a single instance where polygamy was for-
bidden*. However the law of Mofes for-
bad what our SAVIOUR mentions, just as
much as His words do. If a man once
took a woman, he never (except for adul-
tery) could put her away all his days; and
though Mofes fuffered, in order to avoid
worse consequences, divorces, by not bring-
ing the offenders to condign punishment in
every instance, yet there never was an in-
stance when the law of GOD did not con-
demn them. As for polygamy, Jofephus
says, and the Bible proves what he says to
be true, that-" It was the custom of
"the Jews to live with a plurality of
"wives; he calls it πατριον-the custom
" of their country derived from their fa-
"thers." The same historian, writing
the account of God's giving the deceased
Saul's wives to David, observes, that,
"God gave David many wives, which
*" he might justly and lawfully have." The
Peficta, on Lev. xviii. calls it, " notiffi-
"mum"-a thing most notorious,
"He who said it was forbidden to have

66

66

that

more wives than one, was entirely igno-
rant of the law." See Grot. de Jure,
lib. ii. c. 5. § 9. in the note k.

Is it then, without the highest abfurdity,
to be imagined, that CHRISTshould mention

* Unless we understand Lev. xxi. 13, 14. to for-
bid it in the case of the high-priest, as the Jews com-
monly understood it.

Dd2

and

and condemn polygamy in the prefence of such multitudes of Jews, and in a fettled dispute with His bitterest foes, the Pharifees, who only disputed with Him to ensnare Him, and to have whereof to accuse Him to the people as an enemy to Mofes (for this was their grand point in their appeal to Mofes's writings) and yet that we should not meet with a fyllable of reply to what He advanced, when they might have quoted the whole Old Testament againft Him? that He should declare a thing to be adul tery, without a single testimony from Mofes to fupport Him in what he faid? and this, when He never on any other occafion taught any doctrine but on the authority of the Old Testament, and constantly appealed to it for the truth of what He declared ? Lastly. Is it conceivable, as CHRIST must be supposed to speak in Hebrew, that He should give a meaning to the language of the Old Testament, which, in all the writings of Mofes and all the prophets, it never had? Now, wherever the verb μοιχαομαι is used in the Greek tranflation of the LXX, it constantly answers to the Hebrew נאף ; and therefore there is no room to doubt, that wherever, in our SAVIOUR'S discourses, as recorded by the Evangelifts, we meet with the word μοιχατα, נאף was the very Hebrew term used by him: but no where, throughout the whole Hebrew Bible, is this word applied to a man's marrying

ব

rying a second wife, living his first, unless such fecond was either betrothed or married to another, or to any thing else, than. only to the defilement of a betrothed or married * woman. This is its fingle idea throughout the whole. Therefore it is figuratively used to describe the people's forfaking God, and turning to idols. See before, p. 57.

CHRIST faid to the Jews, John v. 46, 47. Had ye believed Mofes, ye would have believed me; but if ye believe not his writings, bow shall ye believe my words? It is not easy to conceive words more forcible than these, to express an absolute and unreferved appeal to the Old Testament for the truth of all CHRIST faid and taught in His prophetical character. In this character He stood before the great multitudes of the people and the Pharisees, while he was delivering, on the authority of the fcrip tures, the sense of those scriptures upon the matter of unjust divorce, and proving the criminal consequences of it to all parties concerned. He so proved His point, that His adversaries had not a word to reply. He filenced them as He did the devil, Matt. iv. 10, 11. by the word of GOD. But had He said polygamy was finful, from which of Mofes's writings would He have proved this? The Pharifees might have retorted upon Him His own declaration and appeal to the writings of Moses; they might have said-" Thou hast said, " that if we believed the writings of Mofes, “ we should believe Thy words-Thou hast " said, that if a man having a wife, mar"rieth another" (for thus they might have put it, had they understood Him to have condemned polygamy) " he committeth a"dultery; but where dost Thou find this " in Moses's writings? they are filled " with the allowance of what Thou còn" demneft, without a single exception : "therefore, because we believe Moses's " writings, we do not believe Thee."

From all that has been said, I do conclude, that CHRIST was not a destroyer of the old law, nor a giver of a new onethat therefore the business of polygamy, and all other points relative to the commerce of the Sexes, were fully adjusted and settled by the divine law, subject to no alteration or change whatsoever, by * any power

in EARTH OR HEAVEN. For thus faith the SPIRIT-Ecclef. iii. 14. Whatsoever GOD doeth, it shall be for ever, nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it.

Having now finished what I had to fay on the subject of this chapter, I shall next proceed, on the footing of the divine law, to confider another material point relative to the commerce of the fexes, which is Di

porce.

APPENDIX TO CHAP. II.

THE celebrated Martinus Bucerus, in enarrationibus ad cap. 19. Libri Judicum, has left us the following observation concerning concubinage; which, as it tends to throw fome light on the subject, would have been inserted in its proper place, (fee before, p. 53, 54.) had I met with it time enough. It has fince come to me by the hand of a friend; and as it is well worth inserting, as the testimony of one of our excellent and learned re formers, I hope the reader will not be difpleased at my giving it a place by itself.

“Concubinæ erant legitimæ etiam uxores: " fed hoc a matronis differebant, quod fine * dote & fine folenni sanctificatione reci" piebantur: