| Show I 1 MILTON ON POLYGAMY from 0 o th the first book on christian Chri doctrine d fraai the latin by bv churles R sumner D D lord bishop ter in the definition which I 1 have riven given of I 1 marriage barr jagel I 1 have ibave not said in compliance with the common opinion of one mar with one me woma soma tt lest I 1 should by implication chige charge the holy patriarchs and pillars of our faith abraham and the others who had bad more inore tha than n one wife at the same time with habitual fornication and adultery and lest 1 I should be f forced to exclude from the aane i 4 roof of I 1 god as spurious the boly 0 oly am offspring arling W whish q ii A ag them yea the whole of the aa assof I 1 a 0 I 1 aate el I 1 ai tw for who the j itself wis wag biot por fur itis it is said dent iu III 2 a baltar shall not enter into the con gregario gre gation gatio ill of df jehovah even even tobis to his tenth generation genera era tion either therefore poly polygamy 9 v i a arbe marring marriage e or all children born bora in tt that state t te aro ar which would include the whole race of jacob the twelve holy tribes chosen by but as such an 94 assertion would be absurd d in the extreme not to say as it is ia the height of im notice as As well as an example of most mos t daner pus as tendency in religion tp account as sin what is not such inre in reali alif ty t appears to me that so far from the question respecting the he lawf law lawfulness ulness falness of poly polygamy g being trivial it is of the highest importance ta e that it should be d decided ec iced those edeny who deny its ts lawfulness attempt to prove position boshion from gen ii 24 4 a man shall jl cleave unto his wife and shallie out one flesh comps compared com oared tied with matt 5 they ey two twain in shall be ba one hie flesh 11 A man shall al cleave elave they say bay tu to his wife not to his wives and they twain thain and no more shall fie be one flesh thesis this is certainly ingenious oas and andt I 1 therefore subjoin the passage in elod 17 thou not covet thy neigh neighbors hors house nor wis hta manservant man servant nor his hia maid servant antt nor I 1 his ox por nor his hir ass a ss whence it would follow that th a t no one ha had dmore more tb than a n a single house a single man manservant servant a single maidservant maid servant a 4 single ox or ass it rould wound be ridiculous to argue that it Js is not said houses but house not man servants but man manservant servario not even neighbors but neighbor as if f it ic were not the general custom in in laying down commandments of this kind to U use the singular nud number ber not in a numerical dumert carenge ca I 1 ense but t eta as d designating the species of the thing intended with regard to the phrase they twain a and nd not inore more shall be one flesh it is ia to td be ob observed first thit the context refers to the husband stud and that wife only whom he was 49 seeking to divorce without intend intending ing any allu allusion idon to the number of his wives er br one or wore an marriage arriage i is ia in in the nature of a relation and to one relation loh can be no more than two p birties pir arties ties in the same sense therefore as if a man ha has many sons rona his parental relation towards them all is manifold but towards each individually is single and complete in itself by parity of reasoning ifa a man has many wives the relation which he bears to each will not noc be les perfect in itself nor will the husband he be less leas one flesh with each of them than if he had only one wife thus it might be properly said of abraham with regard to garab sarah and hagar respectively these twain were one flesh and with good gad reason reason for whoever consorts with harlots however many ill in number is et ill said to he be one flesh with each I 1 cor yi vi 16 what know ye not that he which is joined to an homlotis horl hor otiis lotis I 1 one body for two saith he shall be one flesh the expression may therefore be applied as properly to the bubba husband ind who has in dinv inv dinv inv W wives 1 as to nim him who has only one hence it follows that the commandment commin dment in question thol tho in fact it is no commend ment at allas all as his has been shown contains nothing against polygamy either in the way of direct prohibition or implied censure unless we are to suppose that the law of df god od as delivered to moses ases wasat was at variance with his prior declarations or that thol tho the pa passage s in question cp estion had been frequently looked into by bv a multitude of priests and levites and prophets men men of all ranks of holiest hollest lives and most acceptable to god the f fury arv of their passions was sach fv as to hurry them by bv a blind impulse in ina ta libi habitual for fornication forto for to this su supposition are we reduced if viere biere be anything in the present precept which renders render poli polygamy gamy incompatible with lawf lawful al marriage another text from which the unlawfulness of polygamy is maintained is tv lv 18 neither r thou take a wife to her sister I 1 to veil vei her to uncover her nakedness beside the other in her life time idere junius translates the passage gei muli erem jn anam aa al altera one woman to another instead of td ad so guam i woman to her sisi