POLYGAMY, (Encycl.) Dr Percival, Phil. Trans. vol. lxvi. part i. p. 163. has very justly observed, that the practice is brutal, destructive to friendship and moral sentiment, inconsistent with one great end of marriage the education of children, and subversive of the natural rights of more than half of the species. Besides, it is injurious to population, and therefore can never be countenanced or allowed in a well-regulated state: for, though the number of females in the world may considerably exceed the number of males, yet there are more men capable of propagating their species than women capable of bearing children; and it is a well-known fact, that Armenia, in which a plurality of wives is not allowed, abounds more with inhabitants than any other province of the Turkish empire.
Yet Selden has proved, in his Uxor Hebraica, that plurality of wives was allowed of, not only among the Hebrews, but also among all other nations, and in all ages. It is true, the ancient Romans were more severe in their morals, and never practised it, though it was not forbid among them: and Mark Anthony is mentioned as the first who took the liberty of having two wives.
From that time it became pretty frequent in the empire, till the reigns of Theodosius, Honorius, and Arcadius, who first prohibited it by express law in 393. After this the emperor Valentinian, by an edict, permitted all the subjects of the empire, if they pleased, to marry several wives: nor does it appear, from the ecclesiastical history of those times, that the bishops made any opposition to this introduction of polygamy. In effect, there are some even among the Christian casuists, who do not look on polygamy as in itself criminal. Jurieu observes, that the prohibition of polygamy is a positive law; but from which a man may be exempted by sovereign necessity. Baillet adds, that the example of the patriarchs is a very powerful argument in favour of polygamy.
It has been much disputed among the doctors of the civil law, whether polygamy be adultery. In the Roman law it is called stuprum, and punished as such, that is, in some cases, capitally. But a smaller punishment is more consistent with the Jewish law, wherein the prohibition of adultery is perpetual, but that of polygamy temporary only.
In Germany, Holland, and Spain, this offence is
polygamy, differently punished. By a constitution of Charles V. it was a capital crime. By the laws of ancient and modern Sweden, it is punished with death. In Scotland it is punished as perjury.
In England it is enacted by statute 1 Jac. I. cap. 11, that if any person, being married, do afterwards marry again, the former husband or wife being alive, it is felony, but within the benefit of clergy. The first wife in this case shall not be admitted as an evidence against her husband, because she is the true wife; but the second may, for she is indeed no wife at all; and so vice versa, of a second husband. This act makes an exception to five cases, in which such second marriage, tho' in the three first it is void, is, however, no felony. 1. Where either party hath been continually abroad for seven years, whether the party in England had notice of the other's being living or no. 2. Where either of the parties hath been absent from the other seven years, within this kingdom, and the remaining party hath had no notice of the other's being alive within that time. 3. Where there is a divorce or separation a mensa et thoro by sentence in the ecclesiastical court. 4. Where the first marriage is declared absolutely void by any such sentence, and the parties loosed a vinculo. Or, 5. Where either of the parties was under the age of consent at the time of the first marriage; for in such case the first marriage was voidable by the disagreement of either party, which this second marriage very clearly amounts to. But if at the age of consent the parties had agreed to the marriage, which completes the contract, and is indeed the real marriage, and afterwards one of them should marry again, judge Blackstone apprehends that such second marriage would be within the reason and penalties of the act.
Bernardus Ochlinus, general of the order of Capuchins, and afterwards a Protestant, published, about the middle of the 16th century, Dialogues in favour of Polygamy, which were answered by Theodore Beza. And about the conclusion of the last century we had at London an artful treatise published in behalf of a plurality of wives, under the title of Polygamia Triumphatrix: the author whereof assumes the name of Theophilus Aletheus; but his true name was Lysurus: he was a native of Saxony. It has been answered by several.
In the year 1780, the rev. Mr Madan published a treatise, artfully vindicating and strongly recommending polygamy, under the title of Theophthora; or, A Treatise on Female Ruin, in its Causes, Effects, Consequences, Prevention, and Remedy, &c. Marriage, according to this writer, simply and wholly consists in the act of personal union, or actus coitus. Adultery, he says, is never used in the sacred writings but to denote the defilement of a betrothed or married woman, and to this sense he restricts the use of the term; so that a married man, in his opinion, is no adulterer, if his commerce with the sex be confined to single women, who are under no obligations by espousals or marriage to other men: but, on the other hand, the woman who should dare to have even but once an intrigue with any other man besides her husband, (let him have as many wives as Solomon), would, ipso facto, be an adulteress, and ought, together with her gallant, to be punished with immediate death. This,
he boldly says, is the law of God: and on this foundation he limits the privilege of polygamy to the man; in support of which he refers to the polygamous connections of the patriarchs and saints of the Old Testament, and infers the lawfulness of their practice from the blessings which attended it, and the laws which were instituted to regulate and superintend it. He contends for the lawfulness of Christians having, like the ancient Jews, more wives than one; and labours much to reconcile the genius of the evangelical dispensation to an arrangement of this sort. With this view he asserts, that there is not one text in the New Testament that even hints at the criminality of a polygamous connection; and he would infer from St Paul's direction that bishops and deacons should have but one wife, that it was lawful for laymen to have more. Christ, he says, was not the giver of a new law; but the business of marriage, polygamy, &c. had been settled before his appearance in the world, by an authority which could not be revoked. Besides, this writer not only thinks polygamy lawful in a religious, but advantageous in a civil light, and highly politic in a domestic view.
