of Scripture. BERNARDINUS OCHINUS* had the honour of preceding him in this truly redoubtable enterprize. With a zeal as ardent, and ends as Quixotic, as our hero's, he waged war with custom, and nobly burst through the prescriptions of authority. And to enhance the merit of this enterprize, and our admiration of the man who was daring enough to undertake it, Bernardinus Ochinus, at the time he claimed the patriarchal privilege of MANY wives, was paft his grand climacteric, by more than a dozen years!

From a sketch of his arguments, produced by the learned Frederic Spanheim, Profeffor of Divinity at Geneva (1638), in his Dubia Evangelica [Par. 3. Dub. 122.], it appears that he had pre-occupied Mr. Madan's ground, and fortified it by the fame texts of Scripture, and by a fimilar train of reafoning.

*This truly learned and moft ingenious man was General of the Order of Capucins: an eloquent and diftinguished preacher; and much courted and careffed by the Great on account of his extraordinary accomplishments. At the Reformation he joined the Proteftants, and left Italy, with Peter Martyr, about the year 1543. He affumed a fecular habit, and married a lady of Lucca. The connection, it is faid, proved unfortunate; and it was fuppofed, by fome, that he wrote in vindication of polygamy, in confequence of the difappointment and mortification which he received from the gallantries of his wife. The fevere Doctors of the Helvetic church never made charity a fundamental article of their creed: and without fympathifing with his misfortunes, they proceeded to damn his principles. They were not accustomed to feek for candid apologies in the infirmities of age, or the chagrin which arifeth from ill treatment; but finding him in an error, they applied the common argument of bitter zeal to correct it. The method they took with poor Ochinus was fhort, but irrefiftible; for they banifhed him at once from their Church and State, as the best method to preferve the peace and purity of both. The Socinian church in Poland being at that time a kind of common refervoir of herefy, opened its wide gate to our fugitive, and afforded him fome little protection from Calvinistic inquifition. But as one error frequently generates another, this learned man became obnoxious to the Polonian brethren; and at laft funk into a species of herefy which the charity of Socinianifm itself could not tolerate.

Maldonatus attempts, in his Comment. on Matth. xix. to throw fome obloquy upon the Calvinifts, becaafe one of their fect had publicly vindicated the practice of polygamy. Rivet (Profeffor of Divinity at Poitiers in 1633) combats this reflection of the infidious Jefuit, with true Calvinilic bitterness, and obferves" Scimus fuilfe excuculatum Capucinum qui ex Papifmo ad nos tranfiit, et ad Samofatenianos deficit, qui, tales Dialogos confcripfit, quales fe vidiffe profitetur Maldonatus. Is fuit Bernard. Ochinus, qui à nullis durius fuit exceptus quam a NOSTRIS." Exercit. in Genefin, pag. 135.

N. B. Ochinus's Dialogues on Polygamy were answered by Theodore Beza.

Our

Our Author mentions a book, published about the conclufion of the last century, entitled Polygamia triumphatrix *; but fays nor a word (if our recollection ferves us aright) about the Dialogues of Ochihus. Was it that, from his avowed and moft implacable hatred of Socinianifm, he omitted to quote a precedent from the abettors of that herefy? Or was he ignorant that his darling fubject had been difcuffed by a writer whofe genius and erudition had long made him the envy and admiration of oppofing fects? From his extenfive reading, we can fcarcely think the latter to be the cafe: and from his res peated profeffions of candour and free-thinking, we should be forry to charge his omiffion to the account of his bigotry.

In our laft month's Review of this Treatife, we prefented the Reader with a brief and general account of the fubjects that are more minutely difcuffed in it; and particularly entered into an examination of the Author's doctrine of marriage; which may, indeed, be confidered as the corner-ftone of this fingular fabric.. We shall now attend to the capital object of this ill-planned. work; and though it would be inconfiftent with the nature and limits of our Journal to pursue the Author through every devious track, into which his doating paffion for polygamy hath be trayed him; yet we think it our duty to give a fair and impar tial view of his argument, together with thofe authorities from Holy Writ, on which the fupport of it is principally founded. By polygamy (fays Mr. Madan) I would be understood to mean, what the word literally imports, the having and cohabiting with more than one wife at a time. Whether taken together, as feems to be the cafe of King Jehoafh, 2 Chron. xxiv. 3. or firft one and then another, as Jacob, Gen. xxix. 28. or David, 1 Sam. xxv. 43. it was this which was allowed of God, confe quently practifed by his people.'

