cohabitation, hath been deemed neceffary to ftamp credit or va lidity on the union of the fexes. It is equally impertinent and. evafive to refer to the original union of our first parents in order to difcredit the forms of marriage; because so fingular a cafe, like the marriages of their immediate offspring, cannot with any appearance of reafon or propriety be produced as a precedent for future times. When the earth was replenished with inhabitants, the forms both of religion and polity were adapted by the wisdom of the Creator to the fituation and condition of mankind, and rendered fubfervient to the peace and intereft of society. Thefe forms become in fome degree effential to the government of such a state: and the man who should attempt to difcredit their inftitution, or leffen their influence, under a pretence of establishing what he calls the pure, primitive, and ONLY law of God, would fubject himself to the charge of great imprudence, if not the more heavy accufation of licentioufnefs, and be justly deemed an enemy to fociety, by attemptIng to unfettle the order and weaken the fupports of it.

Mr. Madan's pofition refpecting marriage might fuit a state of innocence; but in a state of imperfection, fuch as the present is, and, without a perpetual miracle, muft neceffarily be, his doctrine is too lax and unguarded to be permitted to take place in civil fociety; and if it were established, its pernicious effects would foon demonftrate its impolicy, and call loudly for a re-t peal.

The act of cohabitation is in our Author's view a real, unequivocal, and perfect marriage of itself, and ought to be regarded as fuch by the parties; and in every cafe, where a virgin is the fubject, ought to be enforced as fuch by the authority of law. How far such an act ought to be recognised and fanctified by a legal marriage, is a point of honour and private duty, and ought to be decided by every man's confcience, on honeft and impartial principles, as in the fight of God: Seduction is a crime of the blackeft die; and we fincerely wish it were more open to the cognizance of the law. But to eftablish a law, that should by the strongest penalties enforce the obligation of marriage on every man who hath defiled a virgin, would introduce a train of the most perilous confequences to civil and domeftic peace, and would open a door for the groffeft impofitions that the cunning and address of one sex could practise on the credulity and indis cretion of the other.

Mr. M. is a warm advocate for the policy and equity of the Mofaic law, and is anxious to revive a great part of it in this country-efpecially fo far as it regards the commerce of the fexes. We efteem and venerate the Mofaic economy, both ecclefiaftical and civil, as much as he ;-but we regard it as a local and temporary inftitution; and admire it because it fo per

3

fectly

fectly answered the ends for which it was appointed. Every ftate is at liberty to adopt what part of it 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 basis of justice and equity to every state, because its rules are founded on the common principles of human nature, and are infeparable from the general order and intereft of mankind.

The laws refpecting marriage are evidently peculiar, in many cafes, to the genius of that circumfcribed policy which was instituted for the prefervation of the Jewish people; and were admirably calculated to answer the great ends of their feparation from the Gentiles. We fhall illuftrate this remark more particularly hereafter, in fome ftriking inftances which immediately relate to the union of the fexes :-at prefent, we would obferve, that unless Mr. Madan can make it appear that the figns of virginity are as infallible, amongst all people and through every age, as they were pronounced to be under the Mofaic inftitution, the law which he is fo anxious to renew would lay a foundation for jealoufy on the one fide, and fraud on the other, too pregnant with mischiefs to be even thought of with indifference.

Our Author observes (vol. i. 23.), that, though we find every particular down to the very pins of the tabernacle; every rite and ceremony, even to the minuteft circumftance, exactly delineated and revealed to Mofes 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 marriage, as at firft ordained, was confined to the one fimple act of union.'

To fupport this hypothefis, our Author is under the neceffity of obviating a very capital objection, that naturally arifes from Exod. xxii. 16, 17. "If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he thall furely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he fhall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."-The objection arifing from this text is obvious. If marriage is actually completed by the mere carnal knowledge of each other's perfons, they were to every poffible intent, in the fight of God, lawful man and wife, upon Mr. Madan's plan, and no law could have put them afunder, because they had been joined by a divine ordinance, which is fuperior to every other inftitution under heaven. And yet from this paffage in the Mofaic ritual, we learn very clearly, that a parent had the power of difannulling every obligation arifing from a union of this nature: the confequence is, that this union, though carnal, was not indiffoluble, as it must neceffarily have been, in fpite of the will or authority of any parent whatever, if Mr. Madan's fuppofition were true. -Now

"If

-Now to evade the force of this objection, which would inftantly annihilate his whole fyftem of marriage, he gives the following fhrewd and ingenious turn to the tranflation of the paffage above quoted. If a man entice a maid, &c.—he shall furely endow her to be his wife. THOUGH the father utterly refufe to give her, he fhall pay money, &c." This (fays he) 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 beforehand. The dowry is fuppofed to be the portion paid by the hufband into the hands of the bride, or her father, 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 with-held becaufe the hufband had married the woman either without or against her father's confent. In fhort, the man was not to take advantage of his own wrong. But [] though the father refused or not, the dowry must be paid according to law.'

In the liberty which Mr. M. hath here taken with the text, he hath departed from the authority of his favourite Montanus. And we may further obferve, that every inftance (except perhaps in one) which he hath produced to corroborate his tranflation, might as properly be tranflated IF as THOUGH;' and in ninety-nine examples out of a hundred it is used hypothetically through the whole Bible. Indeed the exceptions are fo few, and thofe fo equivocal and indecifive, that no man, unlefs violently bent to ferve a caufe at all hazards, would exalt any of them into authorities; especially when the sense of the paffage evidently requires the general tranflation that is affixed to the word.

