in his interpretation, arifing from a conftant tradition of the Jews, that the highprieft was to have but one wife at a time, which was founded on Lev. xxi. 13, 14. This he endeavours to get rid of by faying-" It is not certain that Jehoiada was high-prieft, for he is every where called Jehoiada the priest, and but once only, "(ver. 6.) the chief."-But this is no argument at all against his being high-priest; for Abiathar, who was high-prieft, is nowhere called fo in the Old Testament, but always the priest; fo his father Abimelech, as the Bishop himself observes on 1 Sam. xxi. I; fo Eli the priest, 1 Sam. Zadoc the priest, 1 Kings iv. 2; and even Aaron himself, Pf. xcix. 6. The title of the chief, or head, which is given to Jehoiada, ver. 6. fignifies certainly more than "the chief of one of "the courfes of priests."-His having apparently the conduct and management every thing relating to the temple, his anointing king Jehoafh (camp. 1 Kings i 45.) and many other circumstances related of him, befpeak him plainly to be no less than high-prieft; and therefore

ii. 11;

of

*

As well as the entire management and command over all the Priefs and Levites. See 2 Chron. *xiii. 4-8.

'the

*

the word ww chief, or head, denotes this here, as it does that Seraiah was highpriest, 2 Kings xxv. 18. For all which reafons it seems clear, that Jehoiada (who had before married Jebofhabeath, the fifter of king Abaziah, 2 Chron. xxii. 11.) took not these two wives for himself, but for king Joah.

These things are too plain not to force conviction on the minds of many; therefore it is that they have faid, with the learned author of the "Hiftorical Libra"ry"-"Polygamy, though not exprefly "allowed, is however tacitly implied in the "law of Moses." This is going farther than those I have mentioned, but yet does not come up to the matter. For if it be forbidden by the feventh commandment, or by any other law, it is as contradictory to scripture to say, that it was tacitly implied, as that it was expressly allowed. This laft is the truth; it was exprefsly allowed, and that by GOD Himfelf: a direct proof this, that it was not forbidden by the Seventh commandment, or by any other law, unless we can fuppofe the allwife GOD to be fo inconfiftent with Him

That Seraiah was defcended in a right line. from Eleazar the fon of Aaron, appears 1 Chron. vi. 4-14. and of courfe fucceeded to the highpriesthood. As fuch he is registered. Ibid.

H 2

felf,

felf, as to forbid, and yet allow, the fame thing under the fame circumstances.

Some have found out, that "polygamy "was allowed for the more expeditious peopling of the world."-Suppofing it is a means of increafing population

*This cómmon notion, or rather vulgar error, is adopted by St. Augufline, De Civ. Dei. lib. xvi. c. 38. where, fpeaking of the antient polygamy, he fays it was lawful-Quoniam multiplicanda pofteritatis caufâ plures uxores lex nulla prohibebat." Be"caufe, for the fake of multiplying poflerity, no

law forbad many wives."-But let us fuppofe ten men and ten women-can it be imagined, that if these ten women are each feverally married to one man, they are not likely to have as many children, as if they were all married to one of the men? Porter, in his Obfervations on the Turks, fays, p. 292. that the number of children in Turkish families is not what the idea of polygamy fuggefts; that they have not, in general, fo many children as are found in common families of Chriftians and Jews-He even uses this as an argument against polygamy. On the other hand, many have contended for the permiffion of polygamy as "a fpeedier means of peopling "the world; it appearing, that in polygamous coun"tries, people abound more than in others that are monogamous.' But I take the real state of the cafe, upon the whole, to be this; wherever there are the most married women, there the increase of the people will be the greateft. Polygamy, therefore, as tending to increase the number of married women, muft certainly tend to population. But then we are to fuppofe, that women who are married der polygamous contracts, would not otherwise be married at all; for in no other view can polygamy be faid to increase population; in this it certainly muft.

un

(which by the way will admit of great doubt) yet where was the ufe of this amongst the Jews, when, before their. entrance into Canaan, they were as the ftars in heaven for multitude? Deut. i. 10;} and yet polygamy did not cease after their entrance into the promised land.

As for all popular arguments against polygamy, which the wisdom of this world has invented, and believed as fo many certain conclufions on the fide of truth, they equally apply against the wisdom and holinefs of GOD in allowing it, as against those who maintain it: therefore, as He will be juftified in His fayings, and clear when He is judged, Rom. iii. 4. the best answer which can be given, for the prefent, is that included in the awful queftion of the Apofle, Rom. ix. 20.

Nay but, O man, who art thou that replieft against GOD? Though this immediately relates to another point, yet it is applicable to all the vain reafonings of men against the difpenfations of Providence, either in the natural or moral world. Which faid reasonings, when thoroughly canvaffed, and fet in their true light, will appear to be neither more nor lefs, than the pleadings of human pride, on the behalf of human ignorance. Our prejudices and our opinions reciprocally affect each other,

H 3

other, and, upon examination, they will ufually be found as much alike as the image and the mold it is caft in.

Though it be befide my defign, in this treatise, to confider the subjects thereof on any other footing than as they appear in the fcriptures; yet I will fo far depart from my purpose, as to take notice of a popular argument against polygamy, which, in the minds of fome learned and confiderate men, has been of fuch importance, as to outweigh all that could be faid for it. It is this-" The males and females "brought into the world are nearly on "a balance, only allowing a little excess "on the fide of the males; whence it "follows, that nature intends only one ❝ wife for the same person; if they have "more, fome others muft * go without

So must it be even upon the principle of monogamy; for if, according to these calculators, there. be more males than females, it is not poffible that every man can have a wife; fome must go without. However, a departure either way from the original proportion of one male and one female, deftroys all argue ments which can be drawn from thence against polygamy; for the precedent which this might otherwife have been, being departed from by the Creator himself, it of course ceases with respect to his crea→ tures. Major Grant obferves, that a little excess on the fide of the males-" is to make up for the "extraordinary expence thereof in war and at " fea"