whole creation fo deplorably miferable, as to admit of no remedy? Shall the eternal purposes of infinite Wisdom, Love, and Power be entirely defeated by the malice of evil fpirits, and the infirmities of frail creatures? Is not this faying in effect, that the Almighty Creator, the Father of Mercies, and the God of all Compaffions, whofe mercies are over all his works, is either unwilling, or unable, to effect the eternal purposes of his infinite love? that the Devil is more powerful to deftroy, than God to fave? 38. And after all, what difficulty is there in comprehending that all the inferior creation fhall at laft be reftored to their primitive happiness ? Why should it be thought a thing incredible, that God fhould do this? Especially as Reason pronounces fuch a renovation, not only poffible, put probable, and Revelation declares it to be certain? Nothing can be added to their original perfection, nor fhall any thing be able to deftroy it. But in the end they shall stand in their proper rank and order, reftored to the fplendor of their firft creation. [To be continued.] An Anfwer to Mr. Madan's Treatife on Polygamy and Marriage: in a Series of Letters to the Rev. J. Wesley: by J. Benson. 16. NOW [Continued from page 544.] OW I refer it to any man of common sense, whether the Jew does not reafon as fairly as Mr. Madan, and whether if these principles be allowed, it be not easy to prove that the New Teftament is a lie, and Chriftianity an impofture. If Mr. Madan contends that the case is not parallel, because Polygamy belongs to the moral law, whereas circumcifion is a mere ceremonial inftitution, I demand then firf why, in afferting the perpetuity and unchangeablene's of the . See preceding Number, page 544. law, law, he expreffed himself in terms which comprehend every part of the Mofaic œconomy? And I undertake fecondly, to give him an inftance of a change made by Christ, in a matter which is at least as much a part of the moral law as Polygamy, and that is divorce. This was certainly allowed for very trifling reafons, under the Mofaic difpenfation, at least as much as Polygamy was allowed. For fuppofing we tranflate Deut. xxiv. 14, as Mr. Madan himself would have it tranflated, viz. When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found fome uncleanness in her, and he write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and fend her out of his houfe, and she shall have departed out of his houfe, and fhe go and be another man's wife, and the latter hufband hate her and write her a bill of divorcement, her former hufband may not take her again, &c. I fay, fuppofing we tranflate the paffage thus, yet ftill it contains a more express allowance of divorce for every caufe, than Deut. xxi. 15—17, tranflated even as it is in our Bible, does of Polygamy. And we have the authority of our Lord for believing that Mofes (that is, the law of Mofes) fuffered the Jews to put away their wives, though from the beginning it was not fo. 17. Mr. Madan indeed, would fain perfuade us that Mofes "Gave this permiffion, as a politician, independent of God, who he is confident never allowed it: and he lays much ftrefs on the word fuffered, found in the paffage as recorded by St. Matthew; as if our Lord intended by ufing this word both to reprove the Pharifees for faying, "Mofes had commanded to give a writing of divorcement," and alfo to fignify that Mofes had only connived at this practice, but never authorised it. Now to be convinced what a partial and unfair representation of the matter this is, we have only to turn to the gospel of St. Mark, where we read as follows: "The Pharifees came to him and asked, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? And he anfwered, What did Mofes command command you? And they faid, Mofes fuffered him to write à bill of divorcement, and to put her away: and Jefus faid, for the hardness of your hearts, he wrote you this precept, Thy for Tany, this command. Here you fee, Rev. Sir, the exact reverle of what we read in Matthew, as to phrafeology: the Pharifees use the word ge fuffered or permitted, and our Lord the words halo commanded, and command: whence it appears that the infpired writers, lay no fuch stress upon words as this author would make us believe, but regard rather the fenfe and meaning of what the Lord uttered: and in the paffage before us, they manifeftly use the words erileñalo commanded, and elg Juffered, indifcriminately for the very fame idea. 18. Now to fuppofe that Mofes fuffered, allowed, or commanded the divorces in queflion from motives of policy, without the authority of God, is to fuppofe that some part of the law of Mofes was given by himself, and fome part of it by God: and if fo, it is furely of deep importance, to be able to diftinguish properly on this head, left we should confound Mofes with his Maker, and the precepts which are merely human, with those that are wholly divine. Mr. Madan therefore would do well to furnish us with a proper and infallible criterion, whereby to judge in this cafe. The truth is, this notion of our author, (of a piece with the reft of his book) is , plainly repugnant to the whole Scriptures, which every where reprefent Mofes as the fervant of God, doing nothing of himself, but every thing by divine authority, and in the execution of his truft as being faithful in all his house. His laws therefore were not the laws of man, but one and all the laws of God. With regard to the fubject before us, I may further observe, that it is very manifeft from Ifaiah 1. 1. and Jeremiah iii. 1, as well as many other paffages in the Old Teftament, that to put away one's wife for other caufes than Adultery was allowed under that difpenfation, and accordingly very generally practifed practifed among the Jews even until the time of Chrift. Nay, and our Lord's difciples were so poffeffed with an opinion of its lawfulness, that they expreffed the utmost astonishment at hearing him condemn it. "If the cafe of a man (fay they) be fo with his wife, (that is, if he is not at liberty to put her away when he will) it is not good to marry;" which circumftance plainly fhews what was the received opinion of the Jews, even of fuch as were pious, on the subject. 19. Here then, is a law manifeftly of a moral nature, exprefsly allowing a man to put away his wife for other causes than adultery. Now apply Mr. Madan's reasoning to this fubject, and if it does not conclude as forcibly for this as the other, we may venture to give up the cause to him. Let us therefore make the trial, applying the very words, as far as the nature of the subject will admit, to divorce, which he has used in arguing for polygamy. "By divorce, p. 75, I would be understood to mean the putting away one's wife for any cause which may render her disagreeable." "It was this, p. 76, which was allowed of God, Deut. xxiv. 1, &c. confequently (for who would cohabit with a woman he did not like ?) practifed by his people." When a man hath taken a wife, lays God, by Mofes, and hath married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, then let him write (or and he write) her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and fend her out of his house. It is true this was practised before, and that by holy men, as by Abraham, who put away his wife Hagar (and that after she had borne him a fon) in obedience to the command of God, who faid, Caft out the bond-woman and her fon. But it was not reduced into a law till now: but now being enjoined or tolerated by authority, and being fo agreeable to the fickle and changeable mind of man, whom nothing can please long, we may be fure it would be practised by thousands, and that of all characters and ranks. It is true, it feems to be condemned VOL. VI. 4 D demned by Chrift in the New Teftament. "But, p. 77, if we interpret that paffage, Matt. xix, as fuch an explanation of God's law from the beginning, as will ferve to prove that all who put away their wives for any other caufe than adultery, cause them to commit adultery, we must condemn a large generation of God's dearest fervants and children; and inftead of believing that all thefe died in faith, we must say that many of them died in a state of difobedience and unbelief." But indeed, p. 79, "Chrift fo far from altering, changing or deftroying the law, that he enters a caveat against fuch a fuppofition, Matt. v. 17, which not only ftamps unchangeableness upon the law, but upon its import, sense, and meaning, as one and the fame throughout all ages and generations, as an invariable rule of life for the members of God's vifible church upon earth, even to the leaft jot or tittle." As to the paffage in Matthew, "If it were meant to condemn the putting away one's wife for any cause, it amounts fo far to a contradiction, or rather repeal of the old law which permitted it, and then more than a jot or tittle has paffed from the law. If it means that it was always finful and against the law of God, it condemns, as was before obferved, all that ever practifed it, and falls heavy (no doubt on fome great faints, renowned for faith and holinefs." And now I appeal to any judicious perfon, if Mr. Madan's reafoning concerning the unchangeablenefs of the law is of any weight, and proves that polygamy is ftill lawful, (that is, fuppofing we allow it was permitted of old) whether it does not prove with equal evidence that it is ftill lawful to put away one's wife for any cause, especially as Mr. Madan has fhewn, p. 182 and 183, that if a woman has a bad temper, or is refractory and disobedient, to feparate from her and marry another, is a point of neceffity which of confequence is under the control of no law." [To be continued.] The |