe- 
 cute upon her all this law. 
 
 31 Then fhall the man be guiltlefs from iniquity ^ 
 and this woman lhall bear her iniquity. 
 
 [R] See this alfo exprefied at large, Deut. xxii* 
 ver. 13 to 22, 
 
 D twenty
 
 38 *fbe EleJJings of Polygamy, 6V. 
 twenty more were to do the fame ; hoW 
 could the poor man help himfelf upon your 
 plan ? He muft marry them all, and pro- 
 vide for them all, feeing he loath humbled 
 them, he may not put them away all his day 's, 
 
 Again, let it be fuppofed, that any laf- 
 eivious man who was tired of his firft wife, 
 hankered after variety, and wifhed to take 
 another, or two, or three, or four, (for 
 your dodlrine allows of no limitation) he 
 has nothing to do but to walk about a wife- 
 feeking, make his propofals wherever luft 
 and inconftancy fhall fuggeft, and if the 1 
 woman confent, neither he nor fhe com- 
 mit any fin ; Jhe has given herfelf up to the 
 man of her choice, who has humbled her, 
 and therefore they are man and wife in the 
 fight of God, without any marriage cere- 
 mony whatever. But he may not put her 
 away all his days, and he muft provide for 
 
 her But fuppofe he is poor and cannot 
 
 provide for her [S] >, ft ill be may not put 
 
 her 
 
 [S] I am acquainted with a worthy good man, 
 who in the honefly and integrity of his heart, having 
 
 been
 
 *fhe Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 39 
 
 far away, fo he and his wives mufh ftarve 
 together, though moil women in fuch a 
 predicament it is to be prefumed, would 
 fally forth into the Streets and fupply their 
 wants by prostitution, efpecially as nothing 
 could be expected at home but quarrels, 
 jealoufies, and brawlings among the reft 
 of the females, and at beft, dilTatisfied 
 looks from a naufeated hufband : So that 
 if our ftreets abound with proftitutes and 
 our flews with harlots at prefent, were 
 your fyflem to be univerfally adopted, 
 London for its filthinefs would foon furpafs 
 even Corinth itfelf, where Polygamy was 
 practifed without reftraint, and where we 
 have your own authority to aflert that in, 
 the temple of Venus alone there were 
 1000, if not 2000 common whores. 
 
 Even among the Jews themfelves who 
 were curbed by fuch fevere laws, what 
 difficulties attended the practice of Poly- 
 been led away by the fpecious reafonings of ThelypL- 
 thora, ferioufly meditated a defign of abridging the 
 book to give away among the poor. 
 
 D 2 gamy
 
 40 The EkJJings of Polygamy, 
 
 gamy in the moil regular and religious fa- 
 milies ! Witnefs the tyrannical authority 
 of Sarah over Hagar, in the family of 
 Abraham. The difputes between Rachel 
 and Leah in the family of Jacob ; and the 
 vexatious and taunting behavior of Penni- 
 nah towards Hannah, in the family of El- 
 kanah. 
 
 Is the cafe a whit better among the 
 Mahometans, where Polygamy is eftablifhed 
 by law [T], than it was among the Jews. 
 
 To 
 
 [T] Your obfervatioti that the prohibition of Po- 
 lygamy hinders the Turks from embracing Chrifti- 
 anity, only proves, That the religion of Jefus Chrift 
 is far too pure and fpmtual for the vitiated palate 
 of a MuiTuIman , but it is no better argument for 
 the toleration of Polygamy, than it would be for the 
 'toleration of drunkennefs or covetoufnefs, becaufe if 
 thefe fins could be difpenfed with, many a mifer or 
 bottle companion might be made converts toChrifti- 
 anity. You alfo' bring a quotation from Lord Kaim's 
 Hiilory of Man, Vol. II. p. 89, where it is aflerted, 
 " That among the mod zealous Chriftians in the 
 kingdom of Congo, Polygamy is in ufe as formerly, 
 when they were pagans ; and fooner than give it up, 
 they would renounce Chriftianity.." But if the fat 
 be true (which I much doubt) I cannot help think- 
 ing
 
 The Bleffings cf Polygamy, &c. 41 
 
 To Tooth the jealoufy of the debauched 
 Muffulman, and to prevent the apparent 
 mifchiefs which would be the effect of a 
 plurality of wives under his own roof, the 
 poor defencelefs beings are generally locked 
 and barred up in feparate apartments, and 
 none permitted to approach them but their 
 antiquated Duenna, who being pafl all fears 
 of exciting the paffion of love in others, is 
 fuffered to go abroad herfelf. But if Po- 
 lygamy were ever to have the fanction of 
 law in this land (which God forbid) the 
 wives of Chriftians mufl either be impri- 
 foned like many among the Turks, or elfe 
 they mufl be fuffered to dwell together 
 under the fame roof in their hufband's 
 houfe ; in either cafe, what evils mufl fol- 
 low ! What tyranny in the hulband is feen 
 in the former, in the latter what jealoufies 
 and quarrellings among the wives, info- 
 much that all domeflic peace mufl be bid 
 adieu to. But above all, how is the cafe 
 of the firft wife to be pitied, efpecially if 
 
 ing that thefe mo/J zealous Chrifliam never had any 
 Chriftianity to renounce. 
 
 D 3 fhe
 
 42 The Bleffings of Polygamy, 
 
 me be of a meek, amiable, and affectionate 
 difpofition, when me is eye witnefs to the 
 fad; of others being received to her beloved 
 hufband's bed, and finds his love towards 
 her to grow cool in proportion as it be- 
 comes warm towards a ftranger ? We often 
 fee the dire effects of jealoufy on the moft 
 diftant fufpicion of unfaithfulnefs ; but 
 when that fufpicion is exchanged for cer- 
 tain knowledge, what may we expect, or 
 rather what may we not expect as the confe- 
 quence ! 
 
 But are matters likely to be at all more 
 peaceable among a numerous brood of 
 children by different wives than among 
 the wives themfelves ? What difputes and 
 wranglings about property, what diffenti- 
 ons among neareft relations muft inevitably 
 take place ! infomuch, that one half of the 
 men that are born muft be brought up 
 lawyers, to fquabble about the meum and 
 tuum of the other half; a large addition muft 
 be made to the courts of judicature in Weft- 
 ininfter-hall, and county affizes at the nifi 
 frins bar muft laft great part of the year. 
 
 It
 
 The Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 43 
 
 It may be faid, did not God know and 
 forefee all this ? Certainly he did know and 
 forefee it, and therefore has moft wifely 
 forbidden the practice of Polygamy under 
 the New Teftament difpenfation. Among 
 the Jews thefe inconveniencies were not 
 likely, at leaft not fo likely to happen, cir- 
 cumfcribed as they were by their own pe- 
 culiar laws, and in every difpute about 
 right and inheritance, fubject to the im- 
 mediate decifion of Mofes, or thofe ap- 
 pointed by him. 
 
 Again, Were Polygamy to be eftablifh- 
 ed by law in this kingdom, fo far from 
 encouraging honorable population, it would 
 neceflarily put the* greatest check to it ; 
 iince very few women of a modeft, gentle, 
 and affectionate fpirit, and fuch only are 
 fit for wives, would ever dare to embark in 
 wedlock, left the hufband mould take ano- 
 ther wife, or as many more as he pleafed, 
 and thereby the firft and only true wife, be 
 deprived of that mare in her hufband's 
 love, and that mutual union of heart with 
 him which alone can make her life happy, 
 
 and
 
 44 *fbe Blcffings of Polygamy, &c". 
 
 and without which in proportion as her own 
 
 love for him was great, her mifery muft 
 
 be great alfo. And can that being deferve 
 
 the name of a man, much lefs of a hufband, 
 
 much lefs frill of a ChrifUan, who could 
 
 bear to fee the amiable wife of his bofom 
 
 -in fuch a fituation ? Yet you muft allow 
 
 that this cafe might be a very common 
 
 one, if Polygamy were tollerated by law. 
 
 It is true, fome bold, boxing Amazonians 
 
 might be found who would not be afraid 
 
 to venture themfelves with any man, but 
 
 then this would be upon the idea that vf 
 
 ef armis they mould be able to turn all 
 
 after-comers out of the houfe, and by 
 
 force, if not by argument, fpeedily cure 
 
 the hufband of his love of Polygamy, and 
 
 at the fame time adminifter to him fome 
 
 wholefome difcipline well enough fuited 
 
 to the nature of his crime. 
 
 Again, Suppofe the legiflature were 
 
 really to take up the fubject of your book, 
 
 [ and to pafs an adl in favor of Polygamy ; 
 
 what would be the language of all the vir- 
 
 -tuous wives in the kingdom ; " I'm fure, 
 
 if
 
 The Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 45 
 
 " if my hu(band thinks of taking another 
 
 " wife, I mail heartily wim I had never 
 
 t( married." " Ah fays another (who is 
 
 " unmarried) I think the men will not find 
 
 f ' it an eafy matter to get good wives now 
 
 *' a days; every honeft woman will be 
 
 " afraid of having her nofe put out of 
 
 "joint, by the introduction of a fecond 
 
 " lady into the family, therefore for my 
 
 " part I am determined to live fingle." 
 
 Hence an immediate decreafe of honorable 
 
 population [U], 
 
 But 
 
 [U] I had not put the above to paper more than a 
 few days, before what I had conceived in theory, was 
 confirmed by praftice. I have juft had a letter from 
 a friend, wherein he tells me that the match between 
 a certain young gentleman, and a certain very amiable 
 young lady, had been intirely broken off on her fide, 
 on information fhe had received, that the gentleman 
 who wa propofed to her was an approver of Tbe- 
 
 lypbthora. Now fuppofe this young gentleman 
 
 were to propofe to feveral others, and were for the 
 fame reafon to receive the fame anfwer from all. 
 What muft he do ? no woman will have him, for 
 fear he fhould think himfelf at liberty to give his af- 
 fi&ions and his perfon to another, Hence he be- 
 comes
 
 46 The Bleffings of Polygamy, 
 
 But let us fuppofe the act juft now paf- 
 fed. The very next week how would our 
 daily prints abound with paragraphs of 
 treaties of marriage that were on foot be- 
 ing broken off, unlefs the hufband would 
 enter into articles not to marry any more 
 wives whilft the firft was living. Hence 
 again a fudden check to marriage, and 
 thereby to honorable population. 
 
 Honorable population every where 
 flackening its pace, feduction with all her 
 dreadful train of deceit, abortive potions, 
 and child murder will necerTarily come in 
 with gigantic {hides, efpecially as it will 
 be put in practice even by married men, 
 with fo much greater eafe in proportion as 
 the unhappy female is deluded under the 
 fpecious notion of marriage. This idea 
 
 comes tempted to commit whoredom, fcduion, 
 adultery, and what not. I do not indeed fuppofe 
 that this will be the cafe with the young gentleman in 
 queftion, of whom I entertain a very high opinion ; 
 but human nature is human nature flill, and when 
 checked in an honorable way, will feek gratification 
 in one that is dishonorable. 
 
 will
 
 The Blejpngs of Polygamy ', &c. 47 
 
 will fo far operate on thofe women who 
 are in a lower flation of life towards their 
 fuperiors, that an uncorrupted maid fervant 
 will be a rara avis indeed ; but the more 
 like a black fwan the more likely to 
 efcape[X]. Befides, what coquetting and 
 flirting will be carried on in every afTembly ! 
 what nightly walkings out ! what tendreffes 
 and douceurs will there be between married 
 men and young unmarried women ! And 
 are there not enough of thefe abomina- 
 tions practifed already, that you, my dear 
 friend muft endeavor to wipe off the little 
 fhame which yet attends them; and in a 
 manner authorize them before the world 
 under the fanction of your refpedlable pen ? 
 Who will thank you for this fervice ? Will 
 virtuous wives ? Will conftant hufbands ? 
 Will any parents who have the good of 
 their children at heart? None I believe 
 will think themfelves indebted to you, 
 unlefs it be the reverend editor of the 
 Morning Herald for the many pretty, I 
 might rather foj,fmutty paragraphs, which 
 
 [X] Rara avis in ttrris nigroyue ftmillima cygno. 
 
 the
 
 4B *fbe Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 the legal adoption of your fyftem would 
 furnim him with ; or perhaps fome rich 
 antiquated maids and old widows with 
 large jointures, who will now no longer 
 flick on hand, as their fortunes will be 
 very convenient to fupport the younger 
 wives who have none. 
 
 Lewdnefs and feduction with their con- 
 comitant miferics are now in fome degree 
 confined within a certain circle, which is 
 diftinguifhed by the too gentle appellation 
 of the gallant world '; but blefled be God, 
 even in this degenerate day, there are very 
 many families to be found where harmony 
 and mutual love prevail ; yet your fcheme 
 (however undeiignedly), actually tends to 
 introduce all the evils of corruption and 
 difcontent among thofe, who remain yet 
 uncontaminated by the vicious cuftoms of 
 this wanton and luxurious age -, infomuch 
 that every habitation where peace at prefent 
 dwells, is liable to be turned into a temple 
 of difcord, if not into an human {laughter 
 houfe, by wives cutting their own, each 
 others, or their hufband's throats, or hang- 
 ing
 
 'The Blejfings of Polygamy ', &c. 49 
 
 ing or drowning themfelves in fits of fran- 
 tic jealoufy. Methinks, I am fitting 
 
 quietly in my parlour in London, and am 
 fuddenly rouzed by the prodigious vocife- 
 ration of two grim females of the right St. 
 Giles's ftamp, one on each fide the ftreet, 
 and each of them holding one hand to her 
 ear, crying, " Here is a full and true 
 " account of two moft horrid, barbarous, 
 " bloody, and inhuman murders, which 
 c were committed on Friday night lafl, 
 (( upon the bodies of Sir John Fickle, Bart. 
 ' and his new wife, to whom he had been 
 *' married only one week j which fad deed 
 " was done by his firft wife, who after- 
 " wards ftabbed herfelf with the fame knife 
 " with which me murdered her own huf- 
 " band and his other lady, whilfl they 
 " were afleep in bed together. Alfo the 
 " true copy of a letter to her own mother, 
 " which her ladyfhip left upon her table 
 " the night before me committed the 
 '* murders, giving her own reafons for 
 " what fhe was about to do," 
 
 We
 
 o The Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 We may fuppofe the letter to run in the 
 following words : 
 
 My dearefl mother, 
 
 " YOU will fhudder indeed when 
 e I tell you, that before to-morrow morn- 
 " ing neither I myfelf, my hufband nor 
 " his other wife will have a being in this 
 " world. But my refolution is now unal- 
 " terably fixed. You are my witnefs, God 
 " is my witnefs, that I have made Sir 
 " John a loving, faithful, and obedient 
 " wife for the fpace of fix years. But his 
 " late marriage with Mifs Ogleman, ren- 
 " ders me diftradted. O jealoufy ! who 
 " can live with thee in their bofom ? I 
 " cannot I am defperate Execration on 
 " the man who firft brought Polygamy 
 " into this nation ! Dearefl mother, take 
 " care of my three fweet children which I 
 " have had by Sir John, to you the poor 
 " innocent babes look up for help. My 
 " hand makes fo much that I can hardly 
 " fay, farewell farewell. 
 
 " From your affectionate daughter, 
 
 " CONSTANTIA FICKLE." 
 
 Tridey Night, 12 o'clock.
 
 fbe Blejjings of Polygamy, Gfc, $t 
 
 I appeal to common fenfe, I appeal 
 more particularly to thofe who have the 
 fineil and moft delicate fenfations ; I appeal 
 to thofe who know themfelves, and who 
 are experimentally and religioufly acquaint- 
 ed with the workings of human nature, 
 whether there be any thing throughout this 
 tragical ftory, which wears the face of im- 
 probability, when Polygamy fhould be 
 eftablifhed by law. 
 
 In fome part of your book indeed, after 
 having enlarged on the blemngs of Poly- 
 gamy, your eyes feerri opened to fee the 
 awful train of mifchiefs which muft una- 
 voidably attend its introduction ; and you 
 would almoft confine it to the fingle in- 
 ilance of a man with a woman who has 
 been debauched by him. Where that man 
 is unmarried he is certainly in conference 
 bound to make the woman his wife ; and 
 in every inftance of this fort which comes 
 before me as a magiftrate, I always lay this 
 down as matter of duty before the re- 
 puted father of a child : but when the an- 
 fwer returned is, " Pleafe your Worship, 
 
 " I have
 
 5 2 tfhe Bluings of Polygamy, 
 
 ** I have reafon to believe that I am riot 
 " the firft man who has been concerned 
 " with her/' then, what can I fay ? for if 
 that be a truth, and he marries the wo- 
 man, he is not only linked for life to ano- 
 ther man's whore, but according to your 
 own fyftem, to another man's wife, and fo 
 lives and dies in adultery. 
 
 But fuppofe the man be already a 
 married man, then certainly his crime be- 
 comes much more heinous in the fight of 
 God (though the purport of your book is 
 to make him guilty of no crime at all, 
 provided he perfifts in what he has done, 
 and takes the woman to live with him)* 
 and by the Mofaic law he was to be floned 
 to death as an adulterer: however, you 
 will not allow this to have been the fadl, 
 unlefs the woman were alfb a married wo- 
 man ; and in that cafe, you lament that the 
 punimment of death is not now inflicted 
 by our laws. That pecuniary fines for da- 
 mages, are not in this cafe, a punimment 
 adequate to the offence, I readily allow / 
 but if the dread of the eternal vengeance 
 
 of
 
 The teleffings bf Polygamy, &JV. 3 
 
 of God (which was typified by temporal 
 pUnimments under the judicial law) will 
 not deter men from thefe crimes I know 
 not what will.- From the condudt of our 
 Lord with the pharifees, when they brought 
 to him the woman taken in adultery, it 
 appears clear to me, that under the gof- 
 pel, he indirettly at leaft, prohibited that 
 either party in fuch cafe mould fuffer 
 death, either by {toning or otherwife, as 
 they were to do by the feverity of the 
 Jewim law; and as that man did by the 
 extreme rigor of the fame law, who was 
 found gathering flicks on the fabbath day. 
 
 But I find I am deviating from my fub- 
 je(fl ; in the difcuffion of which I was re- 
 marking, that in fome parts of your book> 
 you yourfelf feem fo far fenfible of the 
 mifchiefs which muft neceflarily attend your 
 fcheme, that you only defend it in fome 
 rare inftances. Then, why in the name 
 of God did you write Tbelyphtkora ? 
 Why caufe all the diflentions you have 
 caufed in the religious world ? Why give 
 fuch caufc of joy and triumph to thofe 
 
 Q who
 
 54 Tbe B/ffSgs of Polygamy, 
 
 who treat every thing ferious with 
 tempt ? Why grieve your friends ? Why 
 ftrengthen the hands of your enemies ? -In.- 
 any view let me repeat the quefUon of my 
 private letter 1 to yoi:---z// bono-fcrii>ere ? 
 
