in our law, the excellent principle of Lord Beauchamp's bill applied fome fort of remedy. I know that credit must be preferved: but equity must be preserved too; and it is impoffible, that any thing thould be neceffary to commerce, which is inconfiftent with juftice. The principle of credit was not weakened by that bill. God forbid! The enforcement of that credit was only put into the fame public judicial hands on which we depend for our lives, and all that makes life dear to us. But, indeed, this bufiness was taken up too warmly both here and elsewhere. The bill was extremely mistaken. It was fupposed to enact what it never enacted; and complaints were made of claufes in it as novelties, which exifted before the noble Lord that brought in the bill was born. There was a fallacy that ran through the whole of the objections. The Gentlemen who oppofed the bill always argued, as if the option lay between that bill and the ancient law. But this is a grand mistake. For, practically, the option is between, not that bill and the old law, but between that bill and thofe occafional laws called acts of grace. For the operation of the old law is fo favage, and fo inconvenient to fociety, that, for a long time past, once in every Parliament, and lately twice, the Legiflature has been obliged to make a general arbitrary jail-delivery, and at once to fet open, by its fovereign authority, all the prifons in England. Gentlemen, I never relished acts of grace; nor ever submitted to them but from despair of better. They are a difhonourable invention, by which, not from humanity, not from policy, but merely because we have not reom enough to hold these victims of the abfurdity of our laws, we turn loofe upon the public three or four thousand naked wretches, corrupted by the habits, debafed by the ignominy of a prifon. If the creditor had a right to thofe carcafes as a natural fecurity for his property, I am fure we have no right to deprive him of that fecurity. But, if the few pounds of flesh were not neceffary to his fecurity, we had not a right to detain the unfortunate debtor, without any benefit at all to the perfon who confined him. -Take it as you will, we commit injuftice. Now Lord Beauchamp's bill intended to do deliberately, and with great caution and circumfpection, upón each feveral cafe, and with all attention to the juft claimant, what acts of grace do in a much greater measure, and with very little care, caution, or deliberation. I fufpect that here too, if we contrive to oppofe this bill, we fhall be found in a ftruggle against the nature of things. For, as we grow enlightened, the public will not bear, for any length of time, to pay for the maintenance of whole armies of prifoners; nor, at their own expence, fubmit to keep jails as a fort of garrifons, merely to fortify the abfurd principle of making men judges in their own, caufe. For credit has little or no concern in this cruelty. I peak in a commercial Affembly. You know, that credit is given, becaufe capital must be employed; that men calculate the chances of infolvency; and they either withhold the credit, or make the debtor pay the rifque in the price. The counting-house has no alliance with the jail. Holland understands trade as well as we, and she has done much more than this obnoxious bill intended to do. There was not, when Mr. Howard vifited Holland, more than one prifoner for debt in the great city of Rotterdam. Although Lord Beauchamp's act (which was previ ous to this bill, and intended to feel the way for it) has already preserved liberty to thoufands; and though it is not three years fince the laft act of grace passed; yet, by Mr. Howard's laft account, that were near three thousand again in jail. I cannot name this Gentleman without remarking, that his labours and writings have done much to open the eyes and hearts of mankind. He has vifited all Europe,--not to furvey the fumptuoufness of Palaces, or the stateliness of Temples; not to make accurate measurements of the remains of ancient grandeur, nor to form a fcale of the curiofity of modern art; not to collect medals, or collate manufcripts: but to dive into the depth of dungeons; to plunge into the infection of hospitals; to furvey the mansions of forrow and pain; to take the gage and dimensions of milery, depreffion and contempt; to remember the forgotten, to attend to the neglected, to vifit the forfaken, and to compare and collate the diftreffes of all men in all countries. His plan is original: and it is as full of genius as it is of humanity. It was a voyage of difcovery; a circumnavigation of charity. Already the benefit of his labour is felt more or lefs in every country: I hope he will anticipate his final reward, by feeing