ments of disorder and confufion. And the more exalted they were in their original frame, the more noxious, malignant and deftructive they were in their state of depravity. It cannot be doubted, but that thofe Animals, which in their prefent ftate of degeneracy are moft fhocking, deteftable and deftructive to human nature, were in their original ftate, most eminently useful, beautiful, and good. And by the fame way of reasoning one would imagine, thofe fpecies of animals that are the most uncorrupt part of the Brute-Creation, that have the leaft fymptoms of the univerfal malignity, which has more or lefs poifoned the whole fyftem; I mean the focial and domeftic Animals, thofe which contribute to the comforts and neceffities of life; as Sheep and Oxen, Doves and Bees, were in their original ftate, little more exalted than we fee them at prefent. 15." But if Brutes have Souls, will it not follow that they are Immortal?" Let us confider this calmly. What were they in their original state, when all the works of God were pronounced very good? Will you fay they were mortal?. Could any creature be mortal before Death entered into the world? And was not Death the immediate, the necessary confequence of Sin? So the Apostle tells us, Rom. v. 12, By one man fin entered into the world, and death by fin. Now, if Death was the confequence of Sin, the effect of the Tranf greffion, can we fuppofe that the Effect fhould precede the Caufe? that the Execution fhould anticipate the Sentence? and the Sentence the Tranfgreffion? 16. Is there not then a frong prefumption, that in the intention of their Creator in their original frame, they were to be partakers of that blefling and immortality, which was the privilege of the whole creation, till Man by his difobedience. forfeited it for himfelf, and by confequence for them? Can any man fay, that infinite Wisdom created any thing in vain? That in the infinite variety of creatures, there was even one that was fuperfluous or ufelefs? That he who proportioned Bb 2 and and formed the whole Syftem in Number, Weight, and Meafure, Wild. xi. 20, did not intend even the minutest portion of it to be a monument of his infinite Wisdom and Goodness, by contributing to the beauty, the order and harmony of the whole? And if the prefervation of the fpecies was necessary to perpetuate the harmony of the whole, what poffible reafon can be affigned for the deftruction of the individuals? And what occafion can there be for indulging bold conjectures, to depreciate the Wisdom, debafe the Goodness, and limit the Power of the Almighty, merely to anfwer objections proceeding purely from prejudice, and ignorance of the divine Wisdom and Power? The mercies of God are over all his works. He made them all to be happy, as exquifitely happy as their rank and state in nature was capable of receiving. And it is not owing to any mutability in the counfels of God, to any fault of their own that they have loft any degree of that happiness they were created to enjoy; but it is the fatal conse. quence of the relation they stood in to their unhappy rebel. lious Lord, and the dreadful confufion which his disobedience has brought upon the whole vifible creation. [To be continued.] An ANSWER to Mr. Madan's TREATISE, on POLYGAMY and MARRIAGE: in a Series of LETTERS, to the Rev. Mr. WESLEY: By JOSEPH BENSON.. [Continued from page 149.] 13. INDEED our Author takes notice of this remarkable her het perfon to one man, and afterwards to another, though for the purpose of marriage with the second, fhe thereby stamped. whoredom on fuch an action, and was to be stoned to death, Deut. xx. 21." Does Mr. Madan mean that by going to another for the purpose of marriage after he was defiled, The ftamped whoredom on the first action whereby fhe was. defiled, or the second, whereby the intended marriage? If (he fays) he means the first, I anfwer, if according to his doctrine, this was ftrictly and properly marriage, no future. deed of her's, whether good or bad, could make it whoredom, or indeed any thing else but what it was: if he means the fecond, this as it happened after a previous marriage, (as he calls it,) could not be whoredom, which as he himself defines. it, confifts in the defilement of a married woman." So that either way, he is entirely wrong; overthrows his own expofition, and leaves this paffage in full force against him. 14. Indeed as to the fubject of whoredom or fornication, (the former of which expreffion he thinks fignifies the wo man's fhare in the offence, and the latter that of the man,) this Gentleman is fadly perplext, as he is alfo on the subject of concubinage. And in fpight of all his efforts, the truth fhews itself through the veil he labours to throw over it. He is vastly at a loss for a definition of Whoredom, (as