 Again, Were your plan to be univerfally 
 adopted, I am perfuaded, that fo far from, 
 diminifhing the legion of harlots that now 
 fwarm among us, it would greatly add to 
 their number ; and that almoffc every pri- 
 vate houfe where the hufband was a Po- 
 Jygamift, would be little better than a 
 flew or brothel among x the wives, who 
 would certainly plead the inconftancy of 
 the man they had married, in excufe for 
 their own ; for- as-much as he had firft vi- 
 olated the conjugal tie, and difobcyed the 
 apoftle's command, by with-holding thofe 
 duties which equally and reciprocally bind 
 the parties to each ether, and to them- 
 felves alone, in the plaineft terms which 
 words can exprefs. " To avoid fornica^ 
 " tion, let every man have his own wife, 
 " and every woman her own hufband. Let 
 J ' the hufband render unto the wife due 
 
 " benevo-
 
 Blejlngs of Poly gamy y &c. 5 j 
 " benevolence, like wife the wife unto the 
 cc hufband. The wife hath not power of 
 tc her own body, but the hufband : and 
 * f likewifealfo the hufband hath not power 
 * e of his own body, but the wife [Y]. 
 
 " Defraud 
 
 [Y] I am under the necerrity of obfervlhg, that 
 whenever my learned friend finds an argument to be 
 more than a match for him, he attempts to treat it 
 with more than ordinary contempt. This draws off 
 the attention of the reader to the aflertion of the au- 
 thor, and thereby he is apt to overlook all the force of 
 the reafoning which is prefented to his view; Among 
 thefe arguments which Mr. Madan thinks ought to be 
 treated with this fovereign contempt, is that drawn 
 from the words of St. Paul, " That a man ought not 
 to have a plurality of vrives, becaufe the apoftle all 
 along reftrains the number to ONE ONLY." His 
 words are thefe. " To fay that this text forbids Po- 
 " Jygamy, becaufe the word wife is in the fingular 
 ' number is mere trifling, as much fo, as contend- 
 " ing that a man is to love buf one neighbour, be- 
 " caufe it is fa-id, thou flialt love thy neighbour as 
 " thyfelf, not neighbours; or that he lhall keep but 
 " one fervaiit, becaufe it is faid, who art thou thaf 
 ' judged another man's ferva-nt." But fuppoling 
 this argument more juft than it is ; ftill is not Mr. 
 IVladan aware that it is one of that fort which prove 
 too much, as it may with eoual juftice be urged wiry 
 2 ' wife
 
 56 T'he Blejfings of Polygamy; &c. 
 
 " Defraud ye not one the other, except it 
 " be by confent for a time, that ye may give 
 " yourfelves to failing and prayer, and come 
 " together again, that Satan tempt you not 
 " for your incontinency." In all thefe texts 
 there is jufl the fame liberty given to the 
 wife to be falfe to the huiband's bed, as to 
 the hufband to be falfe to that of his wife. 
 Should he therefore prefume to take to 
 himfelf any other woman (except in fuch 
 cafes where the law admits of divorce) 
 might not the injured wife moil juflly 
 and moil fcripturally complain, and fay, 
 " My huiband to whom I have furrendered 
 " my hand, my heart, and my perfon, no 
 *' longer treats me agreeable to thofe fo- 
 ** lemn vows by which at the time of 
 " marriage, he pledged himfelf to me, 
 * and I to him. That benevolence which 
 ** the fcripture enjoins from him to me I 
 " feldom partake of; he claims an exclu- 
 
 a wife fhould have more huibands than one, as well 
 as why a hufband fhould have more wives than one. 
 But indeed it cannot be urged in either cafe, for there 
 is fuck a reciprocal appropriation in the text, as 
 binds the man to tliq VYWUaft ftlone, and the woman 
 to the man alouc* 
 
 " five
 
 *The BteJ/m-gs of Polygamy, &c. 57 
 
 *' five power over me, but in direct oppo- 
 *' fition to the apoftolic declaration, he 
 " denies that I have the fame power over 
 " him, and therefore he defrauds me of the 
 <f rights of the marriage bed, by beftow- 
 " ing his affection on other women, whilft 
 <c I am left to burn with jealoufy, or pine 
 " with difappointed love." 
 
 I can indeed conceive it pomble for a 
 woman to have fo nice a fenfe of delicacy, 
 that me would not choofe to make a com- 
 plaint of thk fort even to her moft inti- 
 mate female friend ; but then me is the 
 more to be pitied on that account, as there 
 is certainly nothing contained in it, which 
 any woman of the moil refined fentiments 
 might not make even to God himfelf. 
 However, though there might be here and 
 there, fuch a meek, pamve female to be 
 found, yet I mould judge, without cen- 
 furing the fex, that they are not very nu- 
 merous, but that multitudes under the 
 above-mentioned treatment, could neither 
 maintain their chafHty, nor with-hold 
 their rage - 3 fb that revenge and proftitu- 
 E 3 tion,
 
 jj 8 'The Biejflngs cf Polygamy, > c. 
 tion, feem to be the natural twin children 
 of every polygamous intercourfe. 
 
 It is but a {ho rt while ago, that a poor 
 deftitute woman applied to me for a letter 
 of recommendation to be admitted a pati- 
 tient in the Lock Hofpital, and urged, in 
 excuie for the bad difeafe {he had con- 
 tracted, that her hufband had for fome 
 time paft cohabited with another woman. 
 It immediately occurred to me that this 
 man was a true polygamill:, or rather a bi- 
 gamift, without the fuperflitious inter- 
 meddling of a pried. And that my friend, 
 with his dedication to the governors of 
 the Lock, Magdalen, and Mifericordia r 
 ought alfo to have preferred a petition 
 moving that againil Polygamy mould be 
 eflabl idled by law, they would enlarge their 
 wards and ens^a^e an additional number 
 
 O O . i 
 
 of furgeons. 
 
 TJut it is an affront to the clear language 
 of the apoftle in the texts cited from the 
 feventh chapter of his firfl Epiftle to the 
 \J:-riiithians, to attempt any explanation of 
 
 them/
 
 Buffings of Polygamy y &c. $ 
 iliem, every word carries with it perfpi- 
 .cuity and conviction* infomuch that one 
 might think it were as eafy to eftablifh the 
 doctrine of tranfmigration as of Polygamy 
 from any part of the chapter ; nay, much 
 more eafy, for it fays nothing againft tranf- 
 migration, but fays every thing which can 
 be laid againft Polygamy : how then you 
 .could imagine that thefe texts or any of 
 them fpeak only of a prevailing cuitom 
 amon.g the Corinthians of lending out their 
 wives is to me inconceivable. Surely to 
 ufe your own language, this is to make 
 fcripture fpeak any thing or nothing, or 
 every thing, juft as fuits our own fancy. 
 But rieitber will this forced interpretation 
 itand, for in order to adopt it, you .are 
 obliged to change the word iropuxq which 
 is very properly tranflated forflicatian, (or 
 fornications) and to render it adultery, fay- 
 ing that it includes all fort of uncleannefs. 
 But why muft the word wof * which comes 
 directly from iroew a harlot, be conftrued 
 adultery rather than fornication ? the rea- 
 fon is plain, becaufe fimple fornication 
 could not be cominitted by the cuftom of 
 
 lending
 
 60 The Blej/ings of Polygamy, 
 
 lending out wives, fo you muft either give 
 up your fenfe of the text, or we mufl 
 grant you that voptw in this place means 
 adultery, and cannot mean fornication. 
 But I have ftill one objection to make 
 againft your interpretation -, which is, that 
 it intirely deftroys the force of the apoftle's 
 reafoning in urging marriage as a remedy 
 againft the danger of celibacy. Of this 
 you are aware, and therefore you will not 
 allow this to be the drift of his argument. 
 However, let us look back to the begin- 
 ning of the chapter. 
 
 ct Now concerning the things whereof ye 
 " wrote unto me ; it is good for a man not 
 " to touch a woman. Neverthelefs to avoicl 
 " fornication, (j,7f ir^vet*?) on account of 
 cc fornications, let every man have his own 
 <c wife, and every woman her ownhufoand." 
 It is moil clear that St. Paul from the ift 
 to the icth verfe, is addreffing himfelf to 
 unmarried people, and to widows, advifmg 
 continency as beft fuited to that diilrefled 
 Hate of the church, if they were able to 
 bear it j elfe he exhorts them to marry, 
 
 and
 
 The B/eJfings of Polygamy, &c. 6f 
 and in cafe they mould, he adds fome di- 
 rections for their conduct when married ; 
 after which he fums up the whole of what 
 he had faid in the following words : <c I fay, 
 <c therefore, [which word thereforehzs cer- 
 <c tainly a reference to what goes before] I 
 cc fay, therefore, to the unmarried and wi- 
 " dows, it is good for them if they abide 
 <c even as I, but if they cannot contain let 
 " them marry, for it is better to marry 
 " than to burn/ 1 
 
 In the tenth verfe and not before, he 
 turns his difcourfe to the married, and ad- 
 dreffes them only. " And unto the married 
 " I command, yet not I but the Lord. Let 
 " not the wife depart from her hufband, 
 <* &c. &c." 
 
 All this is as plain as limple language 
 can make it. How then you could poffibly 
 apply thofe words, Let every man have bis 
 own wife, and every woman her own buf- 
 band, as a prohibition to thofe who had nei- 
 ther wives nor hufbands to lend out, is to 
 me moft aftonifhing; but I cannot help 
 
 faying
 
 #2 be Rleffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 faying it is fuch a palpable perverlion of 
 .tenfe and fcripture as I hardly ever before 
 met with. Yet even if this far fetche4 in=- 
 terpretation were to be allowed, it is as 
 much a command to the wife not to. lend 
 out her hufband, as to the hufband not to 
 lend out his wife : therefore take it which 
 way you will it is big with a.bfurdi ( ty. 
 
 But let us hear what you have to offer 
 in defence of your opinion. I will tran- 
 fcribe your own words. " Thofe who re- 
 " prefent the apoftle as addreffing himfelf 
 " to fingle perfons, and adviiing them to 
 " marry to avoid fornication, make him 
 " guilty of evident tautology for the 
 " eighth verfe is exprefsly addreiTed to the 
 " unmarried and widows, &c. &c. vol. I. 
 < e p. 233." So it is, as alfo every verfe 
 before it : therefore here is no tautojbgy, 
 for the apoftle is fpeaking all along to the 
 unmarried. 
 
 Again, you add, " The very terms (of 
 <c the fecond verfe) mew it to be addrefled 
 fc< to married perfons ; for how could the 
 
 " apollle
 
 7 'be Bleflings of Polygamy, &c, 63 
 
 (< apoftje fay to a fingle man let him 
 " Jiave */CSTW, retain ywouxa. laurs, his wife ; 
 <c or to a fingle woman let her have, i.e. 
 ft keep to TO:/ Jioi> afJpa, her own hufband? 
 (( The immediate connection of this verfe 
 ? e with the three following, \vhich can be- 
 " long to married people only^ is another 
 <( ftrong argument for the truth of this 
 
 " obfervation." But I cannot allow it 
 
 to be any argument at all ; and I appeal to 
 every one who has the ufe of their eyes and 
 reafon, whether every one of thofe verfes 
 which you fay belong to married people only> 
 do not belong to unmarried people only. 
 For firft the verb i^fo will bear no fiich 
 fenfe as you have put upon it " Let her 
 " retain or keep to," and yet if it would 
 bear it, you have actually introduced it in 
 favor of Monogamy inflead of Polygamy ; 
 for it ftands in the original as a direction 
 to the man as well as to the woman, and 
 therefore, if you will tranilate one part of 
 the verfe, " Let the wife keep to her huf- 
 " band," you are under the necefiity of 
 tranflating the other part, " Let the hufr 
 1* band keep to his wife," for the Greek 
 
 word
 
 64 The BleJJings of Polygamy, 
 
 word (x*k>) is the fame in both parts, 
 therefore by endeavoring to make it fpeak 
 what you wim in the one place, you have 
 made it fpeak what you do not wifh in the 
 other place. How you will get out of this 
 difficulty I know not, unlefs you can follow 
 the example of your old friend Whittington, 
 Lord-mayor of London, with his fix bells, 
 and perfuade yourfelf and readers that by 
 the found of this fame word t%/lt* you are 
 fure it means fomething very different, 
 when addrefled to a male than it does when 
 addrefed to a female, which will be liter- 
 ally ringing changes. But as I obferved 
 above, the expreflion will not admit of the 
 conftruction you have put upon. Let her 
 retain or keep to but the plain fignifica- 
 tion of the word is let her have, or let him 
 have : and would any man in the world, 
 who knew what fenfe or grammar meant, 
 lay to a married man, Let him have a 
 wife ? or to a married woman let her have 
 an hufoand ? but the verb being in the im- 
 perative mdod is plainly a command to have 
 that which they have not already. 
 
 Secondly,
 
 The Eleffings of Polygamy, &c. 65 
 
 Secondly, If a tender parent were going 
 to marry a fon or a daughter, would he not 
 give them directions whilfl they were yet 
 iingle, for their conduct after marriage, 
 fuch as " Love your wife," " Behave well 
 to your hufband." In like manner St. Paul 
 exhorting the unmarried who have not the 
 gift of continency, to the ufe of the conju- 
 gal bed in order to avoid fornication, adds, 
 <c let every man have his own wife, let 
 ** every woman have her own hufband. Let 
 * c the hufband render unto the wife due be- 
 " nevolence, likewife the wife unto the huf- 
 " band. The hufband has not power of his 
 cc own body but the wife. The wife has not 
 * { power of her own body but the hufband. 
 cc Defraud ye hot one the other, except it be 
 " by confent for a time, that ye may give 
 " yourfelves unto fafting and prayer, and 
 <l come together again that Satan tempt you 
 <c not for your incontinency." Here is fenfe 
 and reafoning in the apoftle's language, if 
 we fuppofe him to be addreffing himfelf to 
 the unmarried ; but what fenfe or reafon- 
 ing can be difcovered, or where is the re- 
 medy he propofes againfl fornication, if we 
 
 confider
 
 66 *The Rlejfings of Polygamy, &c. 
 confider him as fpeaking to thofe who are 
 married already, in a way of exhortation 
 not to lend out or interchange their wives ?' 
 Give me leave to remind my learned 
 friend who did not ufe to be averfe to a lit- 
 tle pleafantry, that whilfl he is condemn- 
 ing our laws for the power they have com- 
 mitted to the priefts of confirming mar- 
 riages, he himfelf is claiming the autho- 
 rity of marrying half the church of Co- 
 rinth ; for I am fure that all thofe to whom 
 St. Paul addreffes himfelf from the firft to 
 the tenth verfe, were ever efteemed un- 
 married perfons, till that fame good friend 
 of mine coupled them together by his late 
 interpretation of thofe 'texts. 
 
 I muft now obferve, that your labored 
 criticifm upon the words TOI/ iJW avfyu. 
 her own proper hujband, allowing it its full 
 fcope, has the fame misfortune attending 
 it as your construction of the word c^/ja 
 viz. it makes more againfl Polygamy than 
 in favor of it, by not proving what you 
 would have it prove, and by proving what 
 you would not have it prove : for it im->- 
 
 plies
 
 af Polygamy &c. 6? 
 
 plies fuch a peculiar right and property 
 which the woman has in that one man, 
 as no other woman has or can have, info- 
 much that he is emphatically called her 
 own bujlandy or her own man -, which is 
 certainly a much greater proof of the un- 
 lawfulnefs of his taking any other woman, 
 than- if the word had been in the feminine 
 gender, and had been applied' to the wife. 
 1 am therefore happy on this occafion to 
 take your own words, and heartily agree 
 with you, " that as all fcripture is given 
 " by infpiration of God, and the Holy 
 " Ghoft fpea-iceth nothing in vain, there 
 " is a weighty reafori in giving the epithet 
 <f i jioy to the hufband j" that no man might 
 ever fuppofe he had any power over his 
 own body, fo as to think himfelf at liberty 
 to give the ufe of it to any other woman, 
 but to her alone, who is fo exclufively 
 {Hied by the apoftle HER OWN PROPER 
 HUSBAND. 
 
 After all, it cannot be denied that you 
 
 d 
 
 have fent your lady Poiygamia abroad in a 
 Vcjlurc of wrought gold, but ftill I cannot 
 
 think
 
 63 The Blejfings cf Polygamy* 
 
 think me is like the kings daughter all glo* 
 rious within, for remove the ornamented 
 mantle which you have thrown over her, 
 and her deformity appears to view. 
 
 The idea of protecting the weaker fex, 
 and of faving multitudes of them from 
 ruin, is what gives a bias in favor of your 
 plan ; as you have dreffed it up, to the 
 humane and ferious reader. But the mif- 
 chievous and horrible confequences which 
 muft inevitably attend the practice 'of it, 
 you intirely keep out of iight, though it is 
 plain enough that they frequently {tared 
 you in the face -, and this makes you at- 
 tempt to draw the line between what you 
 call the 'wild licentious Polygamy of the Ma- 
 hometans, and a holy and fober ufe of it. 
 But in the firft place, I am aftonimed that 
 a man who is acquainted with the depths 
 and depravity of human nature, which is 
 the fame in England as in Turkey, mould 
 imagine any fuch line can poffibly be 
 drawn, if Polygamy were eflablifhed by 
 law. Secondly, the grand argument which 
 you yourfelf bring in defence of Polyga- 
 my,
 
 tfbe Bkjjings of Polygamy, &c. 69 
 
 my, in a manner counteracts and prevents 
 any fuch holy fober ufe of it: for the cafe 
 in which you principally aim to eflablim it 
 is between a married man and a virgin or 
 maid that is enticed by him. Now fuch a 
 man from the very act he has been guilty 
 of, hot merely in lying with the woman, 
 (for this you will not allow to be any lin at 
 all if he mean to take her to dwell with 
 him), but in feducing wz&inticing her, can 
 have no fuch hvly fober notions in his head> 
 as you plead for ; but as he firft had an in- 
 tercourfe with her from a love of variety, fo 
 now he takes hef as a punimment to which 
 he is condemned by law, for having bafely 
 gratified his luft, though perhaps/ like 
 Amnon with Tamar bis hatred of her is 
 greater than the love wherewith he loved her* 
 
 But whatever might be the reafon why the 
 all- wife God ever permitted polygamous mar- 
 riages among the Jews, he has now under the 
 gofpel, aswill yet more clearly appear, thought 
 proper abfolutely to prohibit them, and 
 therefore to attempt their restoration under 
 the notion of any holy or fober ufe of the?n, is 
 F to 
 
 i
 
 jo The Bkjiitgs of Polygamy, 
 
 to fet up our own judgment againft the in* 
 finite wifdom of God himfelf* 
 
 As to what you would urge from the 
 example of Abraham, it is certain, that no 
 man fince his time could be in his parti- 
 cular fituation, for to him was the promife 
 made, that bis feed ftould be as the ftars of 
 heaven for multitude : And it is very obferv- 
 able, that the father of the faithful took 
 unto him Hagar the Egyptian (who was a 
 type of the Jewish church), at the particu- 
 lar inftance of Sarai his wife, when both 
 he and fhe fuppofed that the Lord bad re- 
 jlralned her from child-bearing. A plain 
 proof that he had more an eye to the ful- 
 filment of God's promife, than to the gra- 
 tification of his own luftj till therefore we 
 find ourfelves exadlly in his predicament, 
 we had better let his precedent for Polyga- 
 my entirely alone. 
 
