that marriage is a divine institution; and for all possible reasons, but what virtually annul the contract itself, or are inconsistent with the very nature and design of it, indissoluble. And that by marriage is intended, only the union of one man with one woman, is necessary to be admitted upon scripture principles; because our Saviour has plainly intimated (since the course of his argument necessarily requires this interpretation) that God originally created but one male and one female:* and in order to point out, in the strongest terms, that this is the most holy and inviolable of all human relations, he has farther expressly declared, that for this cause, a man should leave even his father and his mother -i. e. disclaim, comparatively, the nearest and must deeply rooted ties of nature,—and cleave to his wife.t

Secondly: The whole of this reasoning, experience, and the wisest observations on the real state of the world, confirm and justify. For as the number of males is, upon the most exact calculations that have been made, no more with respect to females, than as about thirteen to twelve; this, allowing for the extraordinary but probable decrease to which men are peculiarly subject, will reduce the comparison to as † Matt. xix. 5.

Matt. xix. 4.
B

exact an equality as the infinite contingencies, which may happen in such cases as these, can possibly admit of. So that if one, throughout the whole species, were, through his superior wealth or power beyond other men, to become possessed of ten wives, nine men, invested with equal privileges by nature, could have no claim to so much as one wife. And the same holds true in proportion as to any other higher or lower number.

Besides, conjugal affection cannot be maintained, in any just degree, where it is thus divided; and the jealousies, competitions, and intrigues between several equal pretenders (in their own esteem at least equal) to the distinction of the husband's first regard, must convert all families into scenes of riot and confusion; and engage both wives and children in perpetual schemes of opposing and supplanting each other. This, therefore, as it is quite contrary to the plain design of the God of nature, could never in itself be a constitution proceeding from his perfect wisdom and goodness: because nothing can result from it that is rational, and properly human; nothing social; nothing but what encourages exorbitant gratification of wanton brutal desire The very same may be said with respect to concubinage; for though one be

acknowledged as the only proper wife, this is in reality nothing better than raising one concubine above the rest, against the most evident dictates of nature, and perhaps without merit. The contentions, the mutual undermining arts, the designs of mischief, the mischief itself, will still be very nearly the same.

As therefore, thirdly, it appears from what has been said, that one single individual of each sex was intended, in marriage, to be united to each other; and all associations, without the marriage state, are equally unnatural with polygamy itself; it may from hence be most rationally inferred, that the bond of matrimony, as the doctrine of revelation has fixed and ascertained it, was intended to be inviolable; unless for such causes as of themselves render it void and ineffectual, with respect to the principal ends of the institution, and the mutual contract voluntarily entered into.

And if this, again, be true, it necessarily follows, from husbands and wives cohabiting for life (or till the contract ceases of itself) for the continued propagation of the species, and the proper education of children according to their various ranks- that families were originally intended by God to be societies, the seminaries of man kind; and the schools in which they are to be

tutored and disciplined, and trained up for action in a more extensive sphere; for usefulness to larger societies, and to mankind in general.

But societies can never be supported without government; and government and order cannot possibly be maintained, where there are two powers absolutely equal, neither of which is ultimately obliged to yield and give way to the other. The only question, therefore, that remains is, which must submit, in cases of important competition with respect to family affairs (over which both have a real right of direction and government, derived from nature), the husband or the wife? And let women of discretion and modesty be left themselves to decideWhether their sex is not generally the more weak and defenceless; whether the party, that wants the power to support, ought ever to aspire after an ineffectual and useless authority; and whether, tracing it throughout all nature, the supreme decision, where any supremacy can he allowed, be not always inseparably connected with protection and defence? The question is not concerning particular instances, but what is the right rule upon the whole ;-that, whatever it be, is the fixed law of nature, however it may admit of some peculiar exceptions. The husband has, and must have, in general, the largest

share in the negotiation of business, in providing for the family, in the acquisition of property, in defending all the other branches of the society, of which he is without doubt constituted one head, from distress and insult; and ultimate authority, in the voice of nature itself, follows this.

Let me only add, that I intend not in all this (as might easily be collected from what has been already hinted) to dispute absolutely the right of the wife to govern, because, as she is chiefly employed in the management of domestic affairs, and especially when the husband is obliged to be absent for a considerable space of time, this right is necessary to be admitted; or else entire anarchy and confusion must ensue. And farther, that if the supreme authority of the husband be allowed as a clear and fixed point, it is more immediately directed over the inferior members of the society only; and with respect to the wife (and that in a very few instances, where there is a mutual tender affection, and a tolerable share of prudence), it is but more remote and consequential.

The case, most parallel to it, seems to be, where husbands and wives are jointly invested with a higher sovereignty. Though both are equal sharers in the governinent, as to the gene