AS Temperance is accounted amongst the Hea­thens a Cardinal virtue, so in sacred writ a grace of the Spirit? a temperate man is one well composed in body and mind; one that is not exorbitant in his desires, but in whom all things move as in their proper Sphere. He is as a river running within its banks; he is the lively image of his Creator, and in all his demands is as innocent as his mother the Earth, when shee craves the showers to make her fruitfull; the abstenious lives of the Patriarches, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are lively patterns of this virtue; who spent not their days upon Earth, like the men of this generation, in riot and excess, gluttony and drun­kenness; but by their sobriety and abstinence commended the holiness of their lives, to the imitation of succeeding ages. What greater monsters in the world then those whom intemperance hath made; they are as a people not of humane race or kind, acting in the pursuit of their sensual appetites beyond the bounds [Page 2] of common justice and honesty. I have thought them like hunters, that scruple not the breaking down their neighbours fence, to pursue their own game. If temperance were more in credit a­mongst men, I question not the reduction of things to their primi­tive beauty, purity, and order. And that love and amity would then advance, and take the wall of hatred, revenge, and injury: What is the great incentive and provocation to uncleanness, and all those abominations not to be named amongst us, but that the bounds and limits for enjoying the creature set by this abstenu­ous virtue, are passed over in-observed; and by their intempe­rance, riot, and excesse, impose a kind of necessity upon themselvs of becoming sinners and transgressors of the laws of holiness.

Although temperance hath appeared in the first place, yet shal I proceed to the proposall of some humble Queries appertaining to the discovery of another remedy besides it: and the reason inducing me hereunto, is; that although a man be as temperate as in this life it is possible for him; yet may it not alone seem sufficient for the good men. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon, as temperate as the Earth had any, took Sanctuary at other means besides it.

Querie 1 Whether it is not more then probable, that the Popish Clergy and the Church-men in all ages, have not been the onely obstru­cters of Poligamy; because the Holy Ghost hath thought meet to appoint their allowance (in conjunction with their own severe policy) to be but one, that they might the better intend the bu­siness of the Church: how for those that are and have been law­givers to Kings and Princes, and to all sorts of men in Ecclesia­sticks, as marriage they have made a part: for them I say to have but one, nay none at all according to their own unrighteous po­liticks, and to see others round about them permitted to have as many as they please, this they could not bear, and thefore intro­duced it as a common Law for all men to have but one.

2 Whether that Scripture 1 Tim. 3 2. [That a Bishop be the hus­band of one wife] doth not strongly imply, that other men that are at liberty from Ministeriall ingagements may have more, if they themselves see cause.

3 Whether Paul's judgment in the case be binding to all ages and sorts of men in that principal place [Let every man have his 1 Cor. 7.2. [Page 3] own wife] being onely spoken by permission, and not by com­mandment at his own acknowledgment.

Whether Paul's advice in the fore-mentioned place, 4 did not solely relate to the present state of Christs Church; the exigen­cy of things obliging them to think of marriage as little as may be. The blessed Apostle knowing that in their present posture and future likely hood they were as Partridges upon the moun­tains, hunted by their bloody persecutors: and therefore for Christians to have as small a retinue as could be was their wise­dom; and so it would be in all persecuting times: but when God shall please to give them peace round about, and to permit them to sit under their own Vines, and eat their own fruit, that they should then continue in that strait condition, or deny themselves of that lawfull liberty made use of by others their predecessors in godlinesse, if they themselves see cause in the Querie.

Whether Paul in the New Testament, 5 when he speaks of a man having his wife in the singular number, means any more then God in the Tenth Commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, &c. that is to maintain propriety onely, that a man should not desire another mans, but might have more of his own if he pleased; otherwise it might be interpreted a sin to have more houses and oxen then one, they being both in the singular number as well as the wife.

Whether that must not needs be lawfull and imitable for us, which was practised by the Patriarches and Prophets of old, and no where reproved or disanull'd by either Propher, Apostle, or Christ. For amongst all the sins and provocations of the Jewish nation, Polygamy is not so much as whispered: now to think the Lord Christ (who was faithfull in all things, and did not spare that nation above all others, whom he came to reclaim from all their sin and wickedness) judged it a sin, and yet not censure it in the least, being so spreading and epidemical, is to make him unfaithful in the great concernments of his office.

Whether Polygamy carry with it any repugnancy to the rites, 6 laws, and priviledges of nature, which God never gave to any the least imperative or permissive dispensation to infringe; but in case of absolute and unparalell'd necessity; or whether it be pro­bable [Page 4] there should be any superadded law in grace against that which is no sin in nature.

Whether that which God himself signifies to be the fruit of his bounty and goodness, 7 ought not to be entertain'd and thankfully received by men; the Querie is grounded upon that saying of God by Nathan to David, 2 Sam. 12.8. [ and I gave thee thy masters house, and thy masters wives, and if that had been too little, &c. Where God speaks immediately by his Prophet of multiplicity of wives, not only by way of connivence and toleration, but as the issue of his goodness, and the expresseness of his will: this wrought up David's sin to the highest aggravation, to have to do with another man's, the Lord having allowed him so many wives of his own.

