SEVENTH

SERMON CXXI.

COMMANDMENT.-POLYGAMY.-DIVORCE.

MATTHEW Xix. 3-11. -The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered, and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He, which made them at the beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses, then, command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her, which is put away, doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife; it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying; save they, to whom it is given.

THE next violation of the Seventh Command, which I shall think it necessary to examine at large in this system, is Divorce. Were I delivering a formal course of Ethical Lectures; I should feel myself obliged to extend the same examination to Polygamy. As a practical subject in this Country, it demands, indeed, little consideration. But from its inherent importance, and its extensive prevalence in the world; and still more from the fact, that it has been either partially, or wholly, defended by some grave men; it deserves to become a subject of serious consideration. Thinking men ought on such a subject to have their opinions settled. For these reasons, although I cannot expiate, I feel myself bound to make a few observations upon it in a summary manner.

Polygamy is unlawful, because God in the original Institution of Marriage confines it to the union of one man with one woman. For this cause, said He, who created them male and female, shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Whom God, therefore, hath joined together, let not man put asunder. God hath joined two. This is the only Authority, under which Marriage lawfully exists. Polygamy is, therefore, a violation of the Institution of God.

Polygamy appears to be directly forbidden in the Mosaic Law. Lev. xviii. 18. Thou shalt not take a wife to her Sister, to vex her, in her life time: or, as it is in the Margin, Thou shalt not take one wife to another. The words "a wife to her sister," Dr. Edwards observes, are found in the Hebrew, if I remember right, eight times. In every other passage, except that just quoted, they refer to inanimate objects: such as the wings of the Cherubim, Tenons,

Mortices, &c. They seem to denote, principally, the exact likeness of one thing to another; and here forbid, as the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife to another in her life time.

Polygamy is forbidden in the Prophecy of Malachi. The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Mal. ii. 14, 15.

The prophet, in this passage, although speaking of all the wives in the nation of Israel, yet mentions the word in the singular number only. Of the union of one husband with one wife he declares God to have been witness; and thus plainly indicates, that this union lawfully extended to no more. In the second versé quoted, he asks, Did He not make one? That is, one wife, when he had the residue of the Spirit, and could with the same case have created many, if he had pleased. And wherefore one? To this question he answers, That he might seek a godly seed. In other words, he created one man and one woman, and united them, and them only, in the Marriage Institution; because one husband and one wife, thus united, would by religious education, and example, promote piety in their offspring. This is an implicit, but clear and decisive, declaration, that in a state of Polygamy, pious children would very rarely be found. Polygamy, therefore, cannot be lawful; as being hostile to the design of God in this Institution, and to the highest interest of mankind.

Polygamy is expressly forbidden in the Text. Here, the man, who puts away his wife, and marries another, is declared to commit adultery. In what does this adultery consist? Certainly not in putting away the former wife. A man may obviously leave his wife, or a woman her husband, and yet neither of them be at all guilty of this sin. The adultery, then, consists in the fact, that the man marries a second wife, while the first is living. But this is always done in Polygamy. Polygamy is, therefore, a'continued state of Adultery.

There is not a passage in the Scriptures, in which the Institution of Marriage, or the relation which it creates, is spoken of in the form, either of doctrine, or precept, which gives even a remote hint of the lawful union of more than two persons. Husband and Wife are the terms, invariably used in every case of this nature.

A Bishop and a Deacon, in an age, when Polygamy was common, are expressly required, each, to be a husband of one wife. Yet Marriage is declared to be honourable in all. If Polygamy, then, were at all the marriage spoken of, or the Scriptural Marriage; it would be honourable, and therefore becoming, and proper, in Bishops and Deacons; and no reason appears for this restriction on them, any more than on other men.

The only instance of Polygamy, recorded in the Scriptures, during the first two thousand years after the Institution of Marriage, was that of Lamech; and this appears to have been considered by himself, and those around him, as sinful. Noah and his three sons, had but one wife each.

All the instances of Polygamy of which the history is given in the Scriptures, to any extent, were sources of many and bitter calamities, both to the Parents and Children.

Equally hostile to this practice is the state of facts.

The numbers of the sexes, born, and living to adult years, in all nations and ages, have been so nearly equal, as to indicate plainly the will of the Author of our being, that one man and one woman, only, were to be united as parties in Marriage. This equality is, indeed, denied by Mr. Bruce, with respect to Syria and Arabia; and with no small appearance of being founded on evidence. But when I remember, that it is a contradiction to the law of our nature in all ages, and in all other places; that the fact is mentioned by no ancient or modern historian; that Mr. Bruce, so far as my information extends, is the only traveller who has mentioned it; particularly, that it escaped the observations of Shaw, Russel, Maundrel, and especially Nieburh; I cannot help believing, that this respectable Writer was misled in his apprehensions. It ought to be added, that the knowledge, in question, must, if, attained at all, be from the existing state of Society in those countries attained with extreme difficulty, and accompanied with not a little uncertainty. This story is also expressly contradicted by Lord Valentia, who has lately travelled in Arabia.

Polygamy is unfriendly to population.

When the World was to be replenished, under an immediate command of God, with human beings; a single pair was chosen to be the means of accomplishing this design.