erin in order that from this forced and inadmissible able interpretation he be nay may elicit an argument against polygamy V in drawing up a I 1 law as i in 0 composing om posing a definition it is is necessary that the most e exact X ot and appropriate words should be use used dand and that they should be in interpreted fell not I 1 in their metaphorical but in their proper signification he says indeed that the same words are found in the pam sense in other pap passages sages this is true but it is only where the context precludes the possibility of any ambiguity as in gen aljura 3 1 jura berunt vir aratri suo sao that is alteri they aware one to adother no one would infer from tb this is passage that isaac was the brother of avimelech Abi melech nor i would any one on the other hand enteria entertain lin a doubt that the passage in leviticus was intended as it a po prohibition hibi against taking a wife to her sister particularly ticul arly as tho th preceding verses of this chapter treat of the degrees of afcin affinity ltv to which intermarriage is forbidden moreover this thib would be to uncover her nakedness 1 the evil against which the law in cinques ques tion was intended to guard whereas the caution would be unnecessary in in the case of taff taking ing another wife not related or ftp allied to the former for no nakedness would be there 1 by L lastly batly why is the clause in her life time lints added for there could be nn no 0 doubt of its being lawful after her death to marry another who was neither related nor allied to her bar though it might be questionable whether it w we lawful to marry mam a cifes BIG ter I 1 T it is objected that marriage with wit haw a cifes 1 1 f e 8 sister is forbidden by analogy in the sixteenth verse and that therefore a second prohibition was unnecessary I 1 answer first that there is in reality no analogy between the tha two passages for that by marrying a brothers wife the broth brothers ets nakedness is uncovered whereas by by marry marrying big a 4 cifes sister it is not a sisters nakedness but only that of at kinswoman by bv marriage which is uncovered besides if nothing were to be prohibited which had been before I 1 prohibited by analogy why whyna if marriage with a mother forbidden wh vi hen en marriage with a father had been already declared unlawful or wh why Y marriage with a mothers sister when marriage with a fathers sister had been prohibited I 1 I 1 if this reasoning be allowed it foll follows Ws that A at mo more than half the laws law a relating to in in beit are unnecessary lastly basily considering that the prevention of enmity h alleged an a a principal p r i motive for the wi before bafo e as it is 1 obvious 1 ions that if the anten intention tion haab een to condemn polygamy reasons reasons of a much stronger kind might have been urged from them the nature of the original bri ginal institution as was as done in the ordinance of 0 the sabbath A third passage which is advanced deut beut iiii 17 is so far from condemning polygamy either in a king or i in any an onelar one wellse lae 9 that if it and I 1 4 only imposes the same restraints upon abi this s condition which are lai laid dupon upon the multiplication of horses I 1 or the accumulation of treasure as will appear from m the seventeenth I 1 and eighteenth verses 9 I 1 I 1 except the three passages which are thus 0 irrelevantly adduced add aced not a trace appears of thi the interdiction of polygamy throughout the whole law nor even in in any anif of the prophets iwho who were it at once the rigid interpreters of the law and the hi habitual bidual bi re oters of the vices of the people the only shadow of an exception occurs in in a p passage of Mal malachi achil the last of the prophets which some consider as deai decisive sivea against polygamy it would be indeed a aate ate an and anae enactment if that were for the first time prohibited after the Bay bailoni loni sh captivity which ou ought flit to have been P prohibited many ages before be ore for for if it had been really a sin how could it ii have escaped the reprehension of so many prophets prophet who preceded him we ma may safely conclude that if polygamy be not for forbidden forbid dpn in the luvi law nei neit herds theris it forbidden he here re for I 1 malichi was not the author of a new law let u us 3 however see the words themselves as translated bv junius ii 15 nonne binum tinum effect q qu I 1 ui u tvs ilasi assent sent quid altern unwire ant mallachi Majl achi v vla 15 three first lines it would be rash and un reasonable indeed if on the authority of so obscure a passage which has been tortured and twisted by different int interpreters orp reters into such a variety of af in meanings earnings ean ings we were to form a conclusion on so momentous a subject g and to imp impose it upon others as an article of faith I 1 I 1 but whatever be the signification of the words nonne donne unum untim ef loit what do thoy they prove are we for the sake of drawing an inference against polygamy to understand the phrase thus did he not make one wo wor I 1 1 mate but the render gender and eva even the case are at variance with this interpretation for nearly all the other commentators render the words as follows anion unus 1 et residuum iasi et quid ile baus we ought not therefore