In defence of this practice, the Author obferves (vol. i. 108), that the best and faireft, and indeed 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 fpeak for itfelf. Then we fhail fee, that polygamy, notwithstanding the Seventh commandment, was allowed by God himself; who, however others might miftake it, muft infallibly know his own mind, 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, how is it poffible that he should make laws for its regulation, any more than for the regulation of thefts or murder? How is it conceivable that he should give

Written by the miferable John Lycerus, a clergyman of the Danish church;-whofe polygamous frenzy, fiift checked by the State, at la expired with himfelf-in a garret! Bleed martyr, verily !

Y 2

the

the leaft countenance to it, or fo exprefs his approbation of it, as even to work miracles in the fupport of it? For the making a woman fruitful who was naturally barren, must have been the effect of fupernatural power. He bleffed, and in a particular manner owned the iffue, and declared it legitimate to all intents and purposes. If this be not allowance, what is? As to 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 husband) take him another wife (not-in fo doing he fins against the 7th commandment, recorded in the preceding chapter-but), her food, her raiment (i. e. of the firft wife), and her duty of marriage, he fhall not diminish.'

There is (fays our Author, p. 112.) a paffage which is exprefs to the point, and amounts to a demonftration of God's allowance of polygamy, Deut. xxi. 15. "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 first-born be her's that was hated, then it fhall be, when he maketh his fons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the fon of the beloved first-born before the fon of the hated, which is indeed the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath, for he is the beginning of his ftrength, and the right of the firft-born is his." On the footing of this law, the marriage of both women is equally lawful. God calls them both wives; and he cannot be miftaken. If he calls them fo, they certainly were fo. If the fecond wife bore the first son, that fon was to inherit before a fon born afterwards of the firft wife. Here the flue is exprefsly deemed legitimate, and inheritable to the double portion of the firft-born, which could not be, if the fecond marriage were not deemed as lawful and valid as the firft.

To fay that Polygamy is finful (for if it ever was, it certainly is, and if it ever was not, it certainly is not, unless fome pofitive law hath made an alteration; or unless good and evil change their nature by length of time, like the fashion of our clothes) is to make God the author of fin; for not to forbid that which is evil, but even to countenance and promote it, is being fo far the author of it, and acceflary to it in the highest degree,'

The above text, of which Mr. Madan makes fuch a triumphant boaft, doth not contain an explicit declaration of the Jawfulness of polygamy. At the utmoft, it only prefuppofes that the practice might have exiftence among fo hard-hearted and fickle a people as the Jews. It therefore wifely provides against fome of its more unjuft and pernicious confequences:-particularly, thofe which tended to affect the rights and privileges of heirihip. Our Author's inference, that becaufe laws were made

to

to regulate it, therefore the practice of it was lawful, is a mere fallacy; and not only fo, but entirely overthrows fome of his own arguments. For inftance, laws were made to regulate divorce that corrupt fpecies of divorce, which, as our Lord obferves, was only fuffered by Mofes on account of the hardnefs of the hearts" of the people of Ifrael and even Mr. Madan pleads ftrongly for the abfolute unlawfuinefs of all divorces whatsoever, unless in cafes of adultery.Here, then, his own 'reasoning is full and explicit against himself.