Whether a Concubine was a term of reproach in Israel, or in plain English a Whore: as some now no wiser then needs must phrase it. First, because then many of the Patriarchs, and sons of other good men must needs prove illegitimate, and their pa­rents fall under the greatest imputation: To passe this censure upon them, what were it but to besmear the beautifull faces of the Fathers of the faithfull; and the most excellent servants of God, to take that Crown of glory from their heads which God hath set upon them, and lay it in the dust.

Whether God hath not left the law of nature to it's own car­ving, 8 and to be supplied according to its own wants, there being no particular rule appointed, assigning unto every individual person his just dimension of meat, drink, or apparrel; but every man is left to be a rule unto himself, according to his want and indigency; if hee exceeds in quantity or quality, at his own peril, hee shall bear his own burden; so in the case in hand, if he sees it convenient, nay, necessary also: Who can forbid his desires in this kind, or shal say unto nature, thus far thou shalt go and no further: or whether it be not hazardous that nature would break out in an unnaturall issue, when the common and natural way is denied her and obstructed.

Whether that ordinary and common allegation that is so fre­quently made in defence of Monogamy, 10 that God suffered Poly­gamy onely for a season to replenish the world, have any thing in it: If it were malum in se, to receive the least countenance from God; for the least space or tract of time, for ends how great soever [Page 5] were to tollerate evill that good might come of it, besides the Land of Judea (even then when Polygamy was most in use) was as populous, for the like quantity and proportion of ground as any part of the world is at this day; witness that great sight 'twixt Abijah and Jeroboam, 2 Chron. 13.17. where on Israel's side there fell down five hundred thousand chosen men.

Whether Luther, the Father of reformation, 11 in his inveying against the Popish doctrine of forbidding marriage, did not coun­tenance Polygamy, positively affirming, that to have more wives then one was no where forbidden, neither did he forbid it, and that in case of the womans impotency or infirmity, he might lawful­ly take his handmaid.

Whether the Laws made in Queen Elizabeths time, and since touching adultery be just and rational, because they make that adultery which God never made, viz. If a married man have carnal knowledge of a single woman, and not onely so, 12 but pu­nish it with death; justifying their penal statutes from the Law of Moses, but refusing and rejecting the remedies propounded by the Law, the Querie is made, Whether it were not equitable, before they inflict so severe punishment as is provided by our Laws in this case, to afford men the same means of prevention, as under the Legal dispensation was tollerated and allowed them.

Whether there be any thing material in that 19. of Matth. a­gainst Polygamy: because the question is demanded of our Sa­viour out of design to ensnare him concerning divorce, a thing of a far different nature: whether then it can be supposed his an­swer concerning one thing should be binding and effectuall to a­nother of a quite contrary subject: the saying it self being fra­med and calculated by Christ, to reprove that readiness and for­wardnesse in the Jews to divorce upon every sleight occasion. And as cutting as this his answer seems to be to the Pharisees upon the demand of the Disciples, our Saviour seems to be more favourable. For when they told him [If it be so, it is good not to marry] he replies, [That all men cannot receive this saying, but those to whom it is given] so least they should stumble at marriage, he re­moves it out of their way by his mild and gentle answer: and in the next verse, [He that is able to receive it, let him receive it]: Complying with that of Saint Paul, that one man hath one gift, [Page 6] and another, another; leaving them in this at liberty as he found them, least he should seem to cross nature, or infringe the Laws thereof, which he himself had made.

Whether to forbid plurality of wives under the Gospel, 14 be not highly derogatory, from the free and sweet tenour thereof, and constructively and in effect to make the Legal and Mosaical di­spensation (which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear) more easie and tolerable then the Christian and Evangelical; and to thwart that testimony given of it by our Saviour: That his Yoak was easie, and his burden light.

Whether it may not stand with a gracious Spirit, 15 and be every way consistent with the principles of a man fearing God, and loving holinesse, to have more women then one to his proper use and service, because it hath been at good accord and agreement, with the principles and practices of as godly, holy, righteous, and just men as ever the earth bare any, that were meerly men, and subject to the like infirmities that we are; or what is it that hath made the diversification, that it should not every way suit and comport with the nature and essence of purity and holiness, in the present Saints and people of God, as wel as those that walked with God before and after the flood.

Whether Polygamy by the strictest rules of reason and equity, 16 can be judged any way obstructive unto humane society, and communication. Nay, whether it be not the fairest accord and correspondency therewith tending so much to the defence and preservation of propriety: He that takes another mans Ox or Asse is doubtlesse a transgressor; but he that puts himself out of the occasion of that temptation, by keeping of his own, seems to be a right, honest, and well meaning man.

Whether that passage; 17 [They two shall be one flesh] have any thing in it considerable against Polygamy: or whether in the sense of that Scripture, one man may not be one flesh with two women: As in the body of Christ there are many members, yet but one body, by our Saviours own Logick. Why should many wives with one husband be denied to be one flesh, any more then the other; our Saviour himself alluding to marriage, to make good his argument in that kind.