 Were you to afk me how all the evils of 
 fornication, uncleannefs, fedu&ion, and 
 adultery might be cured ? I would anfwer 
 the queftion, by inquiring how you would 
 
 attempt
 
 T'J Blcflings of Polygamy, &c* 71 
 
 attempt to cure the depravity of fallen man ? 
 which can never be effected by adding the 
 evil of Polygamy to thofe before mentioned, 
 but by enforcing the divine law ; but what 
 law ? not the judicial law of Mofes, which 
 you produce, but the holy fpiritual law of 
 God. Let the minifters of the gofpel open 
 and apply this law in its extent and purity, 
 to the confciences of finners, to mew them 
 their tranfgreflion and their helpleiTnefs, 
 and then let them freely preach Chrift as 
 the only remedy, both from the guilt and 
 dominion of fin. This will be truly an- 
 fwering God's own purpofe both in the 
 temporal or typical punimments under the 
 law> which are now abolifhed, and were 
 then only a fhadow of things to come ; as 
 alfo under the gofpel, the rejectors of which 
 Jhall be funijhed with everlafting deftruftion 
 from the prefence of the Lord, and the glory 
 of his power ; whilft thofe who truly be- 
 lieve it, and embrace it in the light and in 
 the love of it, mall receive the end of their 
 faith, even thefahation of their fouls. This 
 preaching of the moral law for the difco- 
 very and conviction of lin, and preaching 
 F 2 the
 
 72 *fhe Bleffings of Polygamy, 
 
 the gofpel of the free grace of God as ths 
 
 only method of falvation from fin, will do- 
 
 .more in one year for the cure of feduc~tion r 
 
 .adultery, fornication,- and lafbivioufnefs irt 
 
 all its branches than a thoufand treatifes 
 
 upon Polygamy, though they mould have 
 
 been twenty years in compiling. 
 
 STILL once more let us fuppofe your 
 fcheme eftablifhed by the legiflature juft as 
 you would have it. Very foon after, my 
 dear friend to his own great grief, reads 
 -the following paragraph in- the Morning^ 
 Port. 
 
 " Laft night kdy A ,. wife of Sir 
 
 " Thomas A , Bart, was found hang- 
 
 " ing in her own dremng-room, in 
 
 " Square. The caufe of this dreadful ca- 
 '* taftrophe is fuppofed to be as follows : 
 
 " About a week ago, Mifs B , daugh^ 
 
 " ter of William B , Eiq; went off 
 
 " from the mafquerade at Carlifle Houfe 5 
 
 " with Sir Thomas A . Next day, 
 
 *' her mother, Mrs. B- , hearing that 
 
 " {he was at Sir Thomas's houfe, came to 
 
 * her
 
 *tt>e Bleflings of Poly gamy ^ &c. 73 
 
 ** her in the tttmoil diftrefs, and interro- 
 ** gating her on the caufe of her conduct, 
 * s me replied with great pertnefs, that nei- 
 *' ther (he nor Sir Thomas had done any 
 *' thing they need be afhamed of, or that 
 <e was not authorized both by the law of 
 *' God and the law of the land. SirTho- 
 
 *' mas A was the man of her choice ; 
 
 * c Hie had farrendered up her perfon to him, 
 ** fhe was now his wife without any more 
 ** ceremony \\-hatever, with him fhe meant 
 ** to continue all her days ; and he might 
 *' take to him/elf twenty more young la- 
 ** dies in the fame way, if he thought pro- 
 *' per ; fhe had no right to controul him, 
 *' whilft the divine law, as well as the law 
 *' of the land, which had lately paffed the 
 " King, Lords, and Commons, in favor of 
 
 * f Polygamy, was now in full force." 
 
 " Heavens, child ! (cried the affrighted pa- 
 ** rent) do you know that Sir Thomas 
 
 " A is already a married man, and 
 
 *' has a virtuous good wife of his own ; 
 " and that what you have done will cer- 
 " tainly break her heart ? Know it, yes, 
 ** very well, but what is that to me ? (re- 
 F 3 <{ plied
 
 74 *fbe Blejings of Polygamy, 
 " plied Mifs) Ought I to pretend to bo 
 < wifer than God ? or to wifh to fee hu- 
 < man inventions, fuperftitious ceremonies, 
 " and prieft's marriages adopted, inftead of 
 " what he himfelf has appointed ? No, no, 
 <c I have now done with all thefe fooleries, 
 " fince Sir Thomas A has put into my 
 t( hands a very fine book with a very hard 
 ** name, upon thefe fubjedts ; artd if every 
 < l body was to do as Sir Thomas and I 
 " have done, feductkm, fornication, and 
 " adultery, would foon be banimed out of 
 " the kingdom ; and to tell you the truth, 
 c; as foon as I hear that the book is 
 " abridged) I intend to buy an hundred to 
 <e difperfe among the poor by way of cha-> 
 <c rity." This anfwer of the young lady, 
 had iuch an erTecl on the wretched mother, 
 that me was carried home in a chair and 
 expired the fame evening; fo that lady 
 
 A and Mrs. B , have both loft 
 
 their lives by this unfortunate marriage, 
 
 Now I do not fay that fuch a cafe ever 
 will happen ; but this I muft fay, that all 
 this, and much more of a like fort might 
 
 happen
 
 The Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. J$ 
 
 happen if your plan were to pafs into a law, 
 for in the whole of this tranfa<5tion, what- 
 ever motives might influence either the fup- 
 
 pofed characters of Sir Thomas A or 
 
 Mifc B , neither the one nor the other 
 
 have acted in the leaft tittle contrary to 
 what your own book authorizes : and feign- 
 ed (God be praifed) as the cafe is, yet I 
 thought the introduction of it very allow- 
 able, by way of contrafting fome of thofe 
 melancholy pictures, which you have drawn 
 and hung out to public view on the other 
 fide. I may add, that it is repaying you in 
 your own coin, for as you have ranfacked 
 old newfpapers to point out the bleflings 
 of Polygamy in futuro, it is very fair that 
 I mould have recourfe to what we may na- 
 turally fuppofe will be the language of thofe 
 papers, in order to point out the curfes 
 which will attend the monfter when brought 
 forth : and indeed, to mew the wifdom 
 of that law which makes every Polygarmft 
 fuffer death as a felon ; but for which pu- 
 nimment you yourfelf have made the bell 
 apology, by wiihing it were ftitl to be put in 
 execution upon the adulterer : therefore you 
 
 cannot
 
 j 6 rfbe Ekffings of Polygamy 
 
 cannot blame thofe who looking upon Po- 
 lygamy and adultery to be fynonimous 
 terms, have thought fit to inflict a fentence 
 on the former, which you judge tp be me- 
 rited by the latter. 
 
 SUCH are a few of the flagrant mifchiefe 
 which muft inevitably attend the introduc- 
 tion of Polygamy into this land, and yet 
 they are but a few, in comparifon of others 
 which mull ilrike the mind of every think- 
 ing perfon. For God's fake therefore, my 
 dear friend, confider the dreadful licentious 
 tendency of your afTert^ons. Should one 
 man defile another man's wife, you feem to 
 lament that our laws do not punim him 
 with death ; but if he intice or debauch 
 a thoufand virgins, and afterwards take 
 them to live with him, and call them by 
 the name of wife, there is no harm done. 
 It is a perfect marriage in the fight of God. 
 There wants no human ceremony to com- 
 plete it. The man is guilty of no fin, 
 The woman, or rather each woman, is per- 
 fectly innocent ; fhe has furrendered up her 
 pcrjon to the man of her choice, and it would 
 
 be
 
 Bleffings of Polygamy'. &' 77 
 
 be the highefl impropriety to upbraid 
 with the name of a whore.- 
 
 If fuch reafoning be not (though I 
 moil undefignedly) to give a fanction to for- 
 nication and lewdnefs,. I know not what 
 is j and if I have or {hall prove the abfolute 
 unlawfulnefs of Polygamy in the courfe of 
 this work, you yourfelf muft be of the fame 
 opinion; at prefent however, you are not 
 of that mind, having given us a pretty ftrong 
 proof of your fentiments on this point, in 
 the cafe of a certain noble earl and the late 
 unfortunate Mifs R y, whom you pofi- 
 tively affirm, that the Rev. Mr. H --- 
 ought to have looked upon as the earl's 
 wife : and no doubt his lordfhip is much 
 obliged to you for the healing plaifter which 
 you have adminiftered to him : and he may 
 now confole himfelf with another Mifs 
 R y, and another yet, if he thinks proper, 
 without fin on his part, or caufe of fhame in 
 that of the females. 
 
 Permit me now to ftate a cafe, and to 
 afk your opinion on it, 
 
 As
 
 7 8 ^The Bleffings of Poly gamy > 
 
 As a magiftrate, it may have frequently 
 happened that a fingle woman has come 
 before you to filiate her baftard child 
 on a married man. Now I mould be glad 
 to know, what you would fay to the parties 
 on fuch an occaiion ? From your character 
 as a minifler of the gofpel, we may rea- 
 fonably fuppofe, that the man and the Wo- 
 man would expect you fliould not only en- 
 force the flatute concerning bajlards begotten 
 and born out of lawful matrimony > but that you 
 mould alfo add fomefeafonable advice and re- 
 proof concerning the fin they have been guilty 
 of. But how great muft be their furprize, if 
 you were to addrefs the two perfons before 
 you in the following language -, and yet if 
 you are true to your own principles, I fee 
 not what other you can make ufe of. 
 
 " My friends, why are you uneafy ? You 
 ** have neither of you done any thing 
 <c wrong in the fight of God, or that you 
 " need be amamed of; fo far from it, you 
 " have fulfilled the divine command, in- 
 {t creafe and multiply ; and it is a fcandaj 
 <c to our laws, that this poor girl mould be 
 
 <c deemed
 
 The Blejfings cf Poly gamy > &c. 79 
 
 * c deemed a whore. Befides, I pronounce 
 f< you to be ufeful members of the com^ 
 " munity, by the encouragement you have 
 " given to population. 
 
 ft Go your ways therefore, take the wo- 
 * ' man to live with you, and continue to 
 4 * at together as you have done. You are 
 *' truly man and wife in the light of God, 
 " without going through the forms of that 
 '* fuperftitious ceremony which we call ma- 
 *' frhnony; though we clergy are obliged to 
 ' e trudge through the farce of reading, what 
 f( is called, the church fervice, before the 
 ?c parties can be joined in law," 
 
 As I hear a third volume of Thelyphthora 
 is foon to make its appearance, your fenti- 
 ments on the cafe in queflion, will no 
 doubt oblige the public. 
 
 You would appear to difapprove the prac- 
 tice of keeping miftrefles -, but I beg to in- 
 quire where is the harm of this according 
 to your fyflem, if the man who keeps the 
 woman be the firft who had intercourfe with 
 ? her?
 
 So tfbe Elejjings of Poly gamy > &c. 
 
 fier ? You fay, in fuch cafe, he may not put 
 her away all his days. It feems then the im 
 is in putting her away, not in keeping her', 
 for he lins not at all- whilft he cohabits 
 with her ; all that time me is his wife : yet 
 if he puts her away, I hardly know whether 
 you would denominate her his wife or his 
 miflrefs, feeing it was only a temporary in- 
 tercourfe that he had with her ; and indeed 
 upon your plan, it is almoft impomble to 
 fay, who is a kept miftrefs and who a wife ; 
 for you have adjudged the late unfortunate 
 Mifs Ray> to be the wife of the firft Lord 
 
 of the A y; and you fay that the 
 
 Rev. Mr. H : n, ought to have been 
 
 taught to have looked upon her as fuch. 
 
 When that amorous Prince, Charles the 
 Second, lay on his death-bed, before the 
 Jefuits laid hold on him, he was attended 
 by the- pious Bifhop Kenn, when the ex- 
 emplary prelate exhorted him to put away 
 his miftrefs, the celebrated Nell Gwy?ine [Z], 
 
 and 
 
 [Z] I am not quite certain whether Eleanor 
 Gwynne or the Duchefs of Portfmouth, was at that 
 
 time
 
 fbe Bkfmgs of Polygamy, &c. Si 
 
 and to be reconciled to his Queen. Had 
 you, my good friend, been called to the 
 dying Monarch, inftead of the Bifhop of 
 Bath and Wells,, what advice would yoir 
 have administered for his foul's health on 
 that particular occafion ? The firft piece of 
 intelligence neceflary to be obtained, would- 
 be whether any other man had been one 
 fefh with the favorite actreis, previous to 
 his Majefty ; in which cafe he was living 
 in adultery with her r feeing fhe was the 
 true wife in God's light, of the firfl man 
 who had been connected with her; but if 
 his Majefty cnfyhzd been familiar with herV 
 then (he was as much married to him by 
 the divine kw, as his own Queen was,* 
 How (hall this difficulty be folved ? MES. 
 G wynne alone can do it; and to her the 
 reverend cafuift muft put the deciding quef- 
 tion, and gather all the information he can 
 relative to the tokens of ker virginity before' 
 the King approached her. Mrs. Gwynne 
 aflures you r that no man whatever had ac- 
 
 time the reigning favorite of Charles the Second j but 
 if I miftake not it was the former ; however that be, 
 it makes no difference as to tlie cafe in hand. 
 
 cefs
 
 2 *h'e Eleffmgs of Poly gamy t 
 
 cefs to her perfon before his Majefty, and 
 that ever fmce me had been faithful to her 
 royal lover. You anfwer (ftri&ly according 
 to the doctrine of Tbelypbthord], " Then, 
 " Madam, you are his Majefty's own wife, 
 te and he is your own proper hufband, ac* 
 " cording to the primitive inftitution of 
 *' marriage, notwithftanding the ceremony 
 *' which has pafTed between him and his 
 " prefent confort, and notwithftanding no 
 *' fuch form by a prieft has ever exifted 
 * e between you and him : therefore, if his 
 " Majefty mould recover from this illnefs, 
 " he would mew himfelf a very wicked 
 <e man in not living with you as he has 
 Ct done -, and you Mrs. Gwynne, would be 
 " equally finful, if you did not continue to 
 " grant his Majefty every indulgence he 
 " requires at your hands. My advice there- 
 <e fore in this matter, for the prefent eafe 
 " of the King's confcience, and for his 
 <e everlafting welfare, is this ; that if it 
 " pleafe God to raife him up from this bed 
 " whereon he now languifhes, you both 
 continue to give yourfelves up to the holy 
 and fober embraces of each other, in 
 
 which 
 
 (C
 
 IS 
 
 Tot Bleftngs of Polygamy, &t. 8 J 
 
 which may you be fruitful and multiply ; 
 " and may thoufands of others, influenced 
 " by your virtuous examples, inflead of 
 " pretending to be ivifer than God-, go on 
 f ' to follow thofe bright examples, till for- 
 " nication, adultery, and every fpecies of 
 " lewdnefs be banifhed from this guilty 
 " land, which has forfaken the divine au- 
 " thority, and fubftituted human devices 
 " and fuperftitious ceremonies in its 
 ! ftead." 
 
 Is there a fyllable in all this, which you 
 as his Majefly's fpiritual guide might not, 
 nay ought not, upon your principles to have 
 faid upon the occalion ? 
 
 YOUR definition of a whore is confined 
 to one " who proftitutes herfelf to differ- 
 " ent men as lufl or gain may induce her, 
 * without defjgn of marrying them.'' But I 
 am quite at a lofs to know what you mean 
 by " marrying them-" do you fuppofe the 
 woman to be unmarried, till fome outward 
 ceremony has palTed ? Can the magic words 
 of a prieft make her more a wife or lefs a 
 
 whore
 
 84 fo BkJ/ings of Polygamy t &c. 
 
 whore than fhe was before ? if fo, yell 
 throw down at once the whole ftrudture 
 you have been raifing. If you choofe to 
 abide by your own afTertions, you muft 
 avow that fhe was married to the firft man 
 with whom me became one flejh ; and there- 
 fore fhe muft neceflarily commit adultery 
 with all others fhe becomes afterwards 
 connected with : fo that I may venture to 
 affirm, that according to your ideas of mar- 
 riage, fornication cannot exift. I grant 
 however, that the above is a true definition 
 of a common jlnimpet j but whoredom, if 
 fcripture be our guide, might be committed 
 even under the Mofaic difpenfation, when 
 any unmarried woman or widow, had inter- 
 courfe with only one man, who was not 
 -her lawful hufband; as is clear from the 
 cafe of Tamar j for we read Gen. xxxviii. 
 24. It was told Judah, faying, Tamar thy 
 daughter-in-law hath played the harlot ; and 
 alfo behold Jhe is with child by whoredotrt. 
 But according to your idea and definition 
 of a whore, >no man whatever had a right 
 to fay fo. Suppofe fhe had furrendered up 
 .her perfen to the man of her choice t whether 
 
 fhe
 
 T6e Bkjfings of Polygamy, &c. 8/J 
 (he were virgin or widow, or whether he 
 were married or unmarried, {he had done 
 nothing that was forbidden, and therefore 
 ought not to be ftigmatized with the dif- 
 graceful appellation of a whore. It is true 
 indeed, Judah took her for a common har^ 
 lot, and he went in unto her as fuch. But 
 this alters not the cafe, for they who told 
 yudah that Jbe *was 'with child by whoredom^ 
 knew nothing of this intercourfe, nor how 
 it was obtained; and therefore the fact Hands 
 on record, as full proof that when any wo- 
 man in Ifrael who had ho hufband proved 
 to be with child, (he was as much deemed 
 an whore, as we mould judge her to be 
 one in England. 
 
