quences attending on one fide, which cannot be on the other; thefe are finely touched by the strong and masterly pen of the fon of Sirach-Ecclus xxiii. 22, 23. Having spoken of the adulterer, he faith, (agreeably to Lev. xx. 10.) This man fhall be punished in the streets of the city, (fee alfo Deut. xxii. 24.) and where he fufpecteth not be shall be taken. He then proceeds-Thus fhall it go alfo with the wife that leaveth her husband, and bringeth in an heir by another-For, first, she hath difobeyed the law of the Moft High-fecondly-fhe hath trefpaffed against her own hufband and thirdly-fhe hath played the whore in adultery, and brought children by another man. She fhall be brought out into the congregation, and inquifition fhall be made of her children.-Her children fhall not take root, and her branches fhall bring no fruit. She fhall leave her memory to be curfed, and her reproach fhall not be blotted out. Though thefe be the words of an apocryphal writer, they deferve the highest regard, because they are exactly confonant with the law of GOD. But it is very extraordinary, that in a discourse against fornicators, whoremongers, and adulterers (which commences, ver. 16. and is continued to ver. 26. inclufive) not a word should be faid against polygamifls, if polygamy

U 3

3

polygamy were a fin as much on the man's fide as on the woman's. He most likely would not have paffed it over in filence, had there been any law against it.

His defcription of the adulteress is very fine, and the aggravations of her offence, by bringing forth a fpurious iffue, ftrongly marked; but they are such as cannot exift on the man's fide, and therefore hence, in part at least, arises the difference.

What he fays of the adulterer is also remarkably ftriking, and evidently taken from Job xxiv. 15. We lofe much of its propriety, from our mif-tranflation of

Ανθρωπος παραβαίνων απο της κλίνης αυτε -A man that breaketh wedlock, we call it; but this is not a tranflation of the words-they literally are-the man who tranfgreffeth from out of his bed-like the murderer, Job xxiv. 14. who, rising with the light, is in the night as a thief-So the adulterer. Saith Job-the eye of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, faying, No eye fhall fee me, and difguifeth his face. The fon of Sirach reprefents the adulterer as "leaving his bed, ftealing out of

it, as it were, to execute his plans of "wickedness, at a time when he thinks "the unfeafonablenefs of the hour, and "the darkness of the night, will con

"ceal

❝ceal him from the eyes of all." This man is, in fob, called an adulterer, or defiler of other men's wives.-That the fame character is meant by the son of Sirach, is evident, from comparing Ecclus xxiii. 18. with Job xxiv. 15; and the punishment faid to await him, Ecclus xxiii. 21. with that affigned to adulterers, Lev. xx. 10. Deut. xxii. 22, 24.

Another reafon of the difference, that is to fay, why polygamy fhould be allowed to the man, and no fuch liberty belong to the woman, arises also from the inferi ority evidently stamped upon the woman by the GOD of nature, by whom she is placed under the abfolute power of her husband, fo that the cannot dispose of her perfon, on any occafion, or to any purpofe whatsoever, to any other but to himfelf, as may appear from Gen. iii. 16. She is not at liberty to make any contract whatsoever, without her husband's confent-even religious vows are utterly void; The cannot perform them if the husband difagreeth thereto. Numb. xxx. 8. The wife is ὑποτασσομενη τω ίδιω άνδρι-fubject ed to her own proper husband, 1 Pet. iii. 1. The apostle Paul ufes the fame expreffion, when he fays, Rom. xiii. 1. Let every foul be fubjected (TотασσEσw) to the higher powers. But none of these things are

U 4

faid

faid on the fide of the man-even in teaching in the congregation, the apostle marks out the woman's inferiority-1 Tim. ii. 11. Let the woman learn in filence with all fubjection-I fuffer not a woman to teach, nor to ufurp authority over the man, but to be in filence. Again, the fame apoftle faith-The head of the woman is the man the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man; neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 1 Cor. xi. 3, 8, 9. It appears then from the nature of things, as conftituted by the Creator himself, that the man hath powers which the woman hath not, and therefore may ufe a freedom of action which the *woman cannot. The apostle's faying, the man was not made for the woman, but the woman for the man, reminds me of the manner in which CHRIST vindicated his difciples, when they were accused by the Pharifees of breaking the fabbath, because they plucked fome ears of corn on the fabbath

*Befides all this, it may be faid, that the more wives a man hath, the more children he is likely to have; but this cannot be on the woman's fide; for The cannot breed the oftner by having more men than one. Such a mixture is known to be even deftructive of conception, fo that the more men a woman may have, the lefs likely is fhe to breed at all. This furely affords a ftrong proof that polyandry (as it is called) is contrary to nature.

day

day-He faid unto them, The fabbath was made for man, and not man for the fabbath, wherefore the Son of Man is LORD alfo of the fabbath. The reader may transfer this argument, by parity of reason, to the other fubject which we have been fpeaking of; and it furnishes a proof, by no means inconclufive, why a man may be a polygamist, but a woman not.

But we may go farther, and obferve, that, without this difference, the grand ends of God's moral government, with respect to the commerce of the fexes, would not have been provided for. The The very laws themselves, which were made to fe cure those ends on both fides, must have become mere cyphers. If polygamy had been permitted on the woman's fide, what must become of that law-Deut. xxii. 22. If a man (if any man whatsoever) be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. So thou shalt put away evil from ISRAEL? If the having more wives than one at a time had been forbidden the man, what, in numberless instances, must have become of Deut. xxii. 28, 29. If a man (as before-if any man whatfoever) find a damfel that is a virgin which is not betrothed-and lie with her-fhe fhall

be