But not to dwell on thefe verbal criticisms, we think we can make it appear, that the paffage in question establisheth its own meaning by the cleareft evidence poffible. As for Mr. Madan's hypothefis, it overthrows itself; for it virtually annihilates that parental authority, which made fuch a diftinguishing part of the Jewish ritual. If a father utterly refused to give his daughter to the man who folicited her in marriage, he was not denied, on Mr. Madan'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 very deed; nor could the authority of the parent deftroy the union, nor in the flighteft degree leffen the validity or impeach the fanctity of it. Nor was any pu nishment to be inflicted on the daughter for this grofs violation of duty; nor was any extraordinary mulet levied on the hufband for having been the occafion of it, and thus a partaker with her in difobedience. He was only to pay the dowry;—and that was no more than would have been demanded of him, and he

muft

must have paid, even if he had gained the father's confent, Confequently on this plan, there was no fecurity made for parental authority; for in the event the matter was to be precisely the fame, whether the father utterly refufed or voluntarily confented to the marriage of his daughter. How abfurd the fuppofition! But the abfurdity is wholly chargeable to our Author's perverfion of the text. The text is fufficiently clear; and means

what it hath been univerfally fuppofed to mean till fophiftry tortured it into nonfenfe and contradiction,-viz.-that if a man entice the affections of a virgin, and fo far impofe on her credulity or her paffions, as to gain her confent to a premature enjoyment of her perfon, he was obliged to prevent her shame and mifery, by making her his wife. None could put a negative on their further and more folemn union by public marriage EXCEPT the father. IF he utterly refused to give her unto him (and the law prefumed that, if he did refufe in fuch a cafe, he had undoubtedly prudent and juft reafons for it), yet that refufal would not exempt the feducer from fome kind of punishment. He was to make fuch a fatisfaction for the injury he had done, as the law had directed in fimilar cafes. "He was to pay money according to the dowry of virgins." In other words, that sum which would have been demanded of him as a dowry, or settlement, in cafe the parent had confented to his marriage, muft now be paid as a fine for his feduction of the daughter.Viewed in this light, there is fome meaning in the law; but in Mr. M.'s representation of it, the law is made to deftroy itself.

1

This Writer, in his attempts to depreciate the outward forms of marriage, would make his readers believe, that because none are explicitly described, therefore none exifted; the confequence on his scheme is, that they are the fuperfluous ordinances of human policy. But furely he cannot but know that fome forms were deemed effential to an honourable alliance by the patriarchs and faints under the Old Teftament, exclufive of the carnal knowledge of each other's perfons*. If the latter took place before the customary forms of marriage were complied with, it was judged a fhameful act. The cafe of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, clearly proves this. According to Mr. Madan's hypothefis, fhe was actually married to the Prince of Sechem. But the Scripture exprefsly fays, that " he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her." It was after this act that he faid to his father, "Get me this damfel to wife." [Vid. Gen. xxxiv.] It is evident from the chapter where this circumftance is related, that her brethren's rage was excited, because they confidered the connection not fo much unlawful (on account of the uncircumcifion of the Prince) as criminal and fcandalous, because it had taken place without

Compare Ruth iv. 10-13. with Tobi; vii. 13, 14.

thofe

thofe previous forms and ftipulations that were judged neceffary to ratify a legal marriage. This is evident from the reply that they made to their father, after he had expoftulated with them for their cruelty towards the Sechemites-" Should he deal with our fifter AS WITH AN HARLOT?" i. e. Should her person be enjoyed as a harlot's is wont to be, without those previous requifites which are deemed necessary to credit and sanctify the act ?

The pretence of uncircumcifion was afterwards pleaded by Dinah's brethren in bar to any farther alliance between her and Sechem :-but in this, they dealt deceitfully, it is faid; for it was only fet up for the foul purpose of taking a deeper revenge than they could otherwife have effected. Marriage with the uncircumcifed, though difcouraged, was not, as far as we can learn, forbidden by any pofitive and explicit law to the earlier patriarchs and even after they had been forbidden, and the law was in the greatest force, particular cafes were exempted from the general rule; and marriages with heathen families were neither deemed criminal nor impolitic. Mofes himself married an outlandish woman, (as fhe was fcornfully termed by the fplenetic zeal of Aaron and Miriam), and Sampfon a daughter of a Philiftine; and both, under the fanction of the Divine approbation. Thus alfo Efther was given in marriage to a heathen monarch. We might produce a variety of cafes more, to fhew that neceffity would fometimes require the difpenfation of a law which was only ordained to operate as a general reftraint on intermixed marriages, though it would have been cruel and impolitic to have applied it with an unrelaxed feverity to every particular cafe. Had the bare act of cohabitation been regarded as a real and valid marriage by the patriarchs, would not the law (if any fuch law had at that time exifted) forbidding, for political reafons, the marriage of the Ifraelites with the people of other nations, have been difpenfed with in a cafe fo preffing and peculiar as that of Dinah's? Or could what Mr. M. calls the primitive and original law of God, be revoked by any fecondary and fubordinate ordinance, not founded on nature, but on policy? In fhort, the matter is very clear from this circumftance refpecting Jacob's daughter, that her brethren were enraged, not becaufe fhe was married by this act of cohabitation with Sechem, but because he was defiled by it; and thus no marriage having been folemnifed between them, they regarded the connection as infamous, and confidered their fifter as having been treated as a harlot, and not as a wife.

Mr. M. though he hath been totally filent about the cafe of Dinah, is yet ingenuous enough to take fome notice of the woman of Samaria, whofe connection with a man not her husband is mentioned in John iv. Now from this circumftance it is

(fays