to draw any conclusion from a passage paa sige like the present in be i 1 half of a doctrine which is either not mea mentioned elsewhere or only in doubtful terms i but rather conclude thit that the prophets de I 1 sign was waa to reprove a practice that the whole of scripture concurs in in reproving and which forms the principal subject of the deiv very chapter in question ii 11 1116 16 namely in marriage ariage with the daughter of a strange god a corruption bupt rupt on very prevalent amo among n gr the jews of that time as we learn I earn from kira ezra and nehe I 1 mish wo W with ith regard to the words ada rda of chri 8 ada t t v 32 and 5 the passage from gen ii 24 is is repeated not for the purpose of condemning polygamy but of reproving ln hi unrestrained liberty of die divorce bree which is a very different thing nor can the words be made to apply to any other subject sulie ct without evident vi violence blence to their meaning for the ar argument which it is deduced from matt v 32 that thatis if a man who marries another after putting away his first wl wife ife 1 adultery much mua mode more must he commit adultery ahn retains the first and marries another ought itself to be repudiate 1 as an illegitimate mate conclusion for in the first place it is the divine precepts themi themselves elves that thai aro obligatory rv not the cop consequences sequences deduced from the them M by human reao reasoning ning for what appears a rei reasonable infer inference ence to one individual mav not be equally obvious to ani othe r of not inferior discernment i secondly Second lv he who puts away his wife and marries another is not said to commit adultery aryh becan becane e eauve e he mari marries ies another but because I 1 in n consequence of his mar marriage with angeh er he does not retain tua hit former wife to also he owed the performance of con ingal s whence it atia is expressly said idd marli market x fl adultery against hr her 11 that he is iq in t a condition to perform conjugal duties to the one after having taken nother another to her in i chewn by god himself hase if fand if he take hini him another wife her food her raiment and an her ber duty of marriage shall he not diminish 13 at it cannot be sup supposed poRed that tbt the the divine forethought intended to provide for adultery I 1 j i nor is ia it allowable to 0 o argue from I 1 vor for vii 2 aslet let every evera man have bave bis own wife 9 A that therefore lione none should dhave have mo more re than one for the meaning of the prec pt is is that every man should have his own wife to himself not that he should have but one wife ife that bishops and elders should have no more than one wife is in explicitly en enjoined I 1 tim iii 2 and tit i 6 he must be the husband of one wife in order probably i th that at they may mav dite discharge harge with greater dili i 1 1 gence the ee ecclesiastical duties they have undertaken the command itself however is ill a sufficient proof that polygamy was not forbidden to the rest and that it was common in the church at that time I 1 he must be the husband of one wife ii dopa not in the least imply that he was not at liberty to have more wives ED j i lastly in answer to what is urged from I 1 cor vii 4 likewise also the litis husband band nath bath not power of bis own boda but the wife it is easy to reply as was done above that the word wife in this passage is used with reference to the species and not to the number nor can the power of the wife I 1 11 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 11 over the body of her ausba husband nd bia ba d 0 I 1 now from froin what it ib was under the uw law ehod 1 I 1 ssi which signifies signi Ses her stated times ox I 1 pressed 9 re sed by st paul in in the present chapter s by the ahr phrase ase her due benevolence i with regard to whit what is ie due the hebr hebrew ew word 16 i sufficiently explicit on the other hand the following passages clearly admit the lawfulness lawf of polygamy ehod axi 10 if he betake take him another wife her food her raiment and her duty of mar I 1 r ilae riago shall he be not diminish 1 deut beut xvi vii ii I 1 17 7 neither shall he multiply wives to himself 1 that his hia heart turn not away would the law hive have boen been so worded if it had not been allowable to take more wives than one at the same game time who would venture to subjoin as an inference from this language therefore let him have ha ve one tuly in such sub case since it is ia baidin said in the preceding verse he shall not n 0 t multiply horses to td himself it would b be ne necessary to iri there also therefore h he e shall have one boreo bored only I 1 1 I 1 nor do we want any proof to assure us that the first institution of marriage ws in in tended to bind the prince equally 1 with the people if cheref therefore ore it permit b only orie one wife it permits no more even n to the prince but the reason given for the law is ia this that his heart turn not away a danger which chwi would arise if he were to marry maria many especially I 1 strange women as solomon afterwards I 1 did now if the present law had bad I 1 been bean intended merely as a confirmation and vindication of the primary institution of marriage marria ge nothing could have be bein nore appropriate I 1 prop than to have recited the |