all its effects fully realized in his own. He will receive, not by retail but in grofs, the reward of those who vifit the prifoner; and he has fo foreftalled and monopolized this branch of charity, that there will be, I trust, little room to ment by fuch acts of benevolence hereafter. Ac ACCOUNT of the Rev. Mr. MADAN'S THELYPTHORA, or, Treatife on FEMALE RUIN. WE will not anticipate the refice of the Old Testament, from the blessings tions of our Readers on all the whieh attended them, and the laws inftipoffible confequences of the fytem of Poly-tuted for their regulation. gamy, of which Mr. Madan has avowed himself the ftrenuous defender. The fubject is of moment enough to attract our notice, fince, to fay the leaf, if Mr. Madan's Syltem be once etablished, it will very materially affect the dearest interefts of fociety. His first chapter treats of marriage as a divine inflitution. From the command given to our firft Parents he infers, that marriage fimply and wholly confifis in the act of pertonal union. This be attempts to fupport by many plaufible arguments. The fecond chapter treats of the fin of fornication, or the promifcuous intercourfe of fingle perfons, whe, for fenfual gratification, or for hire, confint to a temporary union. He condemns, in course, the keeping of mitreffes; and treats of the difference between them and the concubines that were permitted to the Jews. The latter were a lower clafs of wives, and an union with them was confidered as indiffoluble; while the former do not deem themielves bound by any law, divine or human, to preferve a permanent connection with their keepers. In the third chapter our author confiders the nature of adultery, which, he obferves, is never uled in Scripture, but to denote the defilement of a betrothed or married woman; except in a figurative fenfe with regard to idolatry, in which the fame idea is exactly preferved. A married man, in his idea, is no adulterer, if his commerce with the fex be confined to fingle women, who are under no obligation by efpoufal or marriage to other men. It was requifite to contend for this point, for the fake of vindicating the honour of polygamous contracts. If a married man were bound to one woman, by the fame ties by which a woman is bound to her. hufband, the polygamist must be an adul terer. Our Author enters largely into this fubject in his fourth chapter, in which the question concerning Polygamy is difcuffed with great ingenuity. Mr.Madan confines the privilege of polygamy to the man, and fhews the fatal confe quences that would refult from extending it to the woman. He infers the lawful nefs of this practice from the polygamous connections of the Patriarchs and Saints He labours much to reconcile a fyftem of this kind to the tenor of the Gospel difpenfation. He afferts, that there is not one text in the New Testament that ever bints at the criminality of polygamy; and, from St. Paul's direction, that Bishops and Deacons fhould have but one wife, he infers, that it was lawful for the laity to have more, But Polygamy he also thinks to be highly politic in a civil and domestic view. It is to be feared, fays he, that there are not a few females, who take the advan tage of the poor hufband's fituation, to use him as they pleafe; and this for pretty much the fame reafon why the afs in the fable infulted the poor old lion--because it is not in their power to refent it as they ought. The advice which King Ahafuerus received from his wife men, upon Queen Vashti's disobedience, would have an excellent eff &t, could it be followed. Many a high-fpirited female would have too cogent a reafon against the indulgence of a refractory difpofition. Her pride, which is now her husband's torment, would then become his fecurity; for pride` is a vice, which, as it tends to felf-exaltation, maintains univerfally its own principle-not to bear a rival. Our Readers will not fail to refer to this cafe in the first chapter of Efther. Mr. Madan deplores the fad bondage of Englishmen, who cannot avail themselves of this ancient privilege. His fifth chapter is employed in eftablishing the doctrine of Polygamy, by renewing the fanctions of the old law, 'His pofition is, that Chrit was not the giver of a new law,'-that the bufinefs of inarriage, polygamy, &c. had been settled before his appearance in our old, by an authority which could not be revoked, and which it was the great object of our Saviour to confirm and vindicate. This leads him to obviate, an obj.cion that might arife Son Matth. Ver. 34, 32.