 I muft alfo obferve, that neither judah 
 nor his friend Hirah, the Adullamite, feem to 
 have thought it at all extraordinary, that 
 they found an harlot fitting by the Way fide ; 
 nor did the men of whom Hirah inquired 
 concerning her, expfefs any aftonimment at 
 his queiiion, as if fome new thing had hap- 
 pened in Ifrael ; but they {imply made an- 
 fwer, that they did not fee her } which cir- 
 G cumftance,
 
 86 The Blejfings of Polygamy, &f. 
 
 cumftance, befides the frequent mention we 
 have of harlots and adulterefTes in the Old 
 Teftament, and the cautions given to avoid 
 commerce with them, as alfo the com- 
 plaints of the prophets, that the people af+ 
 Jembled themfehes by troops in the harlots 
 houfes, and 'were like fed borfes neighing after 1 
 their neighbours wives, carry pretty flagrant 
 proof that adultery and whoredom were 
 much more common in Judea, than you 
 would have us believe, and that confe- 
 quently Polygamy was no fpecific againft 
 either. 
 
 It has been urged, that if Polygamy be 
 forbidden, fome of the eminent Old Tefta- 
 ment faints lived and died in adultery. It 
 might with as much truth be objected, that 
 if it be now unlawful for nearefl relations 
 to marry, the immediate defcendants of 
 Adam and of Noah lived and died in inceft ; 
 or if it be now wrong for a man to marry 
 his brother's wife, it muft have been fo in 
 all ages of the world, and under all circum- 
 ftances, fince lin can never alter its nature. 
 
 It
 
 Blejjings of Poly gamy > Gfc. 87 
 
 It will readily be granted that fin cannot 
 alter its nature, and that God cannot alter 
 his nature as bearing an everlafKng hatred 
 againft fin. But then what is fin, but the 
 trangreffion of the law of God ? And what 
 is the law of God, but the tranfcript and 
 declaration of the will of God ? And if God 
 permit that at one time which he prohibits 
 at another, the fame act will be no lin when 
 he allows it, which will be fin when he 
 forbids it. When Jael wife of Heber the 
 KenitCj flew Sifera, the captain of Jabin's 
 hofr, by driving a nail into his temples 
 whilfl he was afleep in her tent, fhe com- 
 mitted no fin, becaufe fhe acted under the 
 immediate direction of God -, but had Jael 
 done this Without that direction, me had 
 been guilty of the bafeft treachery and mur- 
 der. Had Jofhua when he conducted the 
 Israelites to the promifed land, acted by his 
 own authority in burning the cities, flaying 
 the inhabitants young and old, and even 
 hanging five kings at once, after making his 
 captains put their feet upon the necks of 
 thofe kings, he would have been one of the 
 moft impious and arbitrary tyrants that the 
 G 2 fun
 
 88 The Bleffing* of Polygamy, 
 fun ever beheld ; but by acfting by the ex- 
 prefs warrant of Jehovah, in driving out 
 and confuming the idolatrous nations, he 
 had power to command that fun to ftand 
 ftill uponGibeon, and the moon in the val- 
 ley of Ajalon, whilft he completed his 
 flaughter on the combined armies of all 
 
 o 
 
 the kings of the Amorites, jfofiua x, 
 
 throughout. 
 
 But after all, fuppofe I cannot reconcile 
 this difficulty to my own apprehenfion : 
 fuppofe I am fearful of faying that Polyga- 
 my was no fin under the Old Teftament, 
 and am alfo fearful of alTertiag that Abra- 
 ham, David, and others,, lived and died in 
 adultery ; ftill why cannot I content myfelf 
 with what is plainly reveaLed, and leave it to 
 God to clear up the j,uftice and equity of 
 his own dealings with the children of men ? 
 Secret things belong unto him. Infinite 
 wifdom has its own reafons for whatever k 
 does, and will be accountable to none. 
 Whatever be dark, this is certain,, that 
 God thought fit to permit Polygamy under 
 the law : but permiffion does not by any 
 
 means
 
 The Blfffings tf Polygamy, &c. 89 
 means imply approbation ; nay, God often 
 permits that which from the very holinefs of 
 his nature is his abhorrence. On the other 
 hand, it is equally certain, that God has 
 thought fit to prohibit Polygamy under the 
 gofpel; and therefore though permiffion 
 may well enough accord with difapproba- 
 tion, yet prohibition and approbation are 
 b far from agreeing, that they cannot ftand 
 together. 
 
 LET us now in as few words a.s pofTible, 
 confider all the proof you attempt to bring 
 from the Old Teftament in favour of Poly- 
 gamy, and the whole amounts to this : 
 That in no cafe it was commanded or en- 
 joined ; in fome cafes it was permitted ; but 
 whether this permiffion ever amounted to 
 approbation, remains flill to be afcertained. 
 It is true, you have brought fome texts of 
 fcripture in defence of what you have ad- 
 vanced; but in none of thefe you have 
 attempted to prove any thing beyond aa 
 allowance of Polygamy, except in one, 
 and that is Exod. xxii. 16. Jf a man intice 
 a maid that is not betrotbed> and lie <witb her, 
 G 3 be
 
 90 *fbe Bleffings of Poly gamy , 
 
 he Jhall furely endow her to be bis wife. And 
 even this fmgle text will not bear you out, 
 unlefs you can bring fome better proof than 
 you have done, that a man (which you have 
 unwarrantably ventured to render any man] 
 means a married man, at leafl a married 
 man, as well as a fmgle one - y in which in- 
 terpretation however, you have not only the 
 general voice of commentators againft you, 
 but if fcripturc be allowed to be its own 
 interpreter, the voice of God himfelf, in 
 that remarkable text which you have be- 
 ftowed much pains to get over, Lev. xviii, 
 18. 'Thoujhalt not take a wife to her Jijler, 
 to vex her, to uncover her nakednefs, befide 
 the other in her life time ; which thofe who 
 have the moil critical knowledge of the He- 
 brew, interpret as in the marginal reading, 
 of not taking one wife to another, for which 
 they have certainly very good authority, 
 imce the word which we translate a ffter, 
 is rendered another r , in other parts of fcrip- 
 ture. 
 
 The utmofl therefore, which you have 
 proved from the Old Teftament, is a per- 
 
 miflim 
 3
 
 Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 91 
 
 mlffion of Polygamy among the Jews, not 
 without much difficulty in getting over fe- 
 veral texts, which at leaft feem very unfa- 
 vorable to it, particularly that noted pafTage, 
 Mai. ii. 14, 15, 1 6. which I (hall give at 
 length. Yet ye fay. Wherefore ? becaufe the 
 Lord hath been witnefs between thce and the 
 wife of thy youth -, againft whom thou haft 
 dealt treacheroujly : yet Jhe is thy companion, 
 and the wife of thy covenant. And did not 
 be make one ? Yet had he the rejidue of the 
 Spirit : and wherefore one - ? that he might feek 
 a godly feed. Therefore take heed to your f pi- 
 rit, and let none deal treacheroujly again/I the 
 wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of 
 Jfrad faith, that he hateth putting away, &c. 
 Gff . Though it be certainly a humiliating 
 circumftance for an author to confefs him-^ 
 feif ignorant of a language, the knowledge 
 of which is in a degree neceiTary for the 
 carrying on of a controverfy in which h 
 is engaged, yet rather than ftrut about like 
 ./E fop's daw in borrowed plumes, I will 
 freely and ingenuoufly own myfelf incapa- 
 ble of examining into your Hebrew criti- 
 cifms on the foregoing text, which J am 
 
 the
 
 $2 The Blejfings of Polygamy, 
 
 the more forry for, as from the awkward 
 or rather round-about explanation you have 
 given of the paflage, I am led to fufpect 
 that you have not faithfully delivered the 
 mind and will of God revealed in it, parti- 
 cularly in thofe words, Did net he make one? 
 i. e. as I always underftood by comparing 
 it with the context, '* Did not he make the 
 hufband and wife one, by uniting them in 
 ib near a relation, that they two mould be 
 confidered as one flefh ?" But what is your 
 fenfe of the words Did not one make ? Or 
 did not one God make or create both you and 
 your wives? Vol. I. p. 139. But whether 
 you, or whether all *' the commentators that 
 have followed one another like Jheep," be in the 
 right in the explanation of this claufe, it is 
 certain that if the whole three verfes taken 
 together, do not contain any abfolute com- 
 mand that one man mould have only one 
 wife, it feems at leaft taken for granted, 
 fince there is mention made only of one 
 man and one woman as united together in 
 the nuptial bonds and (tiled, thee and the 
 wife of thy youth, againftwhom the hulband 
 Is cautioned not to deal treacheroufly* 
 
 I 8*
 
 The Elejjings of Po j ygamy, &c. 93 
 
 Be allured, that I am as much againft 1 
 pinning my faith on the fleeves of com- 
 mentators, as you can be ; but yet I cannot 
 help thinking, that there are many among 
 them, who for learning, extenfive know- 
 ledge, found judgment, integrity and hu- 
 mility, are not at all inferior to thofe who 
 affecl: to undervalue them. I am alfo per- 
 fuaded, that though the knowledge of the 
 original fcriptures be very ufeful, yet that 
 no point of real importance either to the 
 faith or pra&ice of a Chriilian depends upon, 
 or requires a great fkill in criticifm. The 
 gofpel is preached to the poor, and the 
 Lord knew, that comparatively few of his 
 people would be deeply verfed in lan- 
 guages. 
 
 I further beg leave juft to obferve, that 
 though you profefs moft flrongly to decry 
 all human authority in general, becaufe the 
 current of it is againft you, yet you are 
 happy to make the moft of every fcrap and 
 fhred of it, when it is at all in your favor : 
 I allow, that there is great danger in fetting 
 too high a value on any human authority 
 
 whatever ;
 
 94 We Bleffings of Polygamy > 
 
 whatever -, yet human authority where it 
 keeps its proper place of fubordination, is 
 not without much ufe even in the invefli- 
 gation of divine truth : therefore where 
 faithful ecclefiaftical hiftorians, fathers, 
 and commentators, above all where the 
 noble army of martyrs, and the holy church 
 univerfal throughout the world, are and 
 have been agreed in any point of doctrine 
 from the firft eftablifhment of Christianity ; 
 though I am far from faying their teftimony 
 is infallible, yet I muft fay it is not to be 
 lightly regarded, efpecially ought no one 
 man without much fear, diffidence, and 
 caution to fet up his own judgment againft 
 fo great a cloud of witnefles. We gene- 
 rally find that error and high felf- confidence 
 go hand in hand, whilft modefty and hu- 
 mility are the infeparable companions of 
 truth. The meek will be guide in judgment ; 
 the meek will be teach bis way. Pfal. xxv. 9. 
 When Thuedas arofe, he boajled himjelf 
 to be fomebody [A], but Paul ililed himfelf 
 
 [A] A fit v. 36. 
 
 the
 
 The Bleffings cf Poly gamy y &c. 95 
 
 the chief of fmners, and lefs than the leaft of 
 all faints. 
 
 After all, you will have no occaiion to 
 blame me for making too much ufe of hu- 
 man authority, as throughout this piece, J 
 do not recollect that I have made one quo- 
 tation, but what comes directly from the 
 fountain of truth, the word of God* 
 
 BUT how have you Tucceeded when you 
 come to the New Teftament ? All here is 
 negative proof indeed; for with all your 
 partiality to Polygamy, I bear you witnefs, 
 that you have not even made the attempt of 
 preffing a fingle text into your fervice. All 
 you have done, all you could do, all you 
 have endeavored to do, is to mew that the 
 New Teftament writings, allowing you 
 your own interpretation of them, may be fo 
 explained, as not to forbid Polygamy ; but 
 not fo much as one text is offered to prove 
 even the permiffion of it. - Your grand 
 argument is brought up again, again, again, 
 and again, that if God allowed Polygamy 
 under the Old Teftament, it cannot be 
 
 finful
 
 96 Ike Bleffings of Polygamy > 
 finful under the New ; and proceeding 
 upon this moft erroneous hypothecs, you 
 bend and ftrain every -fcripture which Hands 
 in your way, till you have lilenced them 
 from fpeaking what they really do fpeak, 
 and have made them fpeak juft what you 
 would have them fpeak. But whilft fuch 
 bold liberties as thefe are taken with the 
 blefTed word of God, can we wonder that 
 the doctrine of tranfubftantiation, or any 
 other popim abfurdities are fwallowed 
 down ? Nay, are we to be aftonifhed at the 
 folly and enthufiafm of one in this kingdom, 
 who fome years fince (you remember well 
 the fa<fl) declared he mould never die, but 
 mould be translated as were Enoch and Eli- 
 jah. Had any one reafoned with him on 
 his delufion, might he not have faid, " I 
 ** fee that two of the Old Teftament faints 
 " were tranflated, therefore translation was 
 " then agreeable to the mind of God, the 
 " fcriptures of the New Teftament are in- 
 " tirely filent on this head; they leave the 
 " matter juft as they found it, therefore, 
 '* why may not 1 expert tranilation as well 
 
 ' as
 
 *Tbe Bleffings of Polygamy GV. 97 
 " as Enoch and Elijah ?" Indeed I think 
 not only tranflation, but navigation, forti- 
 fication, or any other ation, might as rea- 
 dily be proved from the New Teftament as 
 Polygamy ; befides, that to prove a dodtrine 
 from the New Teftament, which you your- 
 felf allow is not once mentioned in it, is 
 I apprehend rather an odd manner of 
 proving. 
 
 HAVING now, I hope, in fome meafure 
 cleared the way before me, by removing 
 many falfe ideas and mifconceptions, by 
 which you ftrongly incline your readers in 
 favor of your fyftem, and indeed in a man- 
 ner try to frighten them into a perfuafion 
 that the whole Chriftian world has hitherto 
 been in darknefs, both in principle and 
 practice, on the fubjecl: in queftion, and 
 that every interpreter of God's word who 
 preceded you, has only been ringing poor 
 Whittington's bells in their ears, to prevent 
 their hearing diftinctly, what God fpeaks 
 to them in his own written word ; I mall 
 now endeavor by the help of God, to con- 
 
 fider
 
 98 The BleJJingi of Polygamy, 
 fider as briefly as pofTible, the plain obvi- 
 ous meaning of fome texts of fcripture in 
 the New Testament, by which you attempt 
 to fupport your caufe, though I believe you 
 will not deny but you have met with hard 
 work before you took your leave of them. 
 
 THE firft text I mention is that, Matt* 
 v. 28. I fay unto you, that wbofoever looketb 
 on a 'woman to luft after her, bath committed 
 adultery with her already in his heart* 
 
 Without the leaft proof as I can fee in 
 your favor, you infift upon it, that the word 
 'woman here muft mean a married woman. 
 But why fo ? Is there nothing improper in 
 a man, whether married or fingle, lufting 
 after any fingle woman or widow ? None 
 at all upon your fyilem, if he means to 
 make them his -wives. But certainly you 
 will not deny that the Greek word yum mu- 
 lier, means any woman in general, married 
 or unmarried, as much as the word wi/, vtr 
 means any man in general ; and therefore 
 to confine it to a married woman is to 
 
 make
 
 The Blejfings of Polygamy, 
 make a limitation to ferve a purpofe, where 
 God himfelf has made none [BJ. 
 
 Still further does this perverfion of fcrip- 
 turc appear, in your comment on that im- 
 portant text, ver. 32* of the fame chapter. 
 I fay unto you, that whofoever Jhall put aivay 
 his wife, except it be for fornication, andjhall 
 marry another, committetb adultery : and 
 whofo marrietb her which is put away, doth 
 commit adultery. 
 
 What labor and pains have you beftowed, 
 to convince your readers that the word aA/w, 
 another, means another man's wife, who 
 
 [B] My dear friend in his elucidation of this text, 
 in order to evade its force, obferves, that if by a wo- 
 man here be meant any woman, then a man may com- 
 mit adultery by looking at his own wife. At firft I 
 really felt myfelf hurt at the thought, that one for 
 whom I have fo high a regard, mould defcend to fuch 
 low chicanery, but I prefently recollected, that be had 
 been bred tt the bar, and therefore pafled it by with a 
 fmile. 
 
 But the manner in which Tie fpeaks oifplrltual expo- 
 Jitors in the fame place, inftead of z fmile t occalioned a 
 Jhake of the bead. 
 
 has
 
 ioo The Bleffings of Polygamy, 
 
 has been divorced from her hufband, 
 though the word is as general as conftant 
 ufage can make it, and means any other 
 woman, whether maid, widow, or wife. 
 But then this plain reading of the text, for 
 it requires no elucidation, would at once 
 overthrow the doctrine of Polygamy ; and 
 cut up by the roots your new definition of 
 adultery, by proving that a married man 
 way commit adultery with a fingle woman. 
 You are rather aware indeed of the tauto- 
 logy which you put into our Saviour's 
 mouth, by your interpretation of this text, 
 but ftill you try to get over it at all events. 
 Let us render it as you would have it. 1 
 fay unto you, that whofoever flail put away 
 his wife, except it be for fornication, and 
 Jhall marry another [that is fay you, the wife 
 of another man] commit teth adultery, and 
 ivfrofo marrieth her which is put away, [who 
 muft ftill be the wife of another man] com- 
 mitteth adultery. Such is the tautology, not 
 to fay nonfenfe, which you make to pro- 
 ceed out of the mouth of him who fpake as 
 never man fpake \ whereas, take the words 
 in their plain eafy fignification, and he that 
 
 runneth
 
 ^'he BleJ/ings of Polygamy, &c. i b i 
 
 runneth may read, and come to the true 
 fenfe of them. The pafTage is mentioned 
 by three evangelifts, and twice by St. Mat- 
 thew -, only in St. Mark it flands double, 
 and the crime is recorded as reciprocal on 
 each fide. Whofoever foall put away his 
 wife, and marry another, Committeth adultery 
 agalnft her. And if a woman jhall put away 
 her hujband, and be married to another, foe 
 committeth adultery. Now I would obferve, 
 that the word another in the latter verfe, is 
 the very fame in the original, when it relates 
 to the man, as the word another is in the 
 former verfe, when it relates to the woman, 
 Where you fay, it muft agree with the antece- 
 dent fubftantive ywaixa, wife, only differing 
 in gender ; fo that if we admit your con- 
 ftruction in the one cafe, we ought to do it 
 in the other, and make the word <*AA 
 agree with its antecedent fubftantive at/Jp* 
 hujband, and then the whole palfage will 
 fun thus. " Whofoever fhall put away 
 " his wife, and marry another mans wife 
 " committeth adultery again ft her j and if 
 " a woman fhall put 'away her hufband, 
 '* and marry another woman s hujband, me 
 H " committeth
 
 IO2 T'/oe BleJJing? of Polygamy &c. 
 
 " committeth adultery." The conclufiort- 
 of which interpretation is this, that if any 
 man put away his wifer (except for fornica- 
 tion) and marry another fingle woman or 
 widow, he commits no adultery* 5 and if a^ 
 woman put away her hufband, and marry 
 another lingle man or a widower, me com- 
 mits no adultery. Alas I what will not 
 evalion fly to ! 
 
