(c.) The third object of the Mosaic statutes on this subject was to bring divorce under some restriction; and this was effected by rendering divorce a formal proceeding, not to he done by word of mouth as here- tofore, but by a "hill of divorcement" (Deut. xxiv. 1), which would generally demand time and the interven- tion of a third party, thus rendering divorce a less easy process, and furnishing the wife, in the event of it- be- ing carried out. with a legal evidence of her marriage- ability: we may also notice that Moses wholly prohib- ited divorce in case the wife had been seduced prior to marriage (xxii. 29), or her chastity had been ground- lessly impugned (xxii. ID).
I*/, i The fourth object, which was to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond, forms the subjeel ot' one of the ten commandments i Exod. \x. 1 1 1. any violation of which was punishable with death I Lev. xx. Hi; Dent. xxii. 22), even in the case of a betrothed person (Deut xxii. 23,24). See Adultery.
The practical results of these regulations may have
been very salutary, lint on this point we have bul Small
opportunities of judging. The usages themselves, to which we have referred, remained in full force to a late period. We have instances of the arbitrary exercise ot' the paternal authority in the cases ofAchsah (Judg. i. 12), Ibzan t xii. 9), Samson (xiv, --'"'; xv. 2), and Michal il Sam. xvii. 25). The case of Abishag, and the language of Adonijah in reference to her (1 Kings i. 2; ii. 17), prove that a servant was -till completely at the disposal of his or her master. Polygamy also prevailed, as we are expressly informed in reference to Gideon (Judg. viii, 30), Elkanah (1 Sam. i, 2), Saul
(2 Sain. xii. 8), David (v, 13), Solomon | 1 Kings xi.
3), the sons ol Issachar H Chron. vii. 4), Shaharaim i viii. s. o), Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 21), Abijah txiii. 21), and Joash (xxiv, 8); and a- we may also infer from the number of children in the cases of Jair, Ibzan, and Abdon (Judg. x. 4; xii. '.'. 1 1 >. It dors not, how- ever, follow that it wa- the general practice of the country: the inconveniences attendant on polygamy
POLYGAMY
365
POLYGAMY
in small houses or with scanty incomes are so great as to put a serious har to its general adoption, and hence in modern countries where it is fully established the practice is restricted to comparatively few (Niebuhr, Voyage, p. Co; Lane, i, 239). The same rule holds good with regard to ancient times : the discomforts of polygamy are exhibited in the jealousies between the wives of Abraham (Gen. xvi, (5), and of Elkanah (1 Sam. i, 6) ; and the cases cited above rather lead to the inference that it was confined to the wealthy. Mean- while it may be noted that the theory of monogamy was retained, and comes prominently forward in the pictures of domestic bliss portrayed in the poetical writ- ings of this period (Psa. cxxviii, 3 ; Prov. v, 18 ; xviii, 22; xix. 14; xxxi, 10-29; Eccles. ix, 9). The sanc- tity of the marriage-bond was but too frequently vio- lated, as appears from the frequent allusions to the " strange woman" in the book of Proverbs (ii, 1G ; v, 20, etc.), and in the denunciations of the prophets against the prevalence of adultery (Jer. v, 8; Ezek. xviii, 11 ; xxii, 11).
In the post-Babylonian period monogamy appears to have become more prevalent than at any previous time; indeed, we have no instance of polygamy during this period on record in the Bible, all the marriages noticed being with single wives (Tob. i, 9; ii, 11; Susan. 29, 03 ; Matt, xviii, 25 ; Luke i, 5 ; Acts v, 1). During the same period the theory of monogamy is set forth in Ecclus. xxvi, 1-27. The practice of polygamy never- theless still existed ; Herod the Great had no less than nine wives at one time (Josephus, Ant. xvii, 1, 3) ; the Talmudists frequently assume it as a well-known fact (e. g. Ketub. x, 1 ; Yebam. i, 1) ; and the early Christian writers, in their comments on 1 Tim. iii, 2, explain it of polygamy in terms which leave no doubt as to the fact of its prevalence in the apostolic age. Michaelis {Laics of Moses, iii, 5, § 95) asserts that polygamy ceased entirely after the return from the Captivity; Selden. on the other hand, that polygamy prevailed among the Jews until the time of Honorius and Arca- dius (cir. A.D. 400), when it was prohibited by an im- perial edict ( Ux. Ebr. i, 9). See Marhiage.
POLYGAMY, Christian Doctrine Concerning. Jesus does not directly forbid polygamy, nor even re- vert to the subject, since it had been almost universally given up. No case of polygamy among the Jews is presented in the Gospel narrative; and when a wife is mentioned, it is stated or implied in the account that she is the only wife. The special evil of Jewish society was the facility of divorce — men putting away their wives for any, often a trifling, cause. Our Lord, when the Pharisees asked him (Matt, xix, 3-9) whether it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, replied that God at the beginning made them a male and a female (dpaev icai SijXv), thus indirectly condemning polygamy as contrary to the original in- stitution of marriage: with a male and a female only polygamy was impossible. He then declares that the bond of marriage is indissoluble; the husband and wife are no more twain, but one flesh ; and what God hath thus joined together let no man put asunder; and after- wards replies to their question on divorce : " Moses be- cause of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." The practice of polygamy then existed by permission, not by command. It was a positive tem- porary regulation of Moses as a political governor, not of God as a moral ruler. The Jews had become hard- ened in their hearts; they were harsh and severe even to their own flesh. Their nearest relatives they treated with cruelty and injustice. Until the people could be brought into such a state that they could feel and un- derstand the force of law, it was necessary for their rulers meanwhile to devise prudential regulations for the purpose of checking their lawlessness. All the evils of that early and idolatrous age of the world could not be remedied in a moment ; and such was the state of soci-