bowels, 2 Sam. vii. 12. are expreffed, 1 Chron. xxii. 9. by-Behold a SON fhall be born unto thee-which, though primarily fpoken of Solomon, ultimately points to CHRIST, as 2 Sam. vii. 14. with Heb. i. 5 demonftrably fhew. Therefore CHRIST is emphatically styled THE SON OF David.

How would all this ftand by our law? Decius, a nobleman of large estate, having this, as well as his honours, limited to him and the heirs of his body, marries Decia, by whom he has no iffue; then, living Decia, he marries Portia, by whom he has a fon. Decius dies. This fon cannot inherit the estate and honours of Decius, as heir of his body, nor can this be done by any of the defcendents of that fon to the latest posterity. The reason of which is, that we deem a polygamous mar-riage no marriage at all, but null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever; but not fo the law of GOD: which is wifeft and beft, must be left to the confideration of the judicious reader.

There is a remarkable circumstance in. David's hiftory, which I cannot help obferving on this occafion, which is, that the adulterous offspring of David by Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, begotten by David during the life-time of Uriah, is mentioned-twelve times in eight following verfes, 2 Sam. xii. 15, &c. and is

9

not

k

hot once called man-child. fays, ver. 14. njan-the son which is born unto thee-which carries with it a Tharp reproof of David, who, before he came to a fight and sense of his fin, might have called it fo himfelf; but after he was awakened to a due fenfe of his iniquity, not all the torments which he endured while the child was fick, nor the news of its death, ever induced him to call it " my fon," but the man-child. How differently did he exprefs himself on the news of the death of Abfalom, 2 Sam. xviii. 33. 2 Sam. xix. 4. where eight times in two verfes he repeats-O Abfalom, my fon! my fon! &c. I'll venture to fuppofe that, if David had been asked the cause of this distinction, we fhould have reafon to think he faw a most important difference, between a child begotten in adultery, and a fon begotten and born under polygamy.

a fon, but in the The prophet Nathan indeed.

and 2

I think the prophet Nathan ufed the word fon in an improper sense, as abovementioned, and for the reafon there given; because the child, being begotten in adultery, was a baftard, not a fon, in the legal fenfe of the word. 1-a fon, is from the root n which fignifies to build, as an boufe, a city, &c. therefore called, in the true legal and

C 2

a fon, is fo proper fense

of

of it, because he builds up or continues his father's houfe or family. The child therefore of David's adulterous intercourfe with Bathsheba, was not properly a fon. And the Holy Spirit, ver. 15, when He returns to the narrative of GoD's dealings with David for his iniquity, faith, And JEHOVAH ftruck, (not an—the fon, but) — the man-child, (fee Exod. i. 17, 18.) which Uriah's wife bare unto David: and we do not find this unhappy offspring ever mentioned afterwards, either by David or his fervants, by any other name. We use the word fon much in the fame fense with the Hebrew, to denote lawful ifue. If a man makes a will, and leaves his eftate and effects to his fon or fons, no bastard could take under this defcription, the word fon only denoting lawful iffue. Hence no baftard can have any ancestors to whom he can inherit or be an heir-but, as faith the apostle, Gal. iv. 7. If a fon then an heir, which explains what he means (Rom. viii. 17.) by saying-If children then heirs, &c.; for it is as true in the fcriptures as in our law" qui ex damnato coitu nafcuntur, "inter liberos non computantur"-"thofe "who are born from illicit commerce are "not reckoned amongst children." follows, therefore, that our LORD's anceftors, Solomon, Nathan, Abijah, &c. in the direct line from David, must all be deemed

It

deemed of GOD the iffue of lawful marriage, otherwife He is not the Son of David-the King of Ifrael. The lawfulness of polygamy muft of course be established, or the whole of Christianity muft fall to the ground, and CHRIST not be He that was to come, but we must look for another. Matt. xi. 3.

Our divorces, caufà præcontractus, or becaufe of an antecedent contract on the man's fide, are without the divine authority, and ftand wholly on the inventions of men upon the fubject of polygamy; these originate from the received notion that though polygamy was "allowed under the "Old Teftament, it is forbidden under "the law of the New Teftament ;"-wherefore all polygamous contracts are null* and

void

*I do not find that the ecclefiaftical courts have gone any farther in fuch a cafe, than merely pronouncing a polygamous contract null and void, ab initio-I cannot meet with any inftance of their punishing a man as an adulterer or fornicator.

Thefe courts are called fpiritual, because they take cognizance of offences of a fpiritual and religious kind, and they profefs to judge by the law of GODbut where is there to be found, in all the law of GOD, either a precept or example to juftify this fort of divorces, caufa precontractus? The truth is they make void the law of GOD through their traditions ; and a man who is divorced on fuch an account may very juftly, with a little variation, apply to the judge who pronounces the fentence of divorce, what was faid by Paul to the bigh-priest ANANIAS on another occafion,

C 3

void in themselves, and the parties entering into them are to be divorced. But as there is no law in the New Teftament which is not in the Old Teftament, the latter muft for ever remain as the invariable rule of right; wherefore all divorces whatsoever, which have not their grounds and reafons in the divine law which was delivered by Mofes, are encroachments on the divine prerogative, and amount to the fin of-putting afunder those whom GOD hath joined together.

Polygamy on the man's fide (for that is the fenfe in which I would be understood to use the word throughout this whole book) is no caufe of divorce, either with regard to the former or to the after-taken woman; had it been fo, we furely should have found fome inftance of it in the Hiftory of the Church, from Adam to the time of the prophet Malachi, that is to fay, in the pace of about 4000 years. Nor is it to be imagined, that GOD fhould fuffer His own chofen people to have con

occafion, Acts xxiii. 3. Sitteft thou to judge me after the law, and commandeft me to be DIVORCED contrary to the law? The right of the ecclefiaftical powers to divorce the man, and the right of the civil powers to hang him, are equally without all foundation in the divine mind and will, as revealed in the fcriptures, and are built on that palov feudos of the council of Trent, concerning the unlawfulness of polygamy to Chriftians."

..

tinued