 The liberty you take in changing the 
 word AXV for axxol^otv muft not pafs unno- 
 ticed. I have confulted all the three evan- 
 gelifts where the palTage is recorded, and no- 
 fuch word is to be found : St. Matthew and 
 St- Mark both have axxw, and St. Luke 
 alone ufes the word trsgett which is nearly 
 the fame as axxw another, any other woman ; 
 but the word aAAol^ai' which yoi*have intro- 
 duced, means belonging to another ; or when 
 joined to ywaw* the ivlfe of another man. 
 Now can we fuppofe, that if our Lord 
 wifhed to have his own meaning under- 
 ftood in this moft important matter, he 
 would have ufed aii expreffion which was 
 very liable to be miftaken, and have left it 
 
 to
 
 Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 103 
 
 to you or me to make an amendment in his 
 language; by leaving out one word, andfub- 
 fHtuting another ? but inflead of fpeaking 
 ambiguouily, he has> vouchfafed to give us 
 one of the plaineft expreffions imaginable, 
 and which in its eafy literal fenfe is capable 
 of no other conduction than that which 
 our tranflators have given us. Nor does 
 your facetious gentleman's flory bf the glafs 
 and leathern bottles^ at all make in your fa- 
 vor, but quite point blank againft you ; 
 though I allow that a joke may fometimes 
 tickle the fancy of the tired reader, and 
 caufe him to miflake witticifm for argu- 
 ment. And here I may obferve; that when 
 you were entertaining us with the flory of 
 Harlequin getting into aquart bottle, (vol.11, 
 p. 352.) you might have added, that he a]fo 
 jumped down his own throat, which wtfs 
 not only advertifed at the fame time with 
 the quart bottle bufinefs about thirty years 
 ago, biit I myfelf faw it attempted at one 
 of the theatres ; though I mufl own with 
 not much better fuccefs than a friend of 
 mine attempts to prove, that any woman 
 H 2 'whatever,
 
 1 04 'The BleJJings of Polygamy, 
 
 whatever, means another mans divorced 
 ivife. 
 
 My friend would illuftrate this by that 
 
 text, I Cor. X. 19. uVo aAAu? o-u/J50-fc5 
 
 which is tranflated another mans conference ; 
 But the words are ftrictly another confcience, 
 and the addition of mans is i-nferted by way 
 of expletive, and becaufe another confcience 
 and another man's confcience are fynoni- 
 mous terms, feeing no man can have more 
 than one confcience. But this is no argu- 
 ment at all, why another woman mufr. mean 
 another mans divorced wife, unlefs you can 
 prove that every woman living fiands in that 
 predicament. 
 
 But to return, You will fay, that our 
 Lord in this paflage is not fpeaking of Po- 
 lygamy, but only of divorce. True, the 
 queftion put by the Pharifees, proves that 
 he is fpeaking of divorce ; but in fo doing, 
 he is naturally led to mew what that crime 
 is, for which divorce is lawful, and this is 
 adultery ; which if there be any meaning 
 
 in
 
 B'leffings of Polygamy, &c. 105 
 
 in words, he tells us may be committed 
 when any married man takes to himfelf any 
 other woman befides his own wife, be that 
 other woman as before obferved, a virgin, 
 a widow, or a wife. And if we confult 
 the context, we mail perceive that in the 
 reafoning which our Lord makes ufe of, in 
 order to fatisfy the inquiry of the Pharifees 
 concerning divorce, he refers them to the 
 original inftitution of marriage. Have ye 
 not read (faith He) that he which made them 
 at the beginning, made them male and female, 
 and f aid, for this caufe Jhall a man leave fa- 
 ther and mother, and fo all cleave to his wife, 
 and they twain fall be one flefo ? Wherefore 
 they are no more twain but one flejh. What 
 therefore God hath joined together, let no man 
 put af under. As if he had faid, " Know 
 " ye not that when God created Adam and 
 " Eve, he made the one male and the other 
 " female, and ordained that they mould 
 " be faithful to each other, and keep the 
 " marriage bed inviolable : from thence- 
 " forth therefore, the huflband and the 
 " wife are no longer to be efteemed as fe- 
 " parate perfons, but though twain or two 
 H i "in
 
 The Blffings 'of Polygamy^ &c. 
 " in number, are one flem in the fight of 
 " God ; upon which account, a man muft 
 " leave his father and his mother, and muft 
 ?' cleave unto his wife, not only in body, 
 " but in heart and affection. Therefore 
 " ye Pharifees do greatly err, when you 
 " fuppqfe that it is lawful for a man to 
 " put away his wife for every or for any 
 " caufe ; for though for the hardnefs of 
 " your hearts this practice was fufFered by 
 f the law of Mofes, yet from the begin - 
 " ning, when God firft inftituted the bond 
 " of marriage, it was otherwife, for hq 
 " then made only one man for one woman, 
 f and one woman for one man, wherefore 
 " I now tell you, that whofoever putteth 
 et away one wife, and marrieth another 
 ". woman in her ftead, comrnitteth adu|- 
 " tery, and whofo marrieth her that is put 
 i{ away comrnitteth adultery," 
 
 Certainly, np one can fay, that this is 
 any forced comment upon our Lord's 
 words on this very important pafTage, but 
 a plain eafy paraphrafe upon the text, which 
 jfb far from countenancing, directly mili- 
 tates
 
 Bkffings of Polygamy, &c. 107 
 
 tates agaiaft Polygamy, and actually con- 
 demns it as adultery. 
 
 After much pains indeed, to ftate a dif- 
 iindion between the hufband and wife being 
 legally two, and numerically two, you feem 
 to wonder at what you call the legerdemain 
 of thofe, who fuppofe that the huflband and 
 wife mean only two perfons, or two and ns 
 more. But furely, the art of legerdemain is 
 much more to be admired in him, who can 
 change Svo they two, into they three or 
 they four, juft as he pleafes, and who by 
 the fame art can reduce Solomon and his fe- 
 Ven hundred wives into fl fa a they twain. 
 
 The apoftle Paul alludes to that original 
 text, Gen. ii. 24. in his Epiftle to the 
 Ephefians, ch. v. 31. where he is treat- 
 ing of the love and union which ought to 
 fubfift between the hufband and the wife. 
 For this canfe foall a wan leave bis father and 
 his mot her ) and fiall be joined to his wife, and 
 they two foal I be one flefo. And then he 
 adds, This is a great m\Jlery, but I fpeak 
 concerning Chrijl and the church. No- 
 thing
 
 lo8 tfke Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 thing can be clearer, nothing more reftric-* 
 tive of one man to one woman, and on$ 
 woman to one man, than thefe words of 
 the apoftle. -But my friend would draw a 
 conclufion in his favor from this text, by 
 obferving, that the church or fpoufe of 
 Chrift, being made up of many members, 
 and having only one hufband, therefore the 
 analogy between Chrift and his church is 
 much better fupported by the Polygamift than 
 by the Monogamift. But he mould recoi- 
 led, that though the believers which con-? 
 ftitute the fpoufe of Chrift, are indeed 
 many when con{idere,d individually, yet 
 when confidered colleflively^ in which light 
 the fcripture always does confider them, 
 they are ftill only ONE BODY j unlefs 
 therefore, my friend can prove, (what; the 
 amorous Polygamift would not wifh him to 
 prove) that a man. may have three or four 
 wives, and thefe wives have but one body 
 among them, the argument on which he 
 hangs his conclufion, is no better than a 
 rotten rope, which being pulled too tight, 
 fnaps in the middle, and down drops 
 
 ifc
 
 *The Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 109 
 
 I intended in^ this place to have intro- 
 duced a comment or paraphrafe upon the 
 whole feventh chapter of St. Paul's firfl 
 Epiftle to the Corinthians, but confidering 
 how much I had already faid on that chap- 
 ter a few pages back, let me only intreat 
 the reader " to lay down my book and take 
 " up a better," and let him turn to that 
 chapter as it came in perfect purity out of 
 God's own hands, unmixed by paraphrafes, 
 or unadulterated with human comments; 
 and when he has read the whole of it 
 throughout, let him ceafe to wonder if he 
 an, that there ever exifted a man of fenfe, 
 learning, and piety, who could believe that 
 chapter, and yet maintain Polygamy. 
 
 Suffer me however, jufl to afk a few 
 queftions on thofe words, Defraud ye not 
 one the other except it be with confent for a 
 time. 
 
 I. Can more than two perfons poffibly 
 be included in thofe words, " one the 
 other r 
 
 2dly,
 
 no *Phe Blejfings of Poly gamy i 
 
 sdly, Is not the confent of the wife as 
 -much included as the confent of the huf- 
 band, in the apoftle's injunction? 
 
 3dly, Does not a huflband more effe&u- 
 ally defraud a wife of the rights of the mar- 
 riage bed, by taking another woman, than by 
 continence ? In the former cafe he defrauds 
 her pojitively ; in the latter only negatively. 
 
 4thly, Was there ever an affectionate wife 
 in the world that would give her free con- 
 fent to be Ib defrauded ? 
 
 Now remember my requeft, and read 
 chapter throughout with reverence and at- 
 tention. 
 
 THERE is yet one text of fcripture, which 
 as you feem to lay much ftrefs upon, I 
 {hall beg particularly to confider. The 
 words are found, Tit. i. 6. If any (i. e. if 
 any elder) be the hujband of one wife. From 
 hence you conclude, that as by the apoftle's 
 direction the elders were to be chofen out 
 of thofe who were hufbands of one wife, 
 therefore there muft certainly be among 
 
 the
 
 The Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. in 
 the Chriftian laity many who had more 
 wives than one. But we may juft as well 
 infer, that becaufe the elder women were to 
 be felected out of thofe who had each of 
 them been the wife of one man, (i Tim. 
 v. 9.) therefore there were many other 
 Chriftian women who had more hufbands 
 than one. The words directly anfwer tq 
 one another in both places. The hujband of 
 one wife, or of one 'woman - y and the wife of 
 one hufband, or of one man, and the pur- 
 pofes for which they were chofen, were in 
 many cafes the fame [C] -, fo that as you 
 interpret the one text with regard to the 
 woman, who was to be chofen as a dea- 
 conefs from among the widows, that me 
 muft be one who had only been once mar- 
 ried j fo you muft alfo interpret the other 
 text which relates to the man, (whether 
 prieft or deacon) that he muft be chofen 
 put of fuch as had only been once married. 
 But you fay that text, i Tim. v. 9. 
 which relates to the widow, is in the paft 
 tenfe, having been the wife of one man, 
 
 [C 1 More particularly where the man was chofen to 
 |he office of a deacon. See i Tim. jii. 12. 
 
 whereas
 
 112 *?he BIeffi?2g$ of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 whereas the text Tit. i. 6. is in the pre- 
 fent tenfe, if any be the hujband of one 'wife. 
 I anfwer, that if this had not been the cafe, 
 the woman would not have been a widow, 
 but a wife, whereas the choice was to be 
 made, of fuch an one as had been, not of 
 fuch as then was, the wife of one man, be- 
 caufe a married woman being in fubjection 
 to the law of her hujband, and at his dif- 
 pofal, could not fo properly attend to the 
 affairs of the church, where me was to be 
 employed in performing different offices of 
 relief and kindnefs to the lick and diftreffed 
 members of it, as a widow could : whereas 
 the objection did not lie fo ftrongly on the 
 man's fide, whofe province it is not to take 
 upon him the care of houfhold matters : 
 But ilill the difference of tenfe, makes no 
 difference of fenfe, in the point before us, 
 and therefore, what the paffage means in 
 the one place it means in the other, viz. 
 that both the man and the woman mould 
 only have been once married, that they 
 might attend to the affairs of the church 
 with lefs diffraction, by not being burdened 
 
 with family encumbrances. And here, I 
 
 mufl
 
 *fhe Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. 113 
 
 mufl further obferve, that in paraphrafing 
 on thefe texts, you have made fome con- 
 ceffions which are not very friendly to the 
 doctrine you efpoufe, I mean that of Poly- 
 gamy j (for it evidently appears by the chain 
 and connection of both your volumes, that 
 this is the great Diana which you would fet 
 up, and for the fake of which the whole was 
 written) for you grant that the man to be 
 chofen to be a bimop or prefbyter, ought 
 not to have two wives at a time. But why 
 not ? can that be wrong under the gofpel, 
 which was right under the law ? Is Paul 
 come to contradict Mofes ? Elkanah the 
 prieft, notwithitanding he had all the duties 
 of his office to attend to, had two wives at 
 a time, and why may not any Chriflian prieft 
 or prefbyter have the fame ? Thus ought 
 you to reafon, if you would be confiftent 
 with yourfelf, elfe you immediately defrroy 
 the building which you have all along been 
 attempting to fet up, " That whatfoever 
 " God allowed under the Old Teftament 
 4< difpenfation, he cannot difallow under 
 " the New." Your argument therefore, 
 once more proves too much, and lays you 
 
 under
 
 ii4 The Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 under the neceffity either of allowing Poly- 
 gamy on the woman's fide, or of difallow- 
 ing it on the man's : or otherwife, you are 
 conftrained to grant, that God for wife rea- 
 fons has thought fit to forbid a plurality of 
 wives to his minifters under the gofpel, 
 though he permitted it under the law. If 
 you ftill urge that this prohibition was 
 more efpecially confined to the diftrefTed or 
 infant ftate of the church, I will not difpute 
 the point with you; but this is a further 
 argument in my favor, and verifies my af- 
 fertion, " That God as ibvereign of his 
 " creatures, has full right to difallow and 
 " forbid at one period, what he allows and 
 " even commands at another, according as 
 " he fees fit that times and circumftances 
 " mould alter ; and that ftill God changeth 
 *' not, neither in his own nature, nor in 
 '* his will, fince the one great end he has 
 *' in view is his own glory, and the good 
 <* of his church and people." 
 
 HAVING endeavored to reftore feveral 
 texts of fcripture to their original meaning, 
 which appeared to me to be manifeftly dif- 
 
 torted
 
 be Eleffings of Polygamy, &c. 115 
 
 torted by your explanation of them in favor 
 of Polygamy, I proceed to make a few fhort 
 obfervations on what you have faid more 
 particularly relative to marriage. 
 
 MOST j-uftly you condemn the church of 
 Rome for her unicriptural injunctions of 
 celibacy, as well as fome of the primitive 
 fathers, for their unauthorized declamations 
 againft fecond marriages : but it is eafy to 
 conceive, that thefe errors might be adopted, 
 by extending thofe paflages of fcripture to 
 after-periods of the church, which were 
 only defigned for the primitive and diflref- 
 fed ages of it, which will therefore admit of 
 fome excufe, though not for the church of 
 Rome, yet for the earlieft fathers who lived 
 in thofe ages, for what they have advanced 
 in thofe points ; and certainly our Lord and 
 his apoftles, more efpecially St. Paul in tlie 
 feventh chapter of the ifirft Epiflle to the 
 Corinthians, do under particular circum- 
 ttances, and. where the cafe of the parties 
 will admit of it, give the preference to a 
 fingle life, and encourage widows and wi- 
 dowers not to embark again in the married 
 
 ftate,
 
 ii 6 'The Bleffings of Polygamy y &c. 
 
 ftate, without they find themfelves under 
 the neceffity of fo doing. Some humble 
 apology therefore may be made, though 
 not for Rome herfelf, yet for the primi- 
 tive fathers who have written fuch extrava- 
 gant encomiums of virginity, by reflecting, 
 that they lived in thofe very times for 
 which all thofe texts which fpeak in favor 
 of it were intended , but although in after- 
 ages fuperjiition fo far kept the throne, that 
 fhe attributed I know not what merit to an 
 unnatural celibacy, and even ordained fan- 
 guinary laws for the punifhment of priefts 
 who mould marry, in direcl: defiance of 
 God's great command, increafe and multi- 
 fly ; ftill this proves nothing but that fu- 
 perftition is, and always will be fuperfti- 
 tion, but it adds not the weight of a grain 
 to your arguments in favor of Polygamy : 
 on the contrary, 1 fhould not wonder, if it 
 were to be urged againft you, perhaps many 
 years hence, " That amidft the various cor- 
 " ruptions and fuperftitions which from 
 " time to time infefled the Chriftian church, 
 *' relative to divorce, marriage, celibacy,
 
 Bkffings of Polygamy, Gfr. 1 17 
 
 ** &c. at lafl in the eighteenth century, 
 <f flourished one Martin Madan, a perfon of 
 " great learning, judgment, and piety, who 
 '* being determined to run as far as he could 
 " from the Romifh church in thefe points> 
 " leaped into the other extreme, and aclu- 
 " ally wrote two volumes in defence of Po* 
 " lygamy." But I hope the ecclefiaftical 
 writer will immediately add, that " being 
 " convinced of his error, he recanted it 
 " with true Chriflian candor and contrition 
 *' of heart." 
 
 Whilft I am on this fubject,- I cannot 
 help obferving how repeatedly you have 
 brought up that ftatute of Plenty VIII. 
 which enacted, that no priefl mould marry 
 on pain of death. And what is the conclu- 
 iion you wifli to draw from it ? Why, that 
 from the unfcriptural abfurdity of that fla- 
 titte, a direct contrary one ought to be 
 enacted, and that becaufe no prieft might 
 then be permitted to marry one wife, now 
 any layman at leaft, mould have the liberty 
 of marrying two or more; which is jiift as 
 I good
 
 Ji8 1%e BlcJJitigs of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 good reafoning, as if I were to fay, that if 
 that parliament had been abfurd enough to 
 pafs a law that every priefl: mould have his 
 nofe cut off, therefore another a6t ought 
 now to pafs, for any layman to have two 
 *or more nofes [D]. Or becaufe the French 
 capuchin friar you mention told you, it was 
 contrary to the rules of his order ever to 
 wear a pair of {hoes at all j therefore it was 
 now proper and expedient for a man to wear 
 two or three pair at once. 
 
 But leaving the fooleries and extravagan- 
 cies of popery to thofe who- choofe -to be 
 
 [D] So far is the credulity of popery from fuppofing 
 that a prieft may not well enough exift without a nofe, 
 that it can even believe a prieft may live without a head. 
 Whoever has vifited the convent of St. Dennis near 
 Paris, has feen the image of that Saint in filver with 
 his head in his own hands ; and has been told with a 
 very grave face, by the ecclefiaftic who mews the trea- 
 fures of the church, that St. Dennis (from whom the 
 convent takes its name) having fuffered decapitation 
 for the fake of religion, afterwards took up his head in 
 his hands, and carried it from Paris to the place where 
 the monaftery now {lands, which if I remember right, 
 is a diftance of about iix miles. 
 
 amufed
 
 Tfe Bleffings cf Poly gamy, Gfc . 119 
 
 clmufed with them, I pafs on to a circum- 
 ftance which you mention, vol.1. 212, notc y 
 concerning fome of our principal reformers, 
 at the head of whom you have defervedly 
 placed that great champion of the Protef- 
 tant faith, Martin Luther. I mean, " their 
 " unanimous agreement at Wittemberg, that 
 " it was not contrary to the divine law, 
 " for a man to have two wives at once." 
 On which authority you inform us, that 
 Philip^ Landgrave of He ffe t actually married 
 zfecond wife t his^r/? being alive. 
 
