the Lord fhall rejoice in his works. As he did in their firft. creation, when he pronounced them all to be very good, when all the powers of heaven and earth proclaimed aloud, the wifdom, the goodness, and power of their Maker, when the morning ftars fang together, and all the fons of God fhouted for joy, Job xxxviii. 7.

18. The evidence that appears thus ftrong from the confideration of the nature of God, the infinite perfection of his wisdom, and the immutability of his counfels, will appear yet ftronger from confidering the nature and condition, the ca pacities and powers of the creatures themselves: as they are all endued with life and motion, fenfe and perception, and many of them, perhaps, with equal, if not quicker and more delicate fenfations in their sphere of action, than many of us in ours, and these freely beftowed upon them by the overflowing goodness of their Maker; if they were intended not only to fill the feveral ranks they ftand in, in the univerfal fcale of beings, and compieat the harmony of the univerfe, but alfo to have their fhare in the general bleffing, and fuch a degree of happiness as they were capable of enjoying: will any one say, it would be no punishment to them to be totally deprived of that happiness, and even of a poffibility of recovering it, by an arbitrary and entire extinction of their being? You and I should certainly think fo, if we were to do or fuffer the fame: and we may, by more than a parity of reason, be afraid to afcribe to Almighty goodness and wifdom, what appears a weakness and cruelty in ourselves.

[To be continued.]

An

An ANSWER to Mr. Madan's TREATISE, on POLYGAMY and MARRIAGE: in a Series of LETTERS, to the Rev. Mr. WESLEY:

18.

A

By JOSEPH BENSON.

[Continued from page 208.]

ND now, Sir, I might flop here, and proceed to confider the other part of his book, which is of fill worse tendency, I mean concerning Polygamy, only that he has found in the books of Mofes, two pallages which he Jays particular ftrefs upon, and makes the two pillars of his fcheme. He quotes them, perhaps, a hundred times, (if not oftener) in the courfe of this work, and confiders them as infallible proofs of the two points he has fo much at heart to eftablish. The one is, Exod. xxii. 16, 17, If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her, he fhall furely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. The other is, Deut. xxii. 28, 29, If a man find a damfel that is a virgin, who is not betrothed and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found: the man that lay with her shall give unto the damfel's father fifty fhekels of filver and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Now Mr. Madan, confounding the idea of marriage, with the remedy that was ordained by the law of God, to prevent the abufc and ruin of the fex; and not feeing the difference between the man who is compelled to marry the woman whom he hath unlawfully enjoyed, and the man who firft marries her that he may lawfully enjoy her, confiders thefe paffage, as demonftrative proofs, 1. That the "bufinefs

bufinefs of marriage (as he expreffes himself) consists in the one fimple all of union between the male and female," and 2. As they make no exceptions in the case of a married man, that Polygamy is not only allowed, but in fome cases commanded. As to the firft of thefe points, (the point we are now confidering) thefe texts I think are so far from proving it, that they prove the direct contrary. They fhew, indeed, what is quite agreeable to Reason and Nature, and what it would be well, if our laws enjoined, that if a man (unmarried) fhould defile a maid, it was his indifpenfable duty to marry her, unless her father utterly refused to give her to him to be his wife in which cafe he was to pay the ufual fum of money given to the damfel's father as the dowry of virgins, as a fmall recompense for the injury he had done her. But they do not fhew that this "fimple act of union," (as he calls it) was to all intents and purposes a proper marriage. On the contrary, they fuppofe that after this union had taken place, and the virgin was really defiled, ftill fhe was not his wife, but was afterwards to be made fuch. For inftead of faying, "He has married her, fhe is his wife," it is faid in Exodus, "He fhall endow her to be his wife;" and in Deuteronomy, "The man that lay with her, fhall give unto the damfel's father, fifty fhekels, and the fhall be his wife." Which expreffions plainly imply that she was not yet confidered as his wife, but that a certain, particular ceremony was to be performed, and then afterwards he was to receive her as fuch: that is, fuppofing her father confented. For the former paffage manifeftly puts it into the father's power, after all that had been done, to put a negative upon it, and refuse to give the man his daughter to wife, which certainly would not, could not have been the cafe, if "the bufinefs of marriage, as at first ordained, and as left by Mofes, confifted in this one fimple act of union." For how can it be fuppofed that God would give the damfel's father, or any man living authority to fet afide his own ordinance; "an ordinance upon which (he

tells us) human laws have no more effect than upon of the Sun or the flowing of the Tide."

the rifing

19. Mr. Madan indeed is fully fenfible of this difficulty, and therefore to remove it, propofes an amendment of the translation, but with what propriety, I leave the learned to judge "The text (he fays) does not fay, If the father utterly refuse to give her unto him, fuch marriage shall be null and void but though the father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of vir gins." Thus contrary to the acknowledged meaning, and almost conftant ufe of the word, he takes the liberty of rendering the Hebrew particle by Though inftead of If, (though her father utterly refuse) and that upon no authority at all. For though he quotes three paffages, (found with fome difficulty in the whole Bible) where it is tranflated, yet even in those paffages, Judges xiii. 16. Isaiah x. 22. Lam. iii. 32, it might with equal propriety be rendered If, which is its almoft conftant meaning in the Old Testament. But allowing him to tranflate the paffage as he has done, ftill it makes nothing for his doctrine, but plainly overthrows it: If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her, he fhall furely endow her to be his wife: and then it follows, if or (as he would have it) though her father utterly refufe to give her unto him-what? he fhall take her by force? no, certainly, but he fhall (nevertheless) pay money according to the dowry of virgins, viz. as a recompenfe for the injury he had done her; but as to the point of marriage, fince her father refused, he was to drop that.

[To be continued.]

The

The true ORIGINAL of the SOU L.

CHAP. V.

Teftimonies out of theOldTeftament, proving theSoul's propagation.

[Continued from page 210.]

Come now to prove the point directly, firft, by Scripture, and then by Reafon. The proofs from Scripture shall be either direct teftimonies, or reafons drawn from them. The teftimonies fhall be firft from the Old, and then from the New Teftament.

I begin with the testimony of God himself, who in the day he created man upon the earth, created them male and fe male, and blessed them, and faid unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Gen. i. 27, 28. Here without any limitation, they are commanded to fill the whole earth, and to fubdue it also, which muft certainly be underflood of the whole man, and not of the body only. Neither can there be any doubt how this is to be understood, seeing God spake the very fame immediately before, to the fishes and fowls. For, faith the text, God bleffed them, faying, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters. ver. 22. As therefore God fo framed their natures, and gave fuch power unto them, that the like might produce the like unto itself, through the whole creature; fo if we will believe God, man doth produce the whole of man as well as other creatures. fides, how can it ftand with Reason, that that bleffing that proves fufficiently effectual to the bafeft creatures, should not only be effectual in man the most excellent? Could God command man that which he did not give him power to perform? God did not only blefs, but command them to do VOL. VI.

Kk

Be

this.