"Ἀλλ' ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ Κύριος, παλαιὰ καινίζων, οὐ πολυγαμίαν ἔτι συγχωρεὶ· τότε γὰρ ἀπήτει ὁ Θὲος, ὅτε αὐξάνεσθαι καὶ πληθύνειν ἐχρῆν· μονογαμίαν δὲ εἰσάγει, διὰ παιδοποιίαν, καὶ τὴν τοῦ οἴκου κηδεμονίαν, εἰς ἢν βοηθὸς ἐδόθη ἡ γυνή."
Whence it appears that to have progeny and a helpmate at home were the objects proposed in matrimony, for which polygamy was unfavorable. He then remarks on the privilege conceded to some to form a second marriage, after the death of the first wife, which St. Paul forbids to a bishop, who was to be, in the modern sense of the word, a monogamist. Two wives at the same time were wholly repugnant to Jewish, as well as Greek and Roman, sentiment. Ignatius (ad Polyc. 5.) says it is proper (πρέπει) for married persons to unite under the bishop's advice, so that the marriage may be κατὰ Θεὸν and not κατ' ἐπιθυμίαν; whence it is inferred that a marriage was
valid in his time, although no religious sanction was obtained.
It appears from Our Lord's remarks, Matt. xix. 8., Mark x. 5., that the consuetudinary law of marriage was not wholly abrogated, but was accommodated to the Jews by the Mosaic code. To understand this subject, therefore, the ancient usages and existing practices must be weighed, as well from ancient authors as from modern travellers. Whence it appears that the contract of marriage, whereby a man received a wife in consideration of a certain sum of money paid to her father, contemplated progeny as its special object.[[5]] In default of an heir the Jew took a second wife, it being assumed that the physical defect was on the wife's part. If the second had no child he took a third, and in like default a fourth, which was the limit as understood by the rabbins, and is now the limit assigned by the Mahometan doctors. But the Mosaic law proceeded even beyond this, and allowed, on the husband's death, the right of Iboom, usually called the Levirate law, so that in case of there being no child, some one of the deceased's brothers had a right to take some one of the deceased's wives: and their progeny was deemed by the Mosaic code to be his deceased brother's, whose property indeed devolved in the line of such progeniture. It would appear that it was usual for the eldest brothers to marry, the younger brothers remaining single. This was a remnant, as modified by Moses, of the custom of polyandry, several brothers taking one wife,—a sort of necessary result of polygamy, since the number of males and females born is equal in all countries, within certain limits of variation. The best authorities on this subject are the Mishna, Selden, Du Halde, Niebuhr, Süsmilch, and Michälis, the last in Dr. Smith's translation, at the beginning of the 2nd volume.
T. J. Buckton.
Lichfield.
Footnote 5:[(return)]
In the recent ceremony of the French emperor's marriage, money was presented to the bride.
Stylites says, "On what ground has polygamy become forbidden among Christians? I am not aware that it is directly forbidden by Scripture." In reply to this I venture to say, that the Divine will on this matter was sufficiently indicated at the creation, when one woman was appointed for one man, as expressed in Gen. ii. 24., and quoted by Our Lord, with the significant addition of the word twain: "They twain shall be one flesh" (Matt. xix. 5.). Twain, i.e. two; not twenty, nor any indefinite number. Moreover, the law of nature speaks, in the nearly equal numbers of men and women that are born, or, as in this parish, by making the men the more numerous.
But Stylites starts a most interesting question in a practical point of view. It is admitted that the Gospel is not very explicit respecting polygamy; and why so? Possibly the Gospel was purposely kept silent; and the Church allowed some latitude in judgment upon a very difficult point, because it was foreseen that the custom of polygamy would prove one of the greatest obstacles to a reception of pure Christianity. This difficulty is of constant occurrence in heathen lands at the present day. The Christian missionary insists upon the convert abandoning all his wives, except the one whom he first married. This woman was probably childless; and because she was so, he formed other and legal connexions. But before he can be received as a Christian, he must dissolve all these later ties, and bastardise children who were innocently born in lawful wedlock. The conditions are very awful. An act of cruelty and injustice has to be performed by one who is on the point of entering the threshold of Christianity!