he who deprives or rids himself of his first wife, «* ALTHOUGH SHE BE DEAD, is an adulterer under a veil; not preferving the inftitution of God (who in the beginning created one man and one woman), but feparating flesh from flesh, which had been mutually joined for the fake of the

cohabitation of the fexes."

V. But to illuftrate the fenfe we have given of the paffage, and to determine its true meaning, we fhall produce a quotation from the first apology of Juftin Martyr; who, speaking of the purity both of heart and conduct recommended and enforced by the gofpel, appeals to the following texts to confirm his obfervations, Matt. v. 28. " Whofo looketh on a woman," &c.; Matt. v. 29. "If thy eye offend thee," &c.; Matt. v. 32. "He that marrieth her that is put away from another man, committeth adultery." "+ THUS (fays Juftin, on the ground of these texts) our mafter teacheth us, that they are finners, who, under the fanction of human laws, engage in fecond marriages, and look on a woman to luft after her," On this paflage Dr. Thirlby very judiciously oblerves, that "there were many who, after divorce, contracted second marriages, which were not forbidden by human laws." Grabe and Perion confirm this remark.

Thus thefe two ancient, and almoft contemporary apologists, agree in the fame principle; and, with equal juftice, apply the prohibition of our Saviour both to the man and the woman. The one cannot divorce and marry another, without committing adultery; nor can the other, who hath been divorced, become another's wife, without incurring the fame crime. They both might plead the fanction of human laws; but the plea was invalid under the gospel.

Mr. Madan is now driven from the ground, on which, if he fails to fupport his triumph, the great cause of the third volume of Thelyphthora is loft! if he returns to renew his onfet

we will not talk of victories before they are gained; we will only fay, that we will meet him there.

We will, before we conclude, produce two paffages from two diftinguifhed writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, in order, ftill farther, to expose the groundless affertion of Mr. Madan respecting the opinions of the primitive church concerning the lawfulness of fecond marriages.

"LICET defunctâ," Vid. Dechair's Latin Tranflation.

+ Ωσπερ και οι νόμῳ ανθρωπινῳ διγαμίας ποιεμένοι αναρτωλοι παρα τῷ ημέτερῳ δικασκαλῳ εισι, και οι προςβλεπονίες, &c, &c. Apol. prim. p. 22.

Sunt qui poa divortia, fecundas nuptias, legibus humanis non vetitas, contrabunt, quæ Grabii quoque et Perionii fententia fuiffe videtur. [Vid. Not.]

2

Epiphanius,

Epiphanius, in his book against the Cathari, exprefsly fays, that "though the man who hath married but one wife is held in higher esteem by the church, yet by no means is that man to be condemned, or excluded from the fociety of the faithful, who is not fatisfied with living fingle after the death of his former wife, but marries another; nor is a woman to be condemned who acts the fame part after the death of her husband."

St. Auftin fpeaks, with mingled contempt and indignation, of the dreams of the Montanilts, and calls them, "Fanatics, who had been puffed up by the tumid and fenfelefs jargon of Tertullian; while, with a malignant zeal, he condemned fecond marriages as unlawful, notwithstanding the Apostle himfelf had altogether approved of their lawfulness, and had fixed no mark of condemnation or ignominy on them." [Aug. de Heref. Cap. 26.]

We shall now produce, on the fubject of fecond marriages, but one quotation more; and that will be from a writer, if not of the first century, which is most probable, yet immediately after a writer confeffedly prior to Irenæus: and we do it, chiefly for the purpose of evincing, by the faireft deduction of reason, that the expreffion multas nuptias, doth not refer to fecond marriages, as Mr. Madan would poffibly be inclined to infinuate, or rather digmatically affert; but to that polygamy, of which he himfelf, after the example of the old heretics, hath the honour to be the advocate and patron.

The paffage we have in our eye, is found in the f.cond book of the Shepherd of Hermas. (6 If a hufband or a wife fhould die, and the furviving party fhould marry again, fhall the marriage be deemed fintul? No; there is no fin committed by fuch a marriage, faid the Angel. Though if the party fhould remain fingle, he might acquire great honour to himself from the Lord."

