Mofes as many different laws to govern the actions of His reafonable creatures, as there are different parts of the globe. inhabited by them, fo as, that there is one law for the inhabitants of Afia and Africa, and another for thofe of Europe, this fort of arguments, drawn from the outward appearances of things in different parts of the world, proves nothing on either fide of the question, but the exceeding ignorance of mankind as touching the acts and difpenfations of that INFINITELY WISE BEING, whofe judgments are unfearchable, and His ways paft finding out! Rom. xi. 33.01

The best and faireft, and indeed the only way to get at the truth, on this as on every other occafion where religion is concerned, is to lay afide prejudice, from whatever quarter it may be derived, and to let the Bible speak for itself.

Then

we fhall fee that polygamy, notwithstanding the feventh commandment, was allowed by GoD Himself, who, however others might mistake it, muft infallibly know His own mind, be perfectly acquainted with His own will, and thoroughly understand His own law. If He did not intend to allow polygamy, but to prevent or condemn it, either by the Seventh commandment, or by fome other

law,

law, how is it poffible that He should make laws for its regulation, any more than He fhould make laws for the regulation of theft or murder? How is it conceivable that He fhould give the leaft countenance to it, or fo exprefs His approbation of it, as even to work miracles in fupport of it? For the making a woman fruitful who was naturally barren, must have been the effect of fupernatural power. He blefed, and in a diftinguished manner owned the iffue-and declared it legitimate to all intents and purposes. If this be not allowance, what is? the first, namely, his making laws for the regulation of polygamy, let us confider what is written, Exod. xxi. 10. If he (i. e. the hufband) take him another wife (not--in fo doing he fins against the feventh commandment, recorded in the preceding chapter-but) her food, her raiment (i. e. of the first wife) and her duty of marriage, he fhall not diminish. Here God positively forbids a neglect, much more the divorcing or putting away the first wife, but charges no fin on taking the fecond.

*

As to

2dly. When Jacob married Rachel fhe was barren, and fo continued for many years; but God did not leave this as a punishment upon her for marrying a man who had another wife. It is faid, Gen. XXX. 22. that GOD remembered Rachel,

and

and GOD bearkened unto her and opened her womb-and she conceived and bare a fon-and faid, GOD bath taken away my reproach. Surely this paffage of fcripture ought to afford a complete answer to those who bring the words of the marriage-bond, as cited by CHRIST, Matt.. xix. They twain fhall be one flesh, to prove polygamy finful; and thould lead us to conftrue them, as by this inftance, and many others, the LAWGIVER Himfelf appears to have done; that is to say, where a woman, not betrothed to another man, unites herself in perfonal knowledge with the man of her choice, let that man's fituation be what it may-they twain fhall be one flesh. How otherwise do we find fuch a woman as Rachel, united to Jacob, who had a wife then living, praying to GOD for a bleffing on her intercourfe with Jacob, and GOD hearkening unto her, opening her womb, removing her barrennefs, and thus, by miracle, taking away her reproach? We alfo find the offspring legitimate, and inheritors of the land of Canaan; a plain proof that Jofeph and Benjamin were no baftards, or born out of lawful marriage. See a like palpable instance of God's miraculous bleffing on polygamy in the cafe of Hannah, 1 Sam. i. and ii. Thefe înftances ferve alfo to prove,

that, in

GOD'S

God's account, the fecond marriage is just as valid as the first, and as obligatory, and that our making it lefs fo, is contradictory to the divine wifdom.

*

3dly. GOD bleffed and owned the iffue. How eminently this was the cafe with regard to Jofeph, fee Gen. xlix. 22-26; to Samuel, fee 1 Sam. iii. 19. It was expressly commanded, that a baftard, or fon of a woman who was with child by whoredom, fhould not enter into the congregation of the LORD, even to his tenth generation. Deut. xxiii. 2. But we find Samuel, the offspring of polygamy, miniftring to the LORD in the tabernacle at Shiloh, even in his very childhood, cloathed with a linen ephod before ELI the prieft. See this whole history, 1 Sam. i. and ii. Who then can doubt of Samuel's legitimacy, confequently of GoD's allowance of, and bleffing on polygamy? If fuch fecond marriage was in GoD's account null and void, as a fin against the original law of marriage, the feventh commandment, or any other law of God, no mark of legitimacy could have been found on the iffue; for a null and void marriage is tantamount to no marriage at all; and if no marriage, no legitimacy of the iffue can poffibly be. Inftead of fuch a blefПоруп. LXX.

ἐκ

+ See Appendix, N° r. vol. ii.

fing

fing as Hannah obtained, we should have found her and her husband Elkanah charged with adultery, dragged forth and ftoned to death; for fo was adultery to be punished. All this furnishes us with a conclufive proof, that the having more than one wife with which a man cohabited, was not adultery in the fight of GOD; or, in other words, that it never was reckoned by Him any fin against the feventh commandment, the original marriage-inftitution, or any other law whatso

ever.

4thly. But there is a paffage (Deut. xxi. 15.) which is express to the point, and amounts to a demonftration of GOD'S allowance of polygamy. If a man have TWO WIVES, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the firft-born be her's that was hated, then it fhall be, when he maketh his fons to inherit that which he bath, that he may not make the fon of the beloved first-born before the fon of the hated, which is indeed the firftborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his Atrength, and the right of the firft-born is bis.

..

"Herein is a law, tacitly implied at least, for a man to have two wives." Ant. Univ. Hift. vol. iii. p. 141.

On