But it remains to be proved, that this text amounts to a demonftration (as Mr. M. avers it to be) of God's allowance of polygamy.' It is infinitely more probable, that the "hated wife" had been difmiffed by a bill of divorcement, than that he was retained by her husband; especially fince a divorce was fo eafily procured, when averfion and difagreement fubfifted between the parties. But in this cafe, the right heir, or the firstborn, was ftill to affert his claim to the inheritance that was allotted him by law, as much as if no divorce had taken place, and his mother had retained the affections of his father. A fecond family, from a woman more beloved, was not to encroach on his right: nor could his father deprive him of a tittle of it. This provifion was a very wife and equitable one; for though Mofes could not prevent, he did every thing to leffen, the evils of divorce.

We would farther remark, that for any thing that clearly appears to the contrary, the two wives, fo far from living with the fame hufband at the fame time, may be fuppofed to be dead; for the words may be rendered thus, "If there SHOULD HAVE BEEN to a man two wives, one beloved and the other hated, &c. &c. Thus the text is rendered by Mr. Madan's own Montanus. Cum FUERINT viro duæ uxores, &c.

In fupporting the doctrine of Polygamy on the authority even of the Old Teftament, the Author hath fome confiderable difficulties to ftruggle with." The remarkable words which fo fully exprefs the defignation and limits of the original institution of marriage, as delivered by God himself to our firft parents [Gen. ii. 24.], and reftored to their primitive and unadulterated meaning by Jefus Chrift [Matth. xix. 4, 5. 8.], create no little trouble for our zealous Polygamift. He applies them (together with another remarkable text in Mal. ii. 14, 15.) folely to the doctrine of divorce; and combats with much carneftnefs, but little argument, the opinions of thole commentators who would deduce a prohibition of polygamy from them. In this contention he is reduced to the loweft of fallacies, and attempts to fupport the credit of his caufe by a quibble that would difgrace even Weftminster-hall; while by artifices like thefc, to which he is

Y 3

driven

driven in order to evade the letter of the text, he plainly difcovers how much he feels the force of the objection which arifeth from it. It is faid in Genefis," And THEY fhall be one flesh." Our Saviour, in quoting this expreffion, is ftill more explicit in applying it to the marriage of one man and one woman :- "And they TWAIN fhall be one flesh." Now what fays Mr. Madan to this decifive and pofitive declaration? Deci five?-that he denies ;-and then flies to this pitiful hold of chicane." It is not faid, they two only-or none befides the twain-shall become one flesh."-There are no fuch words (fays our acute cafuift) as "two only" in the law of marriage,' Hence, on our Author's hypothefis, the number is not definite, or limited in any degree whatever. A man may marry as many wives as he pleafes, and by marriage he becomes one flesh with

ALL of them!

On Mr. Madan's interpretation, the whole force of our Saviour's reasoning is entirely loft. His words are thefe: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? and faid, For this caufe fhall a man leave father and mother, and fhall cleave to his wife (not wives), and they TWAIN fhall be one flesh.” It is true, that this reafoning is immediately pointed againft unlawful divorces; but it equally applies to the present subject, and as ftrongly concludes against a man's marrying two wives, as his unjustly putting away one. For we ask this plain queftion-How can the two be ONE flefh, when one of the parties hath the liberty of dividing and fubdividing himself amongst MANY? How can the husband be faid, with any degree of propriety, to CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE, when he hath more than one to share in his attachment and duty, as a husband ?

It is evident, that our Saviour's declaration against divorces was generously made in aid of the weaker fex. Nothing, in his view, could fanctity a divorce, but infidelity to the marriage Vow. A capricious or a lewd husband might be ready to fet up other pleas; but our Lord reprobated them all; and would only admit of one valid plea for a difunion of the nuptial engagement. Now we afk this ftrenuous advocate for polygamy, whether a man's having the liberty of taking another wife, through any diflike conceived against the firft, did not as effectually answer the purposes of his caprice, or cruelty, or luft, as if he were indulged in the full liberty of divorcing at will? Nay, farther: Was not the Law of Mofes, which fuffered a divorce, much more favourable to the purposes of domestic peace, than the law of Chrift, which, on Mr. Madan's plan, entirely forbids all divorces (except for adultery), and yet allows of polygamy? Would it not be a more candid and equitable inftitution, to