When the same design was, under the same command, to be accomplished anew; God chose the three sons of Noah, and their three wives, as the proper means of fulfilling it.

The Turks are Polygamists. They possess all the power, almost all the wealth, and therefore almost all the means of subsistence, found in their empire. Yet they are few in number, compared with the Greeks; who marry but one wife, and who, subjected to iron bondage under the despotism of these hard masters, are continually impoverished, and plundered of a precarious subsistence, by their rapacious hands.

Polygamy degrades from their proper rank, privileges, and enjoyments, to an almost animal level, one half of the human race. This enormous injustice no consideration can excuse, or palliate.

Polygamy has regularly introduced domestic broils of the most bitter kind, terminating in the most fatal manner, and involving in their deplorable consequences both the Parents and the Children.

Of this truth complete proofs are found in the few historical accounts, which have reached us, of the Turkish and Persian royal families.

These considerations, if I mistake not, amply prove, that Polygamy is unlawful, and a direct violation of the Seventh Command.

I shall now proceed to consider the proper subject of the Text. This I shall introduce under the following General Observation, as directly expressing the principal doctrine in the Text;

That Divorces, for any other cause, except Incontinence, are unlawful.

This important Scriptural Truth I shall endeavour to support by arguments, derived both from Scripture, and Reason.

From the Scriptures, I allege,

I. That Marriage is a Divine Institution; and is, therefore, unalterable by Man.

That Marriage is a Divine Institution has, I apprehend, been made abundantly evident from several parts of this passage, examined in the Discourse on the Origin of Marriage. It was there proved, if I mistake not, that God has really joined together every lawfully married pair among the children of Adam. That what God hath thus joined by his Infinite Authority, man cannot lawfully put asunder, needs no illustration. God has made the twain one. Man cannot make them twain again, unless with the evident permission of God.

It is to be observed here, that the translation exactly expresses the meaning of the original in this part of the text: Let not man put asunder. The Greek word is aveguros, without the article: the most absolute, and unlimited, expression, in that language, to denote man universally, without any respect to age, sex, or condition. The prohibition, therefore, is not, that the husband, as among the Jews, Greeks, and others; nor that a judicial tribunal, as among ourselves; nor that a legislature, as in some other Communities; may not sunder this union; but that Man, in no condition, place, or time; Man, possessed of no authority whatever; may sunder this union, without an express permission from God.

2. Iallege as a decisive argument, the Guilt, which is directly charged by Christ upon all the parties in the Divorce, and the consequent Marriages.

In the Text, Christ declares, that the man, who divorces his wife, and marries another, and the man, who marries the divorced wife, are both guilty of adultery in this transaction. The same crime, in Matth. v. 32, is charged upon the divorced woman. It will not be questioned, that the woman, who marries the divorced husband, is guilty in exactly the same manner. Neither of these Marriages, therefore, can possibly take place, without involving the crime of adultery in both the married parties. Consequently, a Divorce, except for Incontinence, is here for ever barred. A

Divorce professedly sets the parties free; so that they may lawfully marry again. But it is plain from these observations, that they cannot be thus set free, and can never lawfully marry again. Whatever husbands, judges, or legislators, may think, or declare, or do; all these parties will by their subsequent Marriages become guilty of adultery. Thus Christ has pronounced; and thus He certainly will pronounce at the final day.

It is here to be remarked, that this decision of Christ was totally contrary to the views, entertained by his Apostles. This they directly declare in the following words: If the case of the man be so with his wife; it is not good to marry. Christ, however, does not qualify, nor soften, the decision at all. On the contrary, he leaves it exactly where he had left it before. All men, he replies, cannot receive this saying; save they, to whom it is given; and again; He, that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

3. St. Paul has determined the same point anew; and in the most explicit manner conceivable.

Unto the married I command; yet not I, but the Lord; Let not the wife depart: xwgioenvai, be separated; that is, by a divorce; voluntarily accomplished by herself; from her husband; this being the only command, which could be addressed to the wife with any meaning. But and if she depart; Eav de xai xwgioon; But even if she be separated; that is, by means of a divorce, accomplished by him; let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife ; και ανδρα γυναικα μη αφιέναι, and I also command the husband not to put away his wife. This also is a part of the Command, given by Christ in the Text; and is quoted, not as I apprehend from the Text itself, which it is very possible St. Paul, at this time, may not have seen; but from that immediate Revelation, which this Apostle received of the Gospel from the mouth of Christ.

We have here the decision of Christ concerning this subject recited, and declared to be his decision by St. Paul; and therefore know the manner in which this command of our Saviour was un

derstood by an inspired commentator. The same precept is here given in all its latitude. A Divorce, on both sides, is absolutely prohibited; and, in case of a Divorce, the injured party, the person divorced, is forbidden expressly, and absolutely, to marry again.

The Apostle then goes on, But to the rest: that is, to those whose cases were not contemplated by the command of Christ, because they had not existed, when that command was given; But to the rest I command, not the Lord. If any Brother, that is, a Christian, hath a wife, who is an infidel, and she be well pleased to dwell with him; let him not put her away: and, if any woman, that is, any Christian woman, hath an husband, who is an infidel, and he be well pleased to dwell with her; let her not put him away.