well he may,) but at length gives us one which, inadequate as it is, entirely overthrows his whole plan of doctrine. I would define or whoredom, (fays he, p. 50,) to be a woman's giving her person to a man without any intent of marriage, but either for the mere gratification of luft, or for gain, or hire; and departing from that man to others for the same purposes." I fay firft, this definition is inadequate: it does not comprehend the whole of the fubject defined: it expreffes only that species of whoredom, which we call proftitution. According to this account none could be properly called whores, but common proflitutes. Whereas it appears from the inftances laft mentioned, I mean the cafe of Dinah, and that fuppofed 66 fuppofed by Mofes, that a woman may be charged with whoredom, for that very at which Mr. Madan terms Marriage, though never repeated; that is, for delivering up her person to a man, to whom she had not been folemnly and formally given in marriage, whatever might be her motive for fo doing. Nay, this appears from the very paffage (Gen. 38,) respecting Tamar, to which he refers us for the propriety of this definition. For about three months after Judah had defiled her, when it was discovered that she was with child; before it was known with whom she had any connexion, "It was told Judah, faying, Tamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and also behold, she is with child by whoredom and Judah faid, Bring her forth and let her be burnt." From which it is manifeft, that they did not in those days think it at all effential to the character of a harlot, that fhe fhould "depart from the man to whom she had first given her perfon to another," and that for "the mere gratification of luft or for hire:" but that a woman merited that appellation, merely for suffering herself to be defiled by a man, to whom she had not been previously and formally married. 15. But secondly, inadequate as his definition is, it entirely overthrows his whole scheme. For if, as he here fays, it is not Marriage but Whoredom, where the woman" does not intend Marriage," but "the mere gratification of luft, or gain," and afterwards "departs from that man to others for the fame purposes ;" then it is not true that (p. 24,)" the bufinefs of marriage confifts in the one fimple act of union;" that "nothing else is of divine inftitution;" and that nothing elle is effential to conftitute a marriage in the fight of God;" because, by his own account where this has taken place, "where a man and woman are become perfonally united to each other, and therefore (as he every where teaches) are become one flesh, and are forbidden to put each other away," ftill if the woman "did not intend marriage," but was induced duced to give up her perfon to this man by a defire "to gratify luft," or if she should hereafter depart to another man, it is after all, no other than whoredom. 16. Indeed as to that circumftance, "not intending marriage," 1 rather wonder Mr. Madan should suppose it: be caufe if, as he declares fo often, the whole business of marriage lies in the union of the man and woman," a woman who gives up her person to a man, certainly intends this, if The intends any thing. If Mr. Madan thinks otherwife, I wish he would inform us what he intends. So that all the pains our Author has taken to wash harlots white, after fifteen years labour and toil to prove them properly married to the men who first defiled them; after "laying the ax to the root" in the most valiant manner, and hewing down all the whoredom and fornication that had been, is, or fhall be committed upon the face of the earth; has, by one unlucky back-stroke, given in an evil hour, demolished all he had erected, and left our Brothels as full of harlots, and our streets as much crowded with prostitutes as ever. So true is the old proverb, "Truth is great and will prevail." For in fpight of all his efforts to keep it under, it emerges into light; and to the confufion of this novel fyftem, forbids the whore to put herself upon a level with the married wife. 17. It is in perfect confiftency with his fcheme, that Mr. Madan finds great fault with Dr. Johnson (p. 53,) for making in his Dictionary, a concubine to fignify "a woman kept in fornication, a whore, a ftrumpet;" and is confident no fuch meaning of the word is to be found in the facred Scriptures. On the contrary (he thinks,) they were looked upon as wives, though in fome refpect of an inferior rank. Indeed according to his general doctrine (which he contradicts only now and then,) he cannot look upon them in any other light than that of proper wives; for they are as truly and properly married to the men that take them, as any wives can be: and that" by the one fimple divine ordinance, (2 vol. p. 144.) the obligation |