-xix.. 9. Luke xvi. 18-but with what Tuccels will be seen herefter, In chap 6, which begins the ad volume, he treats of Divorces, in the language of redon and religion. Yet here he will not lole fight of his favourite topic-polygamy. He will not allow, that any an terior terior engagement on the man's fide with The feventh chapter teats of marriage in a civil view, as the object of human Jews'. Under this head, he confiders the late Marriage Act, which he avers to be a facrilegious attempt to repeal the laws of Heaven. Indeed, fome of his obfervations on this head well deferve the confideration of the Legiflature. Returning to his favourite fubject, he fays, that if polygamy were allowed in Chriftian counies, the Mahometans and Chinese might be induced to embrace the truth as it is in Jefus." In his eighth chapter, on Superftition,' Mr. Madan thinks the Reformation hath but partially effected its great ends, while, at the fame time, it permits the Clergy the comfort of a wife, it will not gratify the laity with the peaceable enjoyment of two. The jealousy of God over his laws, is the fobject of his gth chapter. He produces many inftances of God's judgements on those who tranfgrefs them. One would think that this chapter was intended to frighten weak apprehenfive fouls into polygamy. But his prefumptuous and dogmatical language rather excites emotions of difgult and indignation. fo doing, unless an outward ceremony of man's device be fit performed, is to fay what the Bible hath no where faid. All that God hath said in fuch a cafe, is, that they shall be one flesh-that she shall be the man's wife-and that he may not put her away all his days. So that all devices that hinder the operation of this law, are only fo many fnares laid for the confcience.' It now behoves us to be cautious that we do not difguft by the tedious difquifiWe flatter ourtions of verbal criticism. felves that we shall be able to gratify the curiofity of our Readers in general with refect to the main argument and tendency of this Work; and, as to the more learned, who are fond of the abitrufe intricacies of critical invetligation, they will doubtless confult the original. Mr. Madan lays the great trefs of his argument on the Hebrew words used in Gen. ii. 24. to exprefs the primitive inftitution of marriage. Our tranflation, fays he, shall cleave TO his wife — doth not convey the idea of the Hebrew, which is literally shall be joined, er cemented IN his swoman, and they fball become (i. e. by this union) que fleb. The more, fays he, I have fearched the Scriptures, the more I am convinced, that God never appointed any thing, as to the matter of that union, by which the man and woman become one flesh, but this cementing IN, the very effence of which is expreffed in the Hebrew though our tranflators might think it more decent In the tenth chapter, he endeavours to to render it as they have done, without givprove the great advantages of the Jewishing the IN its literal and ufual import. inflitutions over ours with regard to popu- But the learned Reader will eally fee lation. And obferving that his defign' was through this parade of biblical learning. to remedy the defects of the latter, he re-He will be fentible that the terms in quelcommends the whole to the feribus con- tion mean fimply and literally attackinent Lideration of all men, and particularly of or adherence, and are evidently used in the Legiature. Scripture to exprefs the whole feope After this thort view of this celebrated of conjugal fidelity and duty, though performance, it is time to attend to the this Author would reltrain them to the effential interefts of virtue and religion, by groffer part of it. Whoever will confult expofing the fallacy of this Author's reaDeut. Vivz and Jolhua xxiii. 8. in foning. We have already given his idea of mare riage. Its effence, fays he, Ties in the union of man and woman as one body for which evident reafon, no butward ce remonies of man's invention can add to or diminish from the effects of this union in the fight of God This doctrine is more fongly expreffed in Vol. II. page 173. To fay that a virgin who delivers herfelf into the poffeffion of the man of her choice with an intent to become his wife, fins in ༈ the original, will find the very words en which Me Madan days fuch fingular "Aress, mada üfe of to exprefs fidelity and adherence to the Lord. In Acts v. 16, the very word, which our Author would apply folely to the conjugal act, is ufed in its more general and obvious acceptation, and fimply means adherence.