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% ,. ^- . ^ 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 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 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 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, - 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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, " 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. 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 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 f &c. 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 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 1 ^ ^^ ^>! >- '