train of thinking, they have but to meet with a text in fcripture which seems to echo to their fenfe of things, that fenfe will immediately chime in with the found, and both together, almoft beyond the power of conviction to the contrary, confirm them still more strongly in their fentiments. What thefe may happen to be, makes very little difference-whether it be tranfubftantiation-praying to faints -worshipping images the doctrine of purgatory or, though polygamy was "allowed under the law, it is forbidden "under the gospel" or, in fhort, any other popular prejudice: they will always act towards fcripture as Whittington did with the bells, till that liberality of mind, which ought to poffefs us, as the privilege of thinking and reafonable beings, opens the way to free enquiry then, and not till then, we fhall be noble like the Bereans, Acts xvii. 11. who would no longer be led by their own prejudices, or prejudiced by other people's opinions, but received the word of GOD with all readiness of mind, and fearched the fcriptures daily, whether those things (which they heard preached by Paul) were fo. The fcriptures which thefe Jews at Berea fearched fo diligently, must have been the fcriptures of the Old Tefta

ment;

ment; no others, if written, could then have come to their hands; but they compared the New Teftament as preached by Paul, with the Old Teftament of Mofes and the prophets, that they might judge whether the things he declared to them were of divine authority, answerable to former revelations of GOD's mind and will, or not. This is the method which I have endeavoured to obferve throughout this book, and which I moft fincerely recommend to every reader, as well as to every person who wishes to know and to do the will of GOD. If once we detach the New Teftament from the Old Teftament, there is not a fingle herefy that will not find something to fay for itself, perhaps more than we may be able very eafily to anfwer. But let us carry what we hear to the Old Teftament; if it exactly tallies with that, we may be fure it is a right interpretation of the New Teftament; if otherwife, it must be false, because the mind and will of GOD can never vary, difagree with, or contradict itself. I do not say these things with regard to any particular doctrine of the New Teftament, but with respect to the whole. The doctrine of a Trinity in unity the incarnation-birth-lifeteaching-miracles-fufferings —death

burial-refurrection-afcenfion-glorification, and interceffion of Fefus Chrift, together with the aspect these things bear towards the falvation of mankind, if only related in a book, no fingle article of which was ever heard or thought of for four thousand years together, would challenge no more of my affent or belief, than the Koran of Mahomet, the Zend or Zend-avefta of Confucius, or the Shafter of the Bramins. But when I compare these things with what is contained in the Old Teftament, to which the New Teftament fo often refers for their truth, I then can no more fuppofe them to be falfe, than I can fuppofe it poffible for men to fee into futurity, exactly delineate what is to happen ages before it comes to pafs, and fo exactly, as that the event fhall be a literal fulfilment of all that is foretold, unless He who is perfect in knowledge hath made a revelation or difcovery of things which no mortal wisdom or forefight could have ever otherwise been acquainted with. Therefore, when we compare the New Testament with the Old, we may be affured that it is as impoffible to be falfe, as that a dozen dice fhould be thrown the fame number for a million times running; no hazard or cafualty could bring fuch a thing

within the most acute calculation of chance; therefore I conclude, that nothing short of infinite wisdom and divine contrivance could ever firft declare, and then fulfil, the wondrous things which are written in Mofes and the prophets. When therefore I hear of a doctrine as taught in the New Testament, I ́am certain, if it be true, it must accord with the fcriptures of the Old Testament. Thither I carry it; if I find it does not exactly tally with what I find there, I am certain it is falfe, and must arise from fome misconception, and, of course, some mifinterpretation of the paffage where it is fuppofed to be found.

I am told that fin is a tranfgreffion of the law; when I hear it afferted that polygamy is finful, I confult the law; if it be forbidden there, I agree to the finfulness of it; if not forbidden there, but * allowed, I find myfelf reduced to this dilemma-either the afferter of fuch a propofition, who says he takes it from the New Teftament, is mistaken, which is probable, or the New Teftament must contradict the law, which is impoffible.

*" Lex Hebræa omnem fpurcitiem inhibet, fed "plures uni concedit uxores." GROTIUS. "The "Jewish law reftrains all filthinefs, but allows a plurality of wives to one man."

With

With respect to what is frequently urged against polygamy among Chriftians, that though it was allowed by the law "of Mofes, yet it is forbidden by the law of

66

Chrift" by which CHRIST is made a repealer of the old, and a giver of a new late-it fa affects His character as the Meffiah, as to render Him, if it be true, not the perfon which Mofes and the prophets reprefent Him, or what He reprefented Himself to be. The difcuffion, therefore, of this horrid pofition requires, and shall have, a chapter by itself.

At prefent, I will advert to an argument taken from the New Teftament to prove the unlawfulness of polygamy among Chriftians, though allowed to the Jews under the Old Teftament. St. Paul, Eph. vi. 32. and in fome other paffages, reprefents marriage as a figure or representation of Christ and His church, which is but one whereas, having more wives than one at a time, deftroys the analogy which the marriage-ftate bears to CHRIST and His church. In answer to which, I would afk, If CHRIST and His church were not as much one under the Old Teftament as under the New Teftament? If. liv. 5. Thy Maker is thine husband, the LORD of Hofts is his name; the GOD of the whole earth fhall He be called. The

church