-' Theudas to whom a number of men joined them. felves." In the earliest ages of the world, and amongst the most uncivilized people, fome thing more than the bare at of cohabitation hath been found effential to give bo nour and validity to the union of the fexes. It is foreign to the argument to recur to the union of our first Parents, in order to difcredit the marriage forms; becaufe fo extraordinary a cafe as the marriages of their immediate offspring, can never be produced as a precedent for future times. Nature, as well as cuttom, abhors an incestuous connection; yet without fuch a connection originally the world could not have been peopled. When the earth was filled with inhabitants, the forms of religion and polity were adapted by the wildom of the Creator to the condition of mankind, and rendered fubfervient to the interefts and happiness of fociety. We confider the Mofaic Law as a local and temporal inftitution, and admire it becaufe it perfectly anfwered the ends for which it was appointed. But every tate is at liberty to adopt that part of it which beft fuits its conftitution; and fo far as its polity is inconfiftent with the genius of that conftitution, fo far it may and ought to be rejected. As to the Moral Law, that is, indeed, the bafis of justice in every ftate, because its rules are founded on the common principles of human nature, and are infeparable from the general order and interests of mankind. The laws refpecting marriage are evidently peculiar, in many cafes, to the genius of that circumfcribed policy, which was initituted for the prefervation of the Jewith people, and were admirably calculated to answer the great end of their feparation from the Gentiles. Our author obferves (Vol. I. p. 23 ) that though we find every particular down to the very pins of the Tabernacle, every rite, even to the minutelt circumftance, exactly delineated to Moles, by the pattern fhewn him in the Mount, yet we find no marriage-fervice, or religious ceremony of an outward kind, fo much as mentioned. The bufinefs of marriages as at first ordain ed, was confined to the one fimple act of, union.' To fupport this hypothefis, Mr. Madan, is under the neceffity of obviating a very capital objection, thar naturally afes from 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 thall pay money according to the dowry of vigins Now, it marriage be actually completed by the one fimple act of union, they were to every intent, in the fight of God, man and wife, upon our Author's plan, and no Jaw could put them afunder, because they had been joined by a Divine ordinance. And yet from this p flage in Exodus we learn very clearly, that a parent had the μαίνει of difannulling every obligation ariling from an union of this nature: the confequence is, that this union was not indiffolable; as it must neceifarily have been, in spite of the authority of any parent whatever, if Mr. Madan's fuppolition were true. To evade the force of this objection, which would annihate his whole fyftem of marriage, he gives the following threwd turn to the tranflation of the paffage above quoted. If a man entice a maid, &c. THOUGH the father utterly refufe to give her, he fhall pay money,' &c. This, fays our Author, is but explanatory of what goes before, he fhall furely endow her to be his wife, by paying the dower into the hands of the father after the marriage, as was ufually done and ought to have been done beforeband. The dower is fumpafed to be the portion paid by the husband into the hands of the bride, or her fa ber, as a kind of purchase of her perfon. This is to this day the practice of feveral eaftern nations; and this was not to be withheld because the husband had married the woman without or against her father's confent. In short, the man was not to take advantage of his Own wrong. But Though [not If] the father refused or not, the dowry must be paid according to law We muft here remark, that in every inflance (except perhaps in one) which Mr. Madan hath produced to corroborate his tranflation, the word which he renders THOUGH, might as properly he translated IF; and in ninety-nine examples out of a hundred it is ufed hypothetically through the whole Bible. But the paffage in question eftablifheth its own meaning by the cleareft evidence. On the contrary, Mr. Madan's hypothefis overthrows itself; for it virtually anihilates that parental authority, which makes fuch a diftinguishing part of the Jewith cole. If a father unerly refuted to give his daughter to the man who folicited her in marriage, he was not, denied, on our Author's conjecture, the privilege of getting her without his confent. If he could entice her to lie with him, the marriage was completed by that ve y deed; wor could the authority of the parent destroy the union. No puniment was to be inflicted on the daughter for this grots violation of duty, nor any extreaordinary mula levied on the husband for having been the occafion of it. He was only to pay the dowry; and that was no more than would have been demanded of him, and he must have paid, even if he had gained the