 The cafe of the Landgrave of He/ft was 
 a very particular one, and is taken from an 
 authority which you do not much choofe to 
 avow. If I judge right you have gathered 
 it from Polygamia Triumphatrix, p. 554. A 
 performance which I perceive has been of 
 fignal ufe to you. The fadt was, that the 
 wife of the Landgrave found herfelf for ef- 
 pecial reafons incapable of cohabiting with 
 her own hufband, and he found himfelf 
 under a fcriptural neceffity of avoiding celi- 
 bacy. To defcend to the minuting of this
 
 120 The Blfffings of Polyganiy, &c. 
 
 *C 
 
 matter, would lead me into a diiTertatioi^ 
 which I am fure the delicate reader would 
 wifh me to avoid : fuffice it fay in general, 
 that they could not live together as man and 
 wife. The cafe was referred to the confi- 
 deration of the proteftant divines, among 
 whom were Luther, Melancbton, and Bucer, 
 who after great deliberation and caution and 
 not withoutmuch diffidence, delivered their 
 opinion,., that under fuch circumftances, the 
 Landgrave might be permitted to take ano- 
 ther wife. 
 
 But though I have examined various parts 
 of that laborious treatife (Pol. TrL] I cannot 
 any where difcover the quotation you- have 
 brought and marked with inverted commas,, 
 as put by way of a queflion, to the aforefaid 
 divines at Wittemberg, " Whether for a 
 " mm to have two wives at once was con- 
 " trary to the divine law ?" Nor do I fee 
 any thing of their unanimous anfwer, " That 
 '* it was not ;" therefore I hope if you pub- 
 lifh another edition of Tbelypbtbora, you 
 will tell us from what fource you- have de- 
 rived
 
 The Bleffings of Polygamy, Osfc. 121 
 rived your authority for this proportion 
 to the divines, and their unanimous reply 
 to it. 
 
 But furely Ludier inftead of being that 
 firm inflexible and fteady character he was 
 ever efleemed to be y muft have been the 
 moflpufillanimous, wavering, and inconfift- 
 ent of all mortals, if he had delivered the 
 opinion you charge him with, if the cir- 
 cumflances of the cafe had not been very 
 particular : for looking over John Sleidan's 
 hiflory of the Reformation in Germany, in 
 order to fee if any thing was mentioned 
 there concerning the cafe you allude to of 
 Philip^ Landgrave of Hejfc, though I met 
 with nothing at all on that head through- 
 out the whole book, yet I found the follow- 
 ing remarkable paflages from a work of Lu- 
 ther's (which had the full approbation of 
 Melanchton, Bucer, and the other protef- 
 tant divines) relative to the Anabaptijls of 
 that time which will clearly fhew what was 
 the opinion of thofe great reformers on the 
 matter of Polygamy. 
 
 I " The
 
 122 Ibc Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 " The evil Spirit who endeavors to de- 
 *' ftroy the Chriftian religion, does not 
 <c ufually make choice of Polygamy for the 
 " compaffing his defigns, he knows the in- 
 " famy and wickednefs of fuch a practice 
 " is fo notorious that all men abhor it." 
 
 Again. " To marry as many wives as 
 f his lewdnefs has a mind to, can be the 
 " contrivance of none but fome raw un- 
 " practiced devil." 
 
 Now from thefe extracts which I have 
 tranfcribed verbatim, can apy man in the 
 world fuppofe, that Luther, Melancbton, 
 and Bucer, at the very fame period that they 
 were condemning Polygamy in fuch fevere 
 terms among the Anabaptijls, were abet- 
 ting and encouraging it in the Landgrave 
 of Heffe ? The thought is fo abfurd and ex- 
 travagant, that it cannot be harbored for a 
 moment : I would therefore humbly pro- 
 pofe an amendment in your words, " this 
 " proves what they thought" [viz. what 
 Luther, Bucer, and Melancbton thought on 
 
 the
 
 T'he BleJJings of Poly gamy > &c. 123 
 
 the matter of Polygamy] " but by no means 
 that they thought right " and would infert 
 in their ftead, c< This proves what I would 
 have them think, but by no means what 
 they did think." 
 
 The above-named learned, pious, and 
 faithful hiflorian John Sleidan giving an 
 account of that peflilent fedt called Ana- 
 baptifts, (which was totally different from 
 thofe we now call Baptifts) tells us, that 
 *' they introduced Polygamy;" that John 
 of Leyden their chief leader or king, com- 
 manded his twelve teachers to declare, 
 " that a man was not obliged to confine 
 " himfelf to one wife, but might marry as 
 fc many as he pleafed ;" that thereupon 
 " they harangued upon matrimony from 
 " their pulpits fqr three days together ; 
 " foon after which, he (John of Leyden} 
 " married no lefs than three wives."- -That 
 <{ moft of their party had no lefs than five 
 " wives a man. That this impious wretch 
 " who was their principal prophet, made one 
 
 << of
 
 124 fbe Bkjfingi of Polygamy, 
 
 '' of his wives kneel down and beheaded her 
 
 " with his own hands in the market place." 
 
 How am I grieved to find my worthy 
 friend in fuch company ! but indeed I can 
 fee no difference between his doctrine and 
 theirs in the point of Polygamy, only that 
 thefe people did not go fuch lengths as to 
 take their wives before they were married 
 to them by an external ceremony, whereas 
 he explodes every thing of this fort as fu^- 
 periKtious prieflcraft. 
 
 WE differ very little if at all, in our fen- 
 timents on the marriage act. I have long 
 confidered it not only as moll: inimical to 
 the interefts of the nation, but as ftanding 
 in direct oppofition to thofe great com- 
 mands of Gpd himfelf, Be fruitful and mul- 
 tiply. 'Ihofe whom God hath joined together^ 
 let no man put afunder. 
 
 Whether or no the mere intercourfe of a 
 man with a virgin conftitute a marriage in 
 the fight of God, J will not difpute with 
 
 you.
 
 Eleffings of Po'ygamy, &c. 125 
 you. Certainly, the man in fuch cafe, 
 ought by the law of God, to make her his 
 wife, as I have elfewhere obferved : yet, I 
 think it both a dangerous and an unfcrip- 
 tural pofition to fay, that me really is his 
 wife, independent of any law or ceremony 
 whatever : which law or ceremony, how- 
 ever it may vary, according to times, cir^ 
 cumftances, and the cuftom of different na- 
 tions, is that folemn ad: of recognition which 
 binds the parties together, making them 
 one in a legal or political fenfe, and diftin- 
 guiming their intercourfe from that of brute 
 beafb. 
 
 When God created our firft parents in 
 Paradife, he did not leave the man to take 
 the woman to be his wife ; but it is faid, 
 " God brought the woman to the man." It 
 is true, this aft, form, or ceremony, call 
 it which you will, was immediately between 
 <God and the parties, but ftill as our firft 
 parents alone were then created, it was the 
 only one that could exift, and therefore your 
 rernark, that there was no prieft on the oc.- 
 
 cafion
 
 126 TbeBlfJmgsofPofygamyt &c. 
 
 cafion was totally needlefs. To this form 
 or ceremony however, moil civilized and in- 
 deed even uncivilized nations feem to have 
 had refpect in their marriages from that 
 time ; and particularly our own church, by 
 appointing a perfon who is ufually called 
 the father, (whether he be really fo or not) 
 to give the woman to the man, and I ap- 
 prehend it is in allufion to this original form 
 and inftitution, that the author of the tivo 
 fermons fo much quoted (and fo much dif- 
 approved) by you, fays, that the priefr. or 
 minifter now acts in God's ftead, by receiv- 
 ing the woman from the father's hand, and 
 delivering her to her intended hufband : 
 And I remember to have once feen a Jew's 
 wedding at Amjlerdam, where betides feveral 
 other ceremonies, fomething of the fame 
 form was obferved. 
 
 Here I muft beg leave to ftate 'another 
 cafe for your folution.. 
 
 Suppofe a woman to have been feduced 
 by any man, whether married or fmgle -, or 
 
 fuppofe
 
 The Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 127 
 fuppofe me freely confents to give herfelf 
 up for a time to any man j let us go further 
 {till, and fuppofe me were even a common 
 proftitute : afterwards me is truly forry and 
 penitent for what me has done. , Now 
 ought fuch a woman to marry, (though I 
 can hardly yet tell what you mean by the 
 word) or mull me for ever live unmarried ? 
 If you fay me may lawfully marry, then 
 what becomes of your own definition of mar- 
 riage, feeing by that definition me was in 
 the fight of God, the true wife of the firft 
 man who was connected with her, and con-* 
 fequently if me have commerce with any 
 other me is an adulterefs, and the man with 
 whom me has that commerce is an adulterer. 
 If you fay (he may not marry any other 
 man than him who was firft connected with 
 her, then in all probability you condemn 
 the poor creature to all the temptations of 
 a fingle life. So that in the one cafe lewd- 
 nefs and adultery, in the other celibacy and 
 depopulation muft be the effect of your 
 fyftem. 
 
 But
 
 7'he Bleffings of Polygamy, <fr. 
 
 But I avoid any further difputation on 
 this point, efpecially as you perfectly agree 
 with me on the propriety and expediency of 
 ibme outward recognition of marriage before 
 the world, for the purposes of civil fociety; 
 and as I heartily acquiefce wkh you, that 
 whether this be do-Re by an ecclefiaitic, or 
 by a juftice of the peace, as it was in the 
 laft century, is of no efTential impor- 
 tance. 
 
 Before I difmifs this fubject, I cannot 
 help taking notice, that under you-r chapter 
 of marriage, you bring your favorite text to 
 ihew that nothing can be added to or di- 
 minifhed from a marriage in the fight of 
 God, when there has been an act of union 
 in the parties ; which text however rather 
 contradicts than confirms your afTertion'. 
 The words are thefe : If a man entice a maid 
 that is not betrothed, and lie 'with her, he 
 jhall furely^ endow her to be his wife. If her 
 father utterly refufe to give her unto him, he 
 a II pay money according to the dowry of vir- 
 gins
 
 Blejfings of Polygamy, &c: 1-29 
 
 gins [E], But if me were really his wife 
 before in the light of God, by the adl which 
 had pafTed between them, it was not in the 
 father's power to fet up his own agaiaft the 
 divine authority. So that either fhe was 
 not his wife, or elfe the institution of God 
 gave pkce to the will of the father. This 
 feems a clear proof that fomething elfe be<- 
 fides the mere knowledge of a woman's 
 perfon was neceffary to conftitute a marriage 
 under the Jewim law > not to mention that 
 the words be flail endow her to be his wife* 
 plainly intimate that me was not his wife 
 till fach- endowment, notwithstanding the 
 intercourfe he had had with her. 
 
 T&e like may be faid in the cafe of the 
 woman of Samaria, who had had Jive huf- 
 bands, and when our Lord held his con- 
 ference with her, was living with one who 
 was not her hujband. But why not her 
 hufband, if the five firft were dead, and the 
 prefent one had taken pofTerTion of her per- 
 
 [E] Excd. xxii. 16, 17. 
 
 fan?
 
 130 The Bleffings of Polygamy, 
 
 fon ? Upon your plan, nothing clfe was 
 necefTary to make them man and wife : You 
 therefore very unfairly, becaufe without the 
 leafh authority, fuppofe that one of the five 
 firft was then living. 
 
 Since I wrote the above, I have looked a 
 fecond time into the Monthly Review for 
 October 1780, and rnuft acknowledge that 
 what the Reviewers have faid concerning 
 our Lord's conference with the woman of 
 Samaria, is fo much more to the purpofe, 
 and fo much better exprefTed than in my 
 own words, that I beg to refer the reader 
 to their remarks. 
 
 In the Review for the next month, is 
 alfo a very fatisfactory folution of the text, 
 Deut. xxi. 15. If a man have two wives, 
 one beloved, and another bated, and they have 
 born him children, both the beloved and the 
 hated-, and if the firjl born fon be hers that 
 was hated: Then it Jhall be, when be maketh 
 bis fons to inherit that which he hath, that 
 
 be
 
 7 be Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 131 
 
 he may not make the fan of the beloved Jirjl- 
 born before the fon of the hated, which is in- 
 deed the fojl-born : but he foall acknowledge 
 the fon of the hated for the Jirfl-born, by 
 giving him a double portion of all that he 
 bath, &c. 
 
 As our prefent tranflation of this pafTage 
 coincides with Mr. Madan's opinion, he is 
 happy to admit it ; had it been otherwife, 
 he would have flickered himfelf under the 
 wing of his favorite commentator Montanus, 
 who renders the words, cumfuerint viro du<z 
 uxores. If there Jhall have been to a man 
 two wives $ or if a man SHALL HAVE 
 HAD two wives ; by which verfion there 
 is no proof at all that he had the two wives 
 both at once. Nay,, thefe words, her's 
 that was hated (not that is hated) being 
 in the paft tenfe imply the contrary. But 
 admitting that he ,had, ftill the text carries 
 not with it the leaft glimpfe of an appro- 
 bation of Polygamy on God's part, but is 
 merely directory of what mall be done with 
 the children by each wife. It is fa id, 
 
 Ex&t.
 
 132 T&e Bkjfing* c f Polygamy, Gfr. 
 Exod. xxii. 2, 3. If a man jhall fteal an ox' 
 or a fieep and kill it or fell it, he jhall re- 
 ft ore five oxen for an ox, and four foeep for a 
 fieep. But we have juft the fame reafon to' 
 fay, that God approves of fieep-ftealing, as 
 that he approves of Polygamy, becaufe in both 
 cafes he gives directions what mall be done: 
 in the one cafe, the thief was to make reflitu- 
 tion j in the other, the Bigamift was not 
 to add one evil to another, by difmheriting 
 the eldeft fon of the hated wife, and giving 
 his fubftance to the fon of the favorite 
 wife. 
 
 I cannot take my leave of what the Re- 
 viewers have faid on Tbelyphthcra, with- 
 out remarking, that I think thofe gentle- 
 men have born rather too hard on Mr. Ma- 
 dan, in fuppofing that he was guilty of any 
 want of reverence either intended or not 
 intended, towards Cbrift or towards the fa- 
 credfcriptures y becaufe he fays, " that if it 
 " could be proved that in any one inftance, 
 " Chrift added to or diminimed from the 
 " law of God, by ordaining any thi-ng con- 
 trary
 
 he Bleffings of Polygamy ^ &c. 133 
 
 trary to or inconfiftent with it, it would be 
 making him a greater impoftor than Ma- 
 homet." I doubt not, but Mr. Madau 
 fo far from thinking that that fuch an, 
 expreffion might excite * c emotions of 
 indignation or dijgujl" meant by this for- 
 cible language againft the idea of fetting 
 Chrift and the divine law at variance to fhevv 
 his own high veneration for both. And 
 indeed when we conlider that the apoftle 
 John teftifying his zeal againft infidelity, 
 jays, he that believe tb not God bath made 
 him a liar, I think Mr. Madan's mode of 
 fpeech is very justifiable on fcripture autho'. 
 rity. Upon which account I mould hope? 
 that the Reviewers, if they think there is 
 any argument in what I advance, would 
 candidly retract what they have faid of my 
 miftaken, but ftill worthy friend, (againft 
 whom they certainly have fufficient advan- 
 tage in other points) for having uttered, 
 what at the firft perufal they judged to be 
 flocking and indecent, and tending to wound 
 the ear of the mode ft and humble Cfiriftian, 
 But if they mould ftill retain their opinion, 
 K- J hope
 
 134 7&? B/effings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 I hope they will pardon me for the liberty 
 
 I have taken in endeavoring to vindicate 
 
 one for whom I profefs a fincere regard, fo 
 
 far as I believe his intention to have been 
 
 good, and his words capable of a favorable 
 
 conftru&ion. 
 
 Still another obfervatiorr occurs to me 
 on the text, Exod. xxii. 16, 17. which 
 being nearly the fame with that, Deuf. xxii. 
 28, 29. I mall jufl mention what I have 
 to fay on them both together in this place, 
 though perhaps I mould have been rather 
 more methodical in doing it in another. 
 I have before remarked, that thefe texts ra- 
 ther contain a part of the judicial law, in 
 the midft of which they ftand recorded, 
 than of the moral -, and (hew that the com- 
 mand of God which enjoined, that if a 
 man had enticed a maid and humbled her, he 
 Jhould make her his wife, and not put her 
 away all his days, was rather intended as a 
 punimment to be inflicted on the offender 
 for his bafenefs and lewdnefs, than as a 
 fandion given by God to Polygamy. But 
 
 whether 
 3
 
 Bleffings of Poly gamy, &c. 135 
 
 whether this law was ever enforced when 
 the man was a married man, remains yet to 
 be proved. You have indeed taken much 
 pains to demonftrate that a man here muft 
 mean any man, married or not married, be- 
 caufe your fyftem cannot ftand without it : 
 But if I allow this, how can you difallow 
 that a 'woman means any woman, married or 
 not married ? and yet you abfolutely refufe 
 to grant this, in your interpretation of that 
 text, Whofoever looketh on a woman to luft 
 after her, hath committed adultery with her 
 already in his heart ; as alfo where it is faid, 
 WbofofOtr foall put away his wife and marry 
 another committeth adultery. In both thefe 
 inftances you infifl that a woman muft mean 
 a married woman only, becaufe otherwife 
 Polygamy cannot fland. 
 
 THE more I confider the primitive infti- 
 tution of marriage, the more 1 am con- 
 vinced that Polygamy is not lefs contrary 
 to the law of nature, than to the law of 
 God: for 
 
 K 2 I. One
 
 136 Tbe EleJJingi of Polygamy GV* 
 
 I. One woman only was created and 
 given for the ufe and comfort of one man, 
 whilft that man and woman were in a flate 
 of innocence in Paradife ; and it is the bu~ 
 fmefs of Christianity to call us back as much 
 as poffible to that ftate. 
 
 II. When God peopled the world a fe- 
 cond time, after the flood, it was without 
 Polygamy, four men and four women only, 
 who were wives to Noah and his three fons, 
 were commanded to go into the ark [F|$ 
 and from them was the whole earth 
 peopled. 
 