In defence of his notion of marriage, which, according to his account of it, consists in the union of man and woman as one body, the effects of which in the sight of God no outward forms or ceremonies of man's invention can add to or detract from, he grounds his principal argument on the Hebrew words made use of in Gen. ii. 24. to express the primitive institution of marriage, viz. utraque pars, rendered by the LXX. προσπολλυμεναι προς την γυναικα αυτου, which translation is adopted by the evangelist (Mat. xix. 5.) with the omission only of the superfluous proposition (προς) after the verb. Our translation, "shall cleave to his wife," doth not, he says, convey the idea of the Hebrew, which is literally, as Montanus renders the words, "shall be joined or cemented in his woman, and they shall become (i. e. by this union) one flesh." But on this criticism it is well remarked, that both the Hebrew and Greek terms mean simply and literally attachment or adherence; and are evidently made use of in the sacred writings to express the whole scope of conjugal fidelity and duty, though he would restrain them to the grosser part of it.
With respect to the Mosaic law, for which Mr Madan is a warm advocate, it was certainly a local and temporary institution, adapted to the ends for which it was appointed, and admirably calculated, in its relation to marriage, to maintain and perpetuate the separation of the Jewish people from the Gentiles. In attempting to depreciate the outward forms of marriage, this writer would make his readers believe, that because none are explicitly described, therefore none existed; and consequently that they are the superfluous ordinances of human policy. But it is evident, from comparing Ruth iv. 10, 13. with Tobit. vii. 13, 14. and from the case of Dinah, related Gen. xxxiv. that some forms were deemed essential to an honourable alliance by the patriarchs and saints under the Old Testament, exclusive of the carnal knowledge of each other's persons. It is also evident in the case of the woman of Samaria, whose connection with a man not her husband, is mentioned in John iv. that something besides cohabitation is neces-
Polygamy. sary to constitute marriage in the sight of God.
Having stated his notion of marriage, he urges, in defence of polygamy, that, notwithstanding the seventh commandment, it was allowed by God himself, who made laws for the regulation of it, wrought miracles in support of it by making the barren woman fruitful, and declared the issue legitimate to all intents and purposes. God's allowance of polygamy is argued from Exod. xxi. 10, and particularly from Deut. xxi. 15, which, he says, amounts to a demonstration. This passage, however, at the utmost, only presupposes that the practice might have existence among so hard-hearted and fickle a people as the Jews; and therefore wisely provides against some of its more unjust and pernicious consequences, such as tended to affect the rights and privileges of heirship. Laws enacted to regulate it cannot be fairly urged in proof of its lawfulness on the author's own hypothesis; because laws were also made to regulate divorce, which Mr Madan condemns as absolutely unlawful, except in cases of adultery. Besides, it is more probable that the "hated wife" had been dismissed by a bill of divorce, than that she was retained by her husband; and moreover, it is not certain that the two wives, so far from living with the same husband at the same time, might not be dead; for the words may be rendered thus, "if there should have been to a man two wives, &c." The words expressing the original institution of marriage, Gen. ii. 24, compared with Mat. xix. 4, 5, 8, afford insuperable objections against Mr Madan's doctrine of polygamy.
If we appeal on this subject, from the authority of scripture to the writings of the earliest fathers in the Christian church, there is not to be found the faintest trace of any thing resembling a testimony to the lawfulness of polygamy; on the contrary, many passages occur, in which the practice of it is strongly and explicitly condemned.
We shall close this article with the words of an excellent anonymous writer, to whose critique on Mr Madan's work we are indebted for the above remarks: "In a word, when we reflect, that the primitive institution of marriage limited it to one man and one woman; that this institution was adhered to by Noah and his sons, amidst the degeneracy of the age in which they lived, and in spite of the examples of polygamy which the accursed race of Cain had introduced; when we consider how very few (comparatively speaking) the examples of this practice were among the faithful; how much it brought its own punishment with it; and how dubious and equivocal those passages are in which it appears to have the sanction of divine approbation; when to these reflections we add another, respecting the limited views and temporary nature of the more ancient dispensations and institutions of religion—how often the imperfections and even vices of the patriarchs and people of God, in old time, are recorded, without any express notification of their criminality—how much is said to be commanded, which our reverence for the holiness of God and his law, will only suffer us to suppose, were, for wise ends, permitted—how frequently the messengers of God adapted themselves to the genius of the people to whom they were sent, and the circumstances of the times in which they lived;—above all, when we consider the purity, equity, and
benevolence of the Christian law; the explicit declarations of our Lord, and his apostle St Paul, respecting the institution of marriage, its design and limitation;—when we reflect too, on the testimony of the most ancient fathers, who could not possibly be ignorant of the general and common practice of the apostolic church; and, finally, when to these considerations we add those which are founded on justice to the female sex, and all the regulations of domestic economy and national policy, we must wholly condemn the revival of polygamy; and thus bear our honest testimony against the leading design of this dangerous and ill-advised publication."