father's confent. On this plan, therefore, the parental authority was without fecurity; for in the end the matter was to be exactly the fame, whether the father refufed or voluntarily confented to the marriage of his daughter. But the text, fo far from countenancing this abfurdity, clearly ineans, that if a man fo far impofe 1 the credulity of a virgin, as to gain her content to a premature enjoyment of her perfon, he was obliged to make her his wife. No one could put a negative on their further and more folemn union by public marriage EXCEPI the father. IF he utterly refused to give her unto him, set that refufal would not exempt the feducer from fome kind of punishment. He was to pay money according to the dowry of virgins.' That fum that would have been dem ind d of him as a dowry, or fettlement, if the parent had contemned to his marriage, mult now be paid as a fine for the fiduction. In this light there is fome meaning in the law, which, in Mr. Madan's account of it, deftroys it.fell. Because no outward forms of marriage are exprefsly described, our Author would iafer, that therefore none existed; and, in course, that they are the fuperfluous ordinances of human policy. But he ought to know that fome forms were deemed efJential to an honourable union by the Patriarchs and Saints of the Old Testament, beides the first fimple act of cohabitation. Nothing could exceed the folemnity of the form with which Boaz efpoufed Ruth, in the prefence of all the people and of all the eldris. If the act of perfonal union took place before the customary forms of maringe were complied with, it was confidered as a defilement; an act of the moft Shameful kind. This may be clearly proved from the cafe of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. According to Mr. Madan's hypothefis, fhe was actually married to Shechem, Gen xxxiv. But the text exprefsly fays, that he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.' It was after this act, that he laid to his father Hamor, Get me this damfel to wife. It is evident from the whole narrative, that the wrath of her brethren was excited, becaufe they regarded the connection as criminal, in having taken place without thofe previous forms that were deemed effential to a legal mariage. Their answer to their father, on his expoftulating with them for their cruelty to the Shechemites, places this beyond doubt, Should he deal with our fitter as with an barlot? i. e. Was her perfon to be enjoyed like that of a harlot's, without the prior forms fo effential to fanctify the act? The pretence of uncircumcifion was afterwards urged by the brethren of Dinah against any farther alliance between her and Shechem: but in this they dealt deceitfully, it is faid; for it was only fet up with the bafe view of taking a deep revenge. Marriage with the uncircumcifed was indeed difcouraged, but was not forbidden by any pofitive law to the earlier Patriarchs. Mofes himself married Zipporah, of the land of Milian, and Either was given in marriage to an eastern Monarch. In short, it is evident, that the brethren of Dinah were not enraged becaufe he was married by this act of cohabitation with Shechem, but because she was defiled by it; for no marriage having been folemnized between them, they regarded the connection as infamous, and confidered their fifter as having been treafed as a harlot, and not as a wife. Such was Judah's treatment of his daughter-inw Tamar; he imagined her to be a harlot, a temporary union enfued; but he thought not of marriage, nor indeed of any further connection, Gen xxxviii. Mr. Madan had entirely paffed over this cafe of Dinah, which makes so fully against him. He adverts, however, to the cafe of the woman of Samaria, whose connection with a man not ber husband is mentioned in John iv. From this circumftance, fays he, it is inferred, that fomething befides cohabitation is neceffery to conftitute marriage in the fight of God. In endeavouring to difprove this felf-evident inference, he no longer has recourfe to verbal criticifin, but to mere conjecture* and evafive reafoning; in direct contradiction to the letter and obvious meaning of the paffage. Instead of following him through this, we shall conclude our remarks on the fubject of marriage, by leaving the paffage in queftion to the good fenfe and difcernment of the Reader. Jefus faid unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and faid, I have no husband. Jefus faid unto her, Thou haft well faid, I have no husband. For thou haft had five husbands, and he, whom thou now halt, is not thy busband: in that faidst thou truly. The woman faith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a Prophet.' [To be concluded in our Supplement } Ex |