 III. Without entering into a minute dif- 
 cuflion of your calculations concerning the 
 exact number of males and females which 
 are born in different nations, I believe it is 
 a matter generally agreed on, that the males 
 throughout the world are nearly one fifth 
 more than the females [G] ; fo that if Po- 
 
 [F] Gen. vii. 13. 
 
 [G] SUJJmileh Piovoftof St. Peter's at Berlin, made 
 a calculation fome years ago, by which it appeared, 
 that throughout the King of Pruffia's dominions, there 
 
 were about 105 males to 100 females. 
 
 lygamy
 
 Buffings of Polygamy, Off. 137 
 
 lygamy were univerfally pradtifed, numbers 
 of women muft of neceiTity go without huf- 
 bands, and thereby God's great defign of 
 forming the fexes for each other, muft be 
 frustrated. 
 
 IV. If no man can ferve two mafters, be- 
 canfe he will love the one and hate the other t 
 or elfe he will hold to the one and dffpife the 
 other -, how much lefs can one man love, 
 cherifli, and comfort alike two wives ? This 
 feems fo abfolutely impoflible, that I fee 
 not how any thing like God's original ap- 
 pointment of marriage and the mutual hap- 
 pinefs of man and wife, can be maintained 
 upon the principles of Polygamy ; nay, fo 
 far from it, that it appears to me, that the 
 only happy marriages, or rather the leaft 
 unhappy ones, muft be thofe where there is 
 the moft indifference between the parties ; 
 for where there is true love and affection, 
 jealoufy, if it finds ground to reft on, will 
 be hard at work, and that being the mofl 
 tormenting of all paflions, whatever is the 
 caufe of exciting it, had better be abfent 
 K 3 than
 
 138 The Bleflings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 than prefent, confequently the woman's ha- 
 tred of her hufband would make her lefs 
 miferable than her love for him. For any 
 one to afTert that a woman may have a true 
 love and affection for her hufdand, and yet 
 feel no jealoufy at feeing him attached and 
 given up to another, is at once to prove him- 
 felf totally destitute of all fenfibility, and 
 ignorant of all the workings of human na- 
 ture. If therefore no man can (as before 
 obferved) ferve two mafters, there is flill a 
 greater impoffibility that one man mould, 
 in the fcriptural fenfe of the expreffion, 
 cleave to more than one wife at a time, 
 viz. in heart, fpirit, and affection, as 
 well as by a bodily union. Of this you 
 are fenfible, and therefore you would con- 
 fine this cleaving to the wife merely to the 
 latter, which certainly does not carry with 
 it that purity of fentiment which the fcrip- 
 ture language means to convey, and which 
 js well illuftrated by cleaving unto the Lord : 
 i. e. having communion and fell owfhip with 
 him ; in which fenfe only the union be- 
 tween
 
 Tie Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 13^ 
 
 tween the hufband and wife is compared 
 with that which fubfifts between Chrifl and 
 his church. 
 
 In all thefe inftances the law of God, 
 and the law of nature are fo blended toge- 
 ther, that they cannot be feparated. 
 
 '-.C L'i- t ', * ."I-..5 t . ' ? '.,. '. "3 ' 
 
 I cannot come to a conclufion without 
 making fome few obfervations on the adver- 
 tifement which immediately follows the 
 title of your book. I mean not however 
 to call in queftion what you fay of the im- 
 portance or of the inter eft ing tendency of 
 your TREATISE, nor whether you have in- 
 deed fo mixed " the utile duki as to have 
 avoided that tirefome drynefs which ufually 
 attends treatife-writing, and to have intro- 
 duced much variety of entertaining matter" 
 This affects not the grand queftion at all : 
 therefore you are to think of your THE- 
 LYPHTHORA on thefe points, juft as you 
 pleafe, and your readers will think of them 
 as they pleafe. What I object againft in 
 
 that
 
 The &leffings of Polygamy, 
 
 that advertifement, is a very pofitive arTer- 
 tion, which feems hung out in the fron- 
 tifpiece, in order to ftrike the reader with 
 horror, and to prejudice him in your favor, 
 that " in the eye of our municipal laws, 
 " women are of lefs confequence than the 
 tc beafts" of the field ; for it is lefs penal to 
 * c feduce, defile, and abandon to proftitu- 
 *' tion and ruin a thoufand women inar- 
 * c ried or unmarried, than to fteal, kill, or 
 " even malicioufly to maim or wound an ox 
 " or a meep." In proof of this you refer 
 to 22 and 23 Car. II. ch. 7, &c. 9 Gco. I. 
 ch. 22. I had like to have faid, that there 
 is a moil palpable falpty in this afTertion, 
 but I will recall the, word, and inftcad of 
 falpty we will read fallacy. It is true, the 
 above flatutes make it felony to /teal, kill, 
 or malicioufly wound an ox or a meep, but 
 what proof is this, that " women are of 
 " lefs confequence than the hearts of the 
 " field ?" or indeed where is the analogy 
 between our laws relative to the one and to 
 the other, unlefs you can demonftrate 
 from the acts which you have quoted, that 
 2 it
 
 The Blfffings of Polygamy, &c. 141 
 
 it is lefs criminal to/leal, kill, or malicioufly 
 'wound a wife or virgin, than to Jleal y kill, 
 or malicioujly wound an ox or ajheep ? Suffer 
 me therefore to inform you, that the per- 
 fons of all women are fo amply protected 
 by our municipal laws, and their chaftity 
 is held fo facred, that not only the viola- 
 tion of it againft their will is death to the 
 offender without benefit of clergy, but even 
 an attempt to commit a rape, is punimable 
 by one of the moft ignominious fentences 
 that can be inflicted, viz. ftanding on the 
 pillory, and this protection is not only ex- 
 tended to a wife or a virgin, but even to the 
 moft abandoned proftitute j and if the fe- 
 male be under ten years of age, then, even 
 though me mould confent to the aft, the 
 corrupter of her is adjudged to forfeit his 
 life. Where the females are of marriage- 
 able age, whether they themfelves be mar- 
 ried or not, though they mould have had 
 an intercourfe with any man by their freeil 
 confent, ftill fuch man is liable to be fe- 
 verely fined, and to pay damages in propor- 
 tion to his ability to the father or hufband 
 
 the
 
 142 T'hc Blejjlngs of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 the woman. To all this may be added, 
 that to keep a brothel is punifhable by fine, 
 imprifonment, or pillory, according to the 
 ientence of the court before which the 
 party has been tried and convicted. 
 
 It may indeed appear rather prefumptu- 
 ous for a country juftice of the peace (and 
 I confefs, we are mofl of us a very blun- 
 dering wrong-headed tribe) to pretend to 
 remind you who are fo well ikilled in all 
 parts of our conftitution of thefe things ; 
 but as we ourfelves are feldom above receiv- 
 ing our inftructions from our clerks, and 
 are ready to fign (without reading) whatever 
 they put before us, I flatter myfelf you 
 will not think I mean to call in queflion 
 your knowledge of, or acquaintance with 
 any of the eftablimed laws of the nation, 
 becaufe I juft take the liberty of whifper- 
 ing in your ear, what our clerks fo fre- 
 quently do to us, " Perhaps your wormip 
 *' does not immediately recolleft that fuch 
 " and fuch a ftatute fays fo and fo". 
 
 After
 
 *he EleJJings of Polygamy y &c. 143 
 
 After all, there are certain cafes where- 
 in we have reafon to lament that our 
 laws punifh petty offenders with the utmofl 
 rigor, whilfl the moft notorious villains are 
 fuffered to go free. And yet it is not pof- 
 fible for the wifeft legislature to guard 
 againft this, nor is it owing to any defect 
 in our prefent fyftem, that it is fo. The 
 caufe of this evil lies in the corrupt flate 
 of human nature. The cure mutt be 
 looked for only at the hand of divine 
 grace. Among thefe is the punifhing with 
 death, the afflicted wretch who fleals mo- 
 ney, goods, or even meat to fupport life 
 to the value of one milling, whilft the far 
 greater robbers who increafe their hoards by 
 exorbitant premiums and ufury, or who 
 borrow large fums, perhaps to the diftrefs 
 of many families, without profpect of pay- 
 ment, in order to fupport their own extra- 
 vagance, cannot be laid hold on as crimi- 
 nals. And yet what can be done in fuch a 
 cafe ? To form proper penal laws againfl 
 the two latter of thefe characters would be 
 exceeding difficult, and the execution of 
 
 them-
 
 144 ft* 6 BItfings of Polygamy > f<r. 
 them ftill more fo. To repeal thofe al- 
 ready made, and to fuffer poverty to be 
 pleaded in behalf of theft or robbery, would 
 immediately expofe the perfons and property 
 of every man, to all the horrors of rapine 
 and plunder : and you of all people living, 
 would dread the enading of any law for 
 fuper/eding or mitigating the punifh- 
 ment of offenders, as I have frequently 
 heard you fay, and perhaps very juftly, 
 that {paring fo many thieves and robbers 
 from the gallows, is the caufe of their in- 
 creafe. We may invent remedies for 
 fuch or fuch evils, and when we have in- 
 vented them, they may turn out worfe than 
 the difeafes they are meant to cure. Among 
 thefe remedies is that of introducing Poly- 
 gamy by way of preventing adultery and 
 fornication ; and it calls to my mind a ftory 
 which the famed Voltaire once told me at 
 Geneva, of a French clown, who jumped 
 into a river in order to efcape a mower of 
 rain. 
 
 However,
 
 Bleffitigs of Polygamy, 
 
 However, that the doctrine of 
 thora does indeed tend to make women of lefs 
 confequence than the beafts of the fold, per- 
 haps the following inftance will ferve to 
 evince. 
 
 I am now for the lafl time to fuppofe Po- 
 lygamy eftablifhed by law in this kingdom ; 
 and I will alfo fuppofe that it has been fo 
 for about five or fix years. My fervant 
 knocks at my ftudy door, puts a paper into 
 my hand, and tells me that a poor woman 
 who is weeping in the pafTage with three 
 young children, begs me to read it over ; I 
 find it to be as follows : 
 
 " THE HUMBLE PETITION OF 
 " Mary, wife of John Williams, mew- 
 " eth, that your poor petitioner has been 
 " married to the faid John Williams, a 
 " labouring man, for the fpace of ten years 
 " and upwards ; that he made your petiti- 
 *< oner a good and an induftrious hufband, 
 " and maintained his family very deceptly 
 " till about four years, ago, when he mar- 
 
 " ried
 
 146 *Ihe EleJJlngs of Poly gamy > &c. 
 
 <e ried another woman, by whom he has 
 ** two more children ; and after that mar- 
 " ried a third wife, who has at different 
 ** times beaten your petitioner, as alfo his 
 " fecond wife, in the moft barbarous man- 
 '* ner, and turned us both out of doors : 
 " befides that the wages, which the faid 
 " John Williams earned by his work, were 
 <e but juft fufficient to maintain your poor 
 <e petitioner and three children when he 
 " had no other wife ; fo that if your pe- 
 " titioner had not been turned out of the 
 " houfe, me and her young children had 
 tf no other profpect but that of beggary 
 " and ftarving, which flill your petitioner 
 " (by the grace of God) had rather fubmit 
 " to, than to turn thief or proftitute to 
 " fupply her wants, which the fecond wife 
 * c of the faid John Williams has done. 
 <{ Your petitioner therefore humbly hopes 
 " that all good Chriftians will pity her de- 
 tf plorable lituation, and that of her poor 
 <{ deftitute infants, and your petitioner will 
 ^ as in duty bound fmcerely pray. 
 
 MARY WILLIAMS, 
 her -f mark.
 
 'The Blejfings of Polygamy, GV. 147 
 
 Now is this cafe at all unlikely to happen 
 upon the introduction of Polygamy ? Nay, 
 is there not all the reafon in the world to 
 fuppofe, that if not exactly the fame, yet 
 fimilar cafes of wretchednefs muft abound 
 in every corner of the land ? And furely, 
 whatever is the caufe of this abjed: diftrefs, 
 mufl be the means of expoling women and 
 children to too much greater hardships and 
 miferies than the beafts of the field are fub~ 
 jecl to. 
 
 ALTHOUGH I have the honor of (landing 
 in a two-fold capacity among thole to whom 
 your Treati/e is dedicated, viz. as a governor 
 of the Lock Hofpital, and as a member of 
 the Legiflature ; yet you will readily fup- 
 pofe from the foregoing pages, that I think 
 it abfolutely incumbent upon me in each 
 of thofe capacities to exprefs my intire difap- 
 probation of that Treafife ; Firft, as being 
 totally repugnant to the fcriptures of truth. 
 Secondly, as being pregnant with the moil: 
 pernicious confequences towards the flate, 
 ajid calculated ^however unintentionally by 
 
 you)
 
 Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 you) to multiply all that train of evils 
 which it would fpeciouily appear to redrefs 
 or prevent. I aflure you, dear Sir, not 
 from hearfay evidence, but from certain 
 knowledge, that the altercations, diffenti- 
 ons, and prejudices againft religion, which 
 Polygamy in embryo has occasioned at a 
 confiderable diflance from the capital, not 
 only in two counties which are contiguous 
 to me, but in that moft refpe&able and moft 
 indulgent county which I have the honor 
 to reprefent, have run fo high, that I fhould 
 clread its introduction by law worfe than if 
 any member were to move for leave to bring 
 in a bill for the eftablifhment of the plague. 
 And though I hope the real fenfe I have 
 of the deficiency of my own abilities, will 
 ever prevent me from giving the houfe 
 much trouble by my loquacity, and though 
 upon moft occafions, I fhall probably con- 
 tent myfelf with giving an honeft inde- 
 pendent aye or no y yet if your fyflem were 
 ever to become the object of the legiflature 
 (of which however I fee not the leaft prof- 
 pe&), I am perfuaded I (hould not be able 
 
 to
 
 Blvffings of Polygamy, &c. 149 
 
 to contain myielf, but mould efteem it 
 my moft indifpenfible duty, to bear an 
 open teflimony againfl it in the fenate, as 
 well as from the prefs. 
 
 Though it be a matter of too much no- 
 toriety, that the author of Thelypbthora is a 
 reigning toaft among the jovial fons of plea- 
 fure at their clubs and taverns, yet I mould 
 not have mentioned this circumflance, but 
 as it tends to demonflrate the character and 
 (lamp of thofe who wifh well to Polygamy, 
 by the eilabliihinent of which alone, the 
 hufband who is fond of variety, or the 
 young debauchee who is yet unmarried,' can 
 hope to get poffeffion of the perfons of 
 thofe women who otherwife would not 
 confent to their felicitations, and this not 
 merely without feeling their confciences 
 checked for the fin they might otherwife 
 think themfelves guilty of, but all the while 
 congratulating themfelves, that they are 
 ditcharging their duty as faithful fervants of 
 Gcd, and good members of the community. 
 Thus Polygamy is made the dernier rejorf 
 of (otherwife defpairing) lewdnefs, and 
 
 L even
 
 150 The Ble flings of Polygamy, &c. 
 
 even covers the vileft debauchery, under 
 the fanclimonious doublet of obedience to 
 the divine law, and utility towards the ftate; 
 whilft thofc who difavow the principles and 
 pradlice of Polygamy, are held forth as la- 
 boring under the difeafe of a fcrupulous 
 confcience, and as being faft bound with 
 the fhackles of ignorance, fuperflition, and 
 prieftcraft. 
 
 IT is now time that I fhould put an end 
 to this painful epiftle, which though cir- 
 cumfcribed within a much narrower com- 
 pafs, will I believe be found to contain a 
 reply to every material argument you have 
 made ufe of, at leaft fo far as the doctrine 
 of Polygamy is concerned. 
 
 It may indeed be objected, that an an- 
 fwer to two octavo volumes, cannot poffi- 
 bly be confined to the limits of a book not 
 much larger than a pamphlet, but I am 
 under the neceflity of remarking that your 
 whole Treatife would not greatly have ex- 
 ceeded the bulk of my letter, had it been 
 freed from its multiplied repetitions, and 
 
 had
 
 The Blejfings of Polygamy, &c. J 5 1 
 had you omitted pages without number, 
 which anfwer no other end than to bias the 
 reader in your favor, but which in truth 
 and reality, have juft the fame force in 
 whatever caufe they are brought to fupport. 
 J mean your cenfure of thofe who obfcure 
 or adulterate the pure word of God by 
 fuch comments of their own devifing, as 
 error, prejudice, and fuperftition, may di- 
 recl:, adopting found for fenfe, fetting them- 
 felves up to be ivifer than God, walking in 
 the fteps of Socinus, Mahomet [H], and Ce- 
 
 [HJ As this falfe prophet was the grand patron of 
 Polygamy, he muft feel himfelf very aukward at being 
 fo frequently introduced into the company of Mono- 
 gamifts, and would certainly be much more at eafe 
 among thofe of his own fentiments on this head. 
 
 The learned Mr. Sale, in his tranflation of the Ko- 
 ran, p. 204, note, mentions that one of the great re- 
 proaches caft on Mahomet by the Jews, " was on ac- 
 *' count of the great number of his wives. For the 
 " Jews fakl, that if h: was a true prophet \ his care and 
 " attention ivould be employed about fomething eljt than 
 '* U'omen and the getting of children. It may be ob- 
 *' ferved (adds Mr. Sale) that it is a maxim of the 
 *' Jews that nothing is more repugnant to prophecy 
 '* than carnality." 
 
 L 2 rintbus,
 
 152 The Bleffings of Po'ygamy, 
 
 rintbus, and fetting Chrljl and Mofis at va- 
 r ranee. '-via. 
 
 .y ?v...* ? - :i i- ! .r {: r ' 
 
 Now it is certain, that a writer ufually 
 makes more converts to his opinion by de- 
 clamation of this fort, than by any other 
 method, becaufe it at once raifes the indig- 
 nation of the reader again ft fuch fophifti- 
 cators of pod's word, whilft it banifhes all 
 fufpicion that the perfon who is expreffing 
 his abhorrence of their practice, is himfelf 
 found to adopt it ; yet by thefe means an 
 cafy way is made for the introduction of an 
 author's fentiments into the mind whicli 
 is already fo flrongly prepofTelTed in his 
 favor. 
 
 Far, very far be it from me, to affirm 
 that you have done any thing of this fort, 
 in order to deceive or miflead the fmcere 
 inquirer after truth. I bear you witnefs, 
 that the honefty and integrity of your heart 
 fet you quite above the reach of fuch unfair 
 dealing : but an overweening attachment to 
 a favorite notion, has led you to conclude, 
 that whatever parts of God's word teemed 
 
 to
 
 *The lejjings of Polygamy, &c. 153 
 
 to militate againfl that notion, mufl have 
 been hitherto mifunderftood 5 and hence I 
 am forry to fay, that you have compelled 
 fcripture to ftoop to your fyilem, rather 
 than fuffer your fyftem to (land or fall by 
 the decifions of fcripture. 
 
 I know that you have complained heavily 
 of the many letters of remonftrance which 
 were fent you, before the publication of 
 your book, to defire you to fupprefs it. I 
 Can only fay, it is pity you did not attend 
 to them ; for if it be a received maxim, 
 that vox populi is vox De< 9 how much more 
 vox amicorum, how much more yet, vox 
 Chrijlianorum ! 
 
 I find by your preface, that you fubmit- 
 ted the perufal of your manufcript to fome 
 learned and pious friends : though I dare 
 not lay claim to either of thefe adjectives, 
 yet I do lay claim to a very great fhare in 
 the fubrtantive, and therefore beg to aflure 
 you, that if I had had the honor of being 
 ranked among thofe friends, fo far from 
 joining them in their approbation, I mould 
 
 have 
 
 r - *r
 
 j 54 7be Bleffings of Polygamy, 
 
 have been ready to have done what Mrs. 
 Ainfworth is reported to have done by the 
 manufcript of her hufband's dictionary, juft 
 as it was ready for the prefs, viz. to have 
 committed it to the flames, for no other 
 reafon, than becaufe the good laborious man 
 (who by the bye found one wife quite a 
 match for him) had the misfortune to break 
 one of her favorite tea-cups : but my con* 
 duft would certainly have proceeded from 
 much better motives than that of revenge, 
 viz. love to my friend, love to God, 
 and zeal for the interefts of the gofpel. 
 
 I would wifh to convince you ; but if I 
 cannot do this, be allured nothing is fur- 
 ther from my thoughts than to offend you ; 
 and therefore if you have found any thing 
 throughout this letter which you may think 
 bears rather too hard upon you, let me in- 
 treat you not to look upon it as levelled 
 againft you, but what I am fully perfuaded 
 are the errors you hold. 
 
 With heart-felt grief, I fee that fome 
 eminent and faithful minifters of the gofpel 
 
 have
 
 Bleffings of Polygamy, &c. 155 
 have imbibed your fentiments, and are even 
 earneft in the propagation of them, whilft 
 others are fecretly won over to them, but 
 through fear of domeftic unealinefs, or other 
 motives, do not choofe openly to avow 
 them. 
 
 Thefe things I do fee ; but how far the 
 evil will yet fpread, I cannot fee. I truft 
 however, that the firm conviction I have 
 in my own mind, of the great impropriety 
 of your having fent the Treatife in queftit>n. 
 abroad into the world, will plead fufficient 
 apology for this public addrefs, from one 
 who has always efteemed it both an honor 
 and happinefs to fubfcribe himfelf, 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 Your moft fincere 
 
 and affectionate friend, 
 RICHARD HILL. 
 
 P. S. Your Treatife had been publiflied 
 full half a year before I could perfuade my- 
 felf to read it, which will account for my 
 having been f long in fending out my an- 
 fwer to it.
 
 ".YJY~ c; v-j v;-: oj,- t 3i;ir:r.:i 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 T THINK myfelf in a manner obligated 
 to publifli the following Letter, in order 
 to convince the reader, that I ufed every 
 method in my power to avoid this contro- 
 verfy, by trying to prevent my much 
 efteemed Friend from fending abroad his 
 'Treat if e*, which I hope will plead my apo- 
 logy for any repetition or famenefs of argu- 
 ment, which may appear both in the letter 
 and in the addrefs.
 
 t '57 3 
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. MARTIN MAD AN* 
 
 My very dear friend, 
 
 T W A S exceedingly concerned to hear a 
 few days ago, from one who has a fin- 
 cere regard for you, that you are going to 
 publifh a book upon the lawfulnefs of Poly- 
 gamy. I remember to have often heard 
 you deliver your fentiments on the fubjedl 
 to particular friends, but never could have 
 imagined that you would have fent them 
 abroad into the world; and now befeech 
 you to confider well the tendency of fuch a 
 ftep, before you advance any further. Even 
 M fuppofe
 
 158 A Letter, to the 
 
 fuppofe all, and more than all you could 
 wifh to have effected by the publica- 
 tion ; fuppofe you mould convince thoufands 
 that they might, without fin, have more 
 wives than one ; what end will this anfwer ? 
 What good will it do you? What glory 
 will it bring to God? What advantage will 
 it be of to fociety ? To fay the leaft, it will 
 take up a great deal of your time, which 
 might certainly be much better fpent. It 
 can render no fervice to the caufe of chrifti- 
 anity, unlefs you can alfo prove that every 
 additional wife will bring with her an addi-^ 
 tional ftock of grace. And with regard to 
 fociety, it is likely to bring with it an innu- 
 merable train of evils $ and the more, as all 
 the paflions, lufls and corruptions of human 
 nature, will be fo ftrongly inclined to favor 
 your doctrine, that they will unite all their 
 force to profelyte the judgment , and then 
 who mall dare to fplit the difference between 
 two wives and two hundred ? And if this 
 be allowed on the man's fide, you will not 
 doubt but there are females amongft us to 
 be found, who will plead for an extcniion. 
 
 of
 
 Rev. Martin Madan. 159 
 
 of the privilege to their own fex. I do not 
 fay this age is worfe than former ones, 
 but I fancy you will agree with me, that it 
 is not much better, and that we do not live 
 in times wherein it is neceffary to help man- 
 kind to a fanction for taking more wives than 
 one, efpecially when they are well tired of 
 the firft. 
 
 I mould do you the higheft injuftice as a 
 man of fenfe, and as a chriftian, to fuppofe 
 you- had not fome good and ufeful defign in 
 view by this intended publication : Yet 
 what that defign may be, I cannot at all 
 conceive : But I evidently difcern the moft 
 dreadful and pernicious confequences, if you 
 mould make many or any converts to your 
 opinion ; and if you do not make converts, 
 cui bonofcribere ? It is all loft labour and 
 wafte paper. In the church of God, many 
 may be ftaggered and puzzled, many will be 
 amamed and grieved ; and lifelefs profeflbrs 
 will be gazing about at the Locke and 
 Tottenham for fome new object of delight, 
 that when they have loft every other mark 
 M 2 of
 
 j6o A Letter, 'to the ' 
 
 of faintfhip, they may at leaft follow tile 
 examples of fome Old Teftament faints, in 
 having plenty of wives and concubines* 
 And now I am upon this point, I remember 
 that my dear friend's grand argument in 
 fupport of his dodtrine was that when the 
 fcripture mentions the polygamy of the 
 Patriarchs, they are never cenfured on this 
 account. But does this prove that what 
 they did was no fpot in their characters, or 
 that it was agreeable to the mind and will of 
 God ? This, I think, would be a dange- 
 rous petition, and might be equally urged as 
 a plea for Noah's drunkennefs, or Lot's 
 drunkennefs and inceft together ; none of 
 which fins are particularly reprehended in 
 the perfons of whom they are recorded. I 
 would wave difputes how far the Jewim 
 worthies (though faved by faith in the fame 
 Redeemer) fell fliort of the privileges of 
 
 thofe who live under the clearer light of the 
 
 o 
 
 gofpel; but certainly you will allow there 
 was a difference between them j the former 
 faw through a glajs darkly y the times of refor- 
 mation were not fully come : And as in the 
 2 matter
 
 Rev. Martin Ma dan. 16 i 
 
 matter of putting away their wives, God 
 bore witk them, becaufe of the hardnefs of 
 their hearts, fo how far he might do fo in 
 their taking a plurality of wives, is, per- 
 haps, not for us to determine , but certainly 
 from the beginning it was not fo t Adam had 
 only his Eve, though from her the whole 
 earth was to be peopled. 
 
 Till, therefore, it can be proved that 
 Polygamy is allowed by the gofpel of Chrift, 
 the example of believers under the legal dif- 
 penfation, will not fufficiently authorize the 
 practice of it j and fo far from being allowed, 
 it appears to me to be moft clearly forbidden; 
 for if our blefTed Lord condemns the repu- 
 diating one wife and taking another, except 
 for the caufe of fornication, it is the fame 
 thing, as if he had faid in exprefs words, 
 that a man mould have only one wife at a 
 time. And when St. Paul fays, " To 
 *' avoid fornication, let every man have his 
 " own wife, and every woman her own 
 " hufband," the certain conclufion to be 
 drawn from the injunction is, that every man 
 M 3 - who
 
 i6j A Letter ', to the 
 
 who takes any other woman, doth not avoid 
 fornication, any more than the woman who 
 takes any other man does. And indeed the 
 whole 7th chapter of thefirft Epiflle to the 
 Corinthians, is founded on the fuppofition 
 (as a matter taken for granted by the whole 
 chriftian church) that the hufband has or car} 
 have but one wife, any more than the wife 
 can have but one hufband. Do, my dear 
 Sir, read and pray over the whole chapter, 
 and .furely conviction muft accompany the 
 word. 
 
 I muft further remarjc, that the allufion 
 which the Apoftle draws between the mar- 
 riage bond and the union which fubfifls 
 between Chrift and his fpoufe, or his body, 
 the church, would be averyunjuft one, and 
 would fail in almoft every inflance, if be- 
 lievers might have more wives than one at a 
 time ; and inftead of fayjng^hat " they two 
 (the hufband and wife) fhall be oneflem," 
 he ought to have left the matter more at 
 large, and mould have faid, "they three, or 
 they. f our ^ fhall be one flefh," which carries 
 
 3 a 9
 
 Rev. Martin Madan. 163 
 
 an abfurdity and contradiction in the very 
 mention . Neither could he with any pro- 
 priety have exhorted " every man to love 
 <c his wife even as himfelf," as that would 
 be confining that affection to one alone, 
 which each wife had an equal right to mare 
 in; but as hefpeaks in thelingular, and not 
 in the plural number, this proves to demon- 
 ftration, that a plurality of wives was never 
 thought of, much lefs allowed by this chofen 
 veflel. 
 
 But not to multiply fcriptures, (though 
 many more might be produced) coniider the 
 judgment and practice of the whole Catholic 
 church from the very beginning. Can any 
 one example be produced of the toleration of 
 Polygamy ? On the contrary, have not almofl 
 all chriilian nations, our own in particular, 
 punimed it with death, as an heinous offence 
 againft the laws of God, and the welfare of 
 ibciety ? 
 
 But I will go one ftep further with regard 
 to the Old Teflament faints > I will even 
 
 iuppofe
 
 164 -A Letter, to the 
 
 fuppofe that God allowed them a plurality 
 of wives ; ftill this will not prove the point 
 that Polygamy is lawful to Chriftians ; for the 
 only fbandard of right and wrong is the com- 
 mand and will of God j and when God wills 
 or" commands a thing to be done, then the 
 doing of it ceafes to be fmful, though ab- 
 itracted from that command, it might be a 
 notorious adl of wickednefs. Thus it was 
 no fin in Samuel to hew the king of the 
 Amalekites in pieces j though if God had not 
 willed and commanded it, Samuel had been 
 guilty of a very abominable murder. So to 
 marry the brother's wife, was forbidden by 
 the Levitical law, as an incefluous com- 
 merce ; yet when the brother died without 
 iffue, it was actually enjoined the next 
 brother to marry the widow, and to raife up 
 feed unto his brother ; and if he did not do 
 fo, he incurred the heavy difpleafure of God, 
 as in the cafe of Onan, All I argue from 
 thefe inftances, is, that' God, as fovereign 
 of all men, has full right to permit or order 
 that at cne time, or upon one occafion, 
 which he has an equal right to forbid at 
 
 others j
 
 Rev. Martin Madan. 165 
 
 others ; and therefore that he might fuffer 
 that to be done for his own wife purpofes by 
 Abraham, David, &c. under the Jewifh 
 oeconomy, that made nothing perfefl, which 
 now he has the fame right to prohibit to be- 
 lievers under the meridian of the gofpel. 
 
 But now fuppofe all thefe arguments (and 
 I might produce many more) have no weight 
 with you -, ftill let me return to my former 
 queftion, What good is your book likely to 
 do ? If it be not againft the exprefs laws of 
 God, I am fare it is againft the exprefs laws 
 of the land 5 and fubjection to the powers 
 that are, has always been your avowed 
 principle. Why, then, would you deviate 
 from it in the prefent inflance, when in pro- 
 portion to your known character as a mini- 
 fter of Chrift, and to your abilities as a 
 lawyer and cafuift, your book is likely to 
 create confufion in the ftate, as well as in 
 private families ? Can you pray for God's 
 bleffing on your undertaking ? Will the 
 completion of it bring you any comfort on 
 your death bed ? Who, think you, will be 
 
 benefited
 
 i66 A Letter* to the 
 
 benefited by it ? Will the community, will 
 individuals be the better for it ? Probably 
 the officers of Doctor's Commons may get 
 more grift to their mill by the additional 
 number of divorces it may occafion 5 (though 
 by the bye, thefe gentlemen have tolerable 
 reafon to be fatisfied in this refpecl) and pro-* 
 bably the author of the trials for adultery, 
 will foon extend his filthy pages from five 
 Volumes to fifty. 
 
 But I find I am extending my letter to a 
 tirefome length. Bear with me, my dear 
 friend, and forgive me this wrong ; and if 
 you ftill think 1 have been deficient in argu- 
 ments, fuffer me to fupply the want of them 
 by intreaties. I befeech you, therefore, by 
 the mercies of God in Chrift Jefus, that you 
 will not fend out under the fanclion of your 
 very refpectable name, a book of fuch a- 
 dangerous tendency j and if you have any 
 love for your chriftian friends, (which of aU 
 others, I have no reafon to doubt) any 
 concern for the glory of God, the peace of 
 his church, your own reputation, and the 
 
 good
 
 Rev. Martin Madan, 167 
 
 good of mankind, that you will notpublifh 
 the Treatife in queftion : Or, if this be 
 already done, that you will forbid the fm> 
 ther fale of it, and thereby remedy the 
 mifchief as much as pofiible. 
 
 But after all, I hope I am combating a 
 man of ftraw ; and that you have no fuch 
 tfefign in view, as I have been informed of; 
 to be aflured of which, from your own pen, 
 will afford a real fatisfaction to, 
 
 My dear Friend* 
 
 Your's moft fincerely and affectionately, 
 
 RICHARD HILL. 
 
 flaw k ft one, Feb. 2, 1780.
 
 f '68 ] 
 
 WORD 
 
 TO THE 
 
 READER. 
 
 IT is poflible fome perfons may have the 
 curiofity to examine The Elejjings of 
 
 Polygamy, who yet give themfelves little or 
 no trouble about the blejjings of eternity. To 
 fuch I beg leave to put a very interefting 
 queflion, and yet, I muft own, a moft un- 
 famionable, a moft unpolite, and, in gene- 
 ral, a moft unwelcome queftion. It is this. 
 Have you ever ferioufly thought of death ? 
 Nay, ftartle not, for it is by no means 
 foreign to the purpofe : So far from it, that 
 
 every
 
 A Word, &c. 169 
 
 every word I have been writing, and every 
 word you have been reading, has a view to 
 this one queftion only. Why have I been 
 proving the abfolute unlawfulnefs of Poly- 
 gamy ? Not to gratify curiofity -, not to 
 fettle a point of no importance ; but becaufe 
 I am fully purfuaded that the practice of it 
 is highly ofFeniive to God, and dangerous to 
 the fouls of men. For the very fame reafon, 
 therefore, that I would write a difluafive 
 from Polygamy, I would write a diffuafive 
 from every other fin ; and for the fame 
 reafon why I would wim to avoid every fin, 
 I would wim to meet death with confidence; 
 and this certainly cannot be done, without 
 I ferioufly and frequently bring the hour of 
 death to view. Surely, then, this is 
 fufficient reafon for refuming the queftion. 
 Have you ever ferioujfly thought of death ? 
 If you have not, I think you will hardly 
 deny that you are wholly unfit to launch 
 into eternity. If you have ferioufly thought 
 on death, then remember that as the fting of 
 death isjiriy fo the jlrength of Jin is the laiv > 
 I Cor. xv. 56- and that before this law 
 
 there
 
 170 -^ Word to the Reader, 
 there is none righteous, no not one; foras- 
 much as all havefmned, and come Jhort of the 
 glory of God : So that every door of hope by 
 man's own imperfect obedience, l>eing abfo- 
 lutely fhut up, there is no other way of re- 
 covering the Divine favor, but through the 
 redemption that is in fefus Chrift, Rom. iii. 
 10. 19, 20, &c. &c. 
 
 You may try to fHfle the convictions of 
 your own mind, by the foothing opium of 
 pleafure, or by hiding yourfelf in the wild 
 thickets of infidelity, ftill confcience will at 
 times find you out, and tell you, with an 
 unwelcome voice, that though you are the 
 creature of a day, you have neverthelefs an 
 immortal part within you, which can never 
 never die, and that you muft very foon appear 
 before the aweful tribunal of an holy God, 
 where all the actions of your life, and even 
 the moft fecret thoughts of your heart, will 
 be laid open before an affembled world. 
 
 LET me intreat you ferioufly to confider 
 thefe things. Believe me, I mould be fin- 
 
 cerely
 
 A Word to the Redder. 
 cerely grieved to leave no other impreffion on 
 your mind than a jingle of Polygamy, Bigamy 
 and Monogamy, and therefore that the fore- 
 going Addrefs may anfwer fome falutary end, 
 I hope you will not think I impofe a hard 
 tafk on you, in requeuing you to return to 
 your chamber, and there to commune <witb 
 your own heart, if it be but for one quarter of 
 an hour ; and with a pious ejaculation to 
 him who feeth in fecret, beg that you may 
 know the real ftate of your foul, if (like that 
 of the rich prefumptuous fool in the gofpel) 
 it mould this night be required of you. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 The little leifurc the author had for the correction of the 
 prefs, will, he hopes, plead his excufc for feveral inac- 
 curacies that appear in the foregoing work. However, 
 the two following ones the reader is particularly defired 
 to amend. 
 
 p. 67, inftead of " who is fo exclusively ftiled by the 
 
 apoftle HER OWN PROPER HUSBAND," r. ft WHOSE OWN 
 
 PROPER HUSBAND he is fo exclufively filled by the 
 apoftle." 
 
 p. 147, inftead of " women and children to too much, 
 &c." r. " women and children too to much, &c."
 
 
 n ,
 
 ^ ?v 
 
 xlOSANGEtfj 
 
 
 if 
 I 
 
 & 
 
 5, 
 
 A\\E-UNIVERS/ 
 
 g 
 
 I 
 
 %a3AINn3\\V S 
 vvlOS-ANCE% 
 
 Cx <?
 
 Y0/C, ^UIBRARYQ^ 
 
 " <. ? i 4 y ' ^ 
 
 A^E-UNIVERS-XA ^lOSANCEl^ 
 
 <$ <-m>1 ^ ^^ ^>! 
 
 >- '