But what, it may be afked, hath this conceffion of Hermas (or whoever was the author of that very ancient Tract)-what hath it to do with Irenæus? It hath much to do with him in the prefent argument; for this very work of Hermas is exprefsly quoted by Irenæus; and what is more, is even appealed to as a facred authority. [Vid. Irenci Haref. lib. iv. cap. 20. in Ed. Mafs. fed cap. xxxvii. in Ed. Grab. et al.]

Now, is it to be fuppofed that Irenæus fhould have ranked fecond marriages in the clafs of the most abandoned enormities,

Συναφθένα δεύτερα γυναικι, η γυναίκα δευτερω ανδρι εκ αίβαλαν ο θείος λόγος» (Vid. reliqu. in Lib. contra Catharos apud Hæref.)

+"Si vir vel mulier alicujus decefferit & nupferit aliquis illorum, nunquid peccat ?”—“ Qui nubit, non peccat, inquit ; fed fi per fe manferit, magnum fibi conquirit honorem apud dominum," Herm. Paft. Lib. ii. Mand. 4. § 4.

N 2

[viz.

[viz. indifferentes coïtus] introduced by the moft peftilent and licentious hereticks of the fecond century, when he knew that they had been exprefsly declared lawful and innocent by the unequivocal and direct teftimony of a writer whom he looked up to as venerable in the highest degree? Certainly not: and we draw this inference with abundant confidence; and would even venture the iffue of the argument with respect to the Hif tory of Polygamy in the Chriftian Church on this conclufion.

That Tertullian fhould treat this ancient writer with difrefpect is not a matter to be at all wondered at. But it fhould be recollected, that all the contempt which he expreffed for Hermas, was in confequence of his defection to Montanifm. Before this period, he fpoke of him with efteem; but when he altered his opinion of things, he loft his refpect for the perfon; and Hermas's pleading for the lawfulness of fecond marriages was a fufficient reafon for Tertullian's hating him. Such is the fatal prejudice of fyftem!-and thus Mr. Madan's hatred of all the Fathers arifeth from the fame principle that made Tertullian the enemy of one; though the objects of their diflike be indeed the very reverfe of each other. The one thought that the good Shepherd granted too much indulgence to the flock; and the other would be ready to fay, that he did not grant them liberty enough for though he approved of fecond marriages, yet he confidered every man as an adulterer who had more wives than

one.

In a former Review we took notice of the teftimony of Juftin Martyr, refpecting the monogamy of Chriftians. To that teflimony, we beg leave to add one remarkable paffage that occurs towards the conclufion of his dialogue with Trypho, in which the practice of polygamy is reprobated with the moft marked and poignant deteftation: and the conduct of the Jewish Rabbins is arraigned for encouraging and recommending it, under the pretended fanction of patriarchal example. There are (fays he) fome of thofe blind and fenfelefs doctors, who permit any of you, even now at this prefent time, to have four or five wives."

This excellent writer is indeed, like others of the primi tive Fathers, puzzled to account for the reafon of that difpenfation of God, which permitted polygamy to be practifed; and therefore, like St. Paul, in the cale of Sarah and Hagar, attempts to give it a myftical allufion, or a fymbolical reference. Here indeed, his fancy might be thought to indulge itfelf in the uncertain wilds of fpeculation. But the inconclufivenefs of his rea

#

Comp. Tert de Orat. cap. xii, with his Tract de Pudicitiâ, cap. x. † Ασυναίοι καὶ τυφλοι διδάσκαλοι υμων .... οίτινες και μέχρι τον και τεσσαρας ng male ex quas guruinas ensor ocyxwphon. Just. Dial, cum Tryph. pars fecund. p. 423.

fonings

fonings to fupport an hypothefis, by no means deftroys his credit as an hiftorian, when bearing his teftimony to a matter of fact. It is only a ftronger proof of the abhorrence in which polygamy was held by the earliest fathers of the Chriftian church; and the teftimony of Juftin muft be regarded as of fingular weight and confequence; for he flourished but half a century after the apostles.

Theophilus of Antioch (whofe name is not even mentioned by Mr. Madan) writ his three books, infcribed to Autolycus about the year 180. In the fecond book he exprefsly attributes the introduction of polygