An Extract from a Book entitled, FREE THOUGHTS on the BRUTE-CREATION: by John Hilldrop, D. D.

21.

T

[Continued from page 317.]

I will therefore follow, that whatever purposes were

intended in their Creation, can only be answered by ftill preferving them in being. If they were created by infinite Wifdom, the fame infinite Wisdom will also preserve them if you deny this, you muft unavoidably fall into the other fide of the dilemma, and say that they were not the effects of infinite Wifdom, that they were not made to ferve any end, or answer any purpose, that they contributed nothing to the beauty and harmony of the fyftem, that many of them are not only ufelefs and unneceffary, but noxious and mifchievous, and had better either not have been created at all, or immediately ftruck out of the lift of beings; in fhort, that they were a fort of excrefcencies, or fortuitous productions, with which infinite Wisdom had no concern, either in their formation or prefervation. Does not fuch a thought as this ftrike you with a kind of horror? Is not the blafphemy as fhocking to your piety, as the nonfenfe to your underflanding? Yet one of these must be maintained to support the other fide of the question.

22. I will therefore venture to conclude, that whatsoever creatures infinite Wifdom faw fit to produce in the first creation, will be preserved by the fame infinite Wisdom so long as the fyftem itself fhall continue. This is as certain a conclufion, as that the parts fhall continue as long as the whole, the materials as long as the fabrick; and this not only with regard to the species, but to all the individuals of the several fpecies, which, were exifting in their firft parent, when the

divine benediction, to increafe and multiply, was pronounced upon them, and they were declared by God himself to be very good. Whatever arguments have or may be produced, in vindication of the wifdom and goodnefs of God in the works of the creation, will (I humbly conceive) more strongly conclude for their immortality and if fo much as the shadow of a reason can be alledged for their annihilation after death, it will as ftrongly conclude against the wisdom of their first

creation.

23. And whether fuch a conceffion might not have a fatal influence upon weak and irreligious minds, deferves to be confidered; whether they might not hence be induced to hope, that they might receive the fame indulgence as the rest of their fellow-brutes, and be no more accountable for the fins of a long life, the abuse of nobler faculties, the defiance of the highest authority, the contempt of plaineft duties, and a violation of the most reasonable commands, than the poor brutes, who have no fin to answer for, and would never have known either pain or forrow, fuffering or death, had our first parents continued as innocent as they. What then fhould' hinder their continuance in being, after the diffolution of their bodies? Why may not the immaterial form be difpofed of in its proper ftate, waiting for the Time of the reftitution of all things, Acts iii. 21. The wife Preacher feems to have expressed his thoughts very plainly upon this, Eccl. iii. 21, where he mentions the Spirit of a man, and the fpirit of a beaft, however different in their specific dignity and qualities, yet both equally immaterial and immortal, both returning, after the diffolution of their bodies, to their proper state and centre: The Spirit of a man going upwards, and the fpirit of a beaft going downward; that is, the former afcending, the other defcending to their proper rank or fphere in the invifible world. And after all, where is the difficulty of comprehending, or the danger of afferting this proper affortment of the fpecies of beings, according to their original state

in the order of creation? What need is there of fo much caution in explaining fo obvious a queftion? What poffible danger can there be in afferting a truth too plain to be depied, or what purposes of religion can be ferved in concealing or difguiling a certain truth, in order to establish an uncertain, I had almost said an impoffible conjecture?

[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 Mr. J. Benson.

[Continued from page 321.]

23. BUT perhaps Mr. Madan may prefer the former me

thod, viz. to refer the decifion of the matter to the

word or oath of one or both the parties: with regard to which, it is easy to fee what a flood-gate it would open for lying, perjury, and a thousand other evils, For only suppose his fyftem to take place, and marriage to be reduced to his only ordinance;" fuppofe all external rites and ceremonies, forms and contracts to be abolished or declared unneceffary, and this union alone to be deemed effential; and what would be the confequence? Why, that all reftraints, whether of confcience or human laws, being taken off, many (who, influenced by thefe principles, now keep themselves chafte, in a single life, or make prudent matches) in the hours of temptation would marry (that is, would commit fornication)most rafhly and imprudently; not only to the great grief of their parents, but to their own present and everlasting undoing. Men, whether married or fingle it matters not, whom the fear of God, or a fear of fhame now reftrains, would entice unthinking virgins, and they knowing it quite lawful to marry." the men of their own choice," would yield to their defires, whence marriages innumerable

innumerable would fpring up (like mush-rooms) in a night, and as short-lived as they. For as there would be no witneffes of the fact, they would only have to keep it secret, if it was not convenient to avow or continue their connexion; or if one of the parties (the woman fuppofe) fhould conceive a diflike to the other, or fhould think the match not good enough, or for any other reason fhould change her mind, fhe has only to fwear, when he gives out he has married her, that it is falfe, and that she has had nothing to do with him, and the matter is at an end. And fhould the prove with child, the may then take a fecond oath, and fwear that my Lord. or, Sir, married her by God's only ordinance at fuch a time and place, and behold fhe commences a Wife or a Lady at once, and my Lord, to his great furprise, finds himself in poffeffion of a wife and a child too. It avails not for him to proteft the woman is an entire ftranger to him, and that he never faw her with his eyes: the law enjoins that her oath fhall be deemed evidence fufficient; and hence, whether he will or no, he must acknowledge, and maintain as a wife, the wo man for whom he has no affection, and muft receive another man's child as the heir of all his eftate. Hence it appears that this is a moft pernicious doctrine, and pregnant with the greatest evil, temporal and eternal, as having a manifeft tendency to remove the only remaining checks of licentioufnefs, the fear of God and human laws, and to open a door for lying, perjury, and all fecret abominations. As fure therefore, as decency, fobriety and truth, are from God, and not brutality, confufion and falfehood, fo fure is our Author's doctrine not from God, but from Beelzebub, Belial, or fome unclean devil who abhors the fmall remains of purity and order yet found among men, and longs to make the whole earth a fcene of villainy and confufion, a mere brothel or common stew.

The only account that we have of the first inftitution of marriage, is contained in the fecond chapter of the Book of

Genefis.

Genefis. "And the Lord God faid, It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a help-meet for him. And the Lord God caufed a deep fleep to fall upon Adam, and he flept; and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof, and of the rib made he a woman, and brought her unto the man: and Adam faid, This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: the fhall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore fhall a man leave his father and mother and fhall cleave unto his wife; and they fhall. be one flesh, or (as our Lord expresses it, Matt. xix.) they twain fhall be one flesh; where he also adds, what God hath joined together, let not man put afunder.

Here we have a true, and full acount of the firft marriage that ever was made, and the only account of it, extant in any language under heaven. And will Mr. Madan fay, that "here is no hint or moft diftant allufion to any outward rite or ceremony adminiftered by any perfon whatsoever ?" Then I ask what he makes of the following words, "The Lord God, the only father of the woman, brought her unto the man?" Is. there no moft diftant allufion to any outward form or ceremony in this? does it no way resemble what the Apostle fpeaks of, the fathers giving their daughters in marriage?

Again, was Adam married, or unmarried, when he faid, This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh? If he says he was unmarried, then I demand how he came to use those words which Mr. Madan declares so often are peculiar to the marriage union? If he fays he was married, then I infift upon it he was married before he had that union with his wife, which Mr. Madan makes the only marriage ordinance. For he is reprefented by Mofes, as uttering thofe words immediately upon Eve's being brought to him by his Creator, before he could have any fuch union with her.

27. But that expreffion, "A man fhall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife," Mr. Madan is confident means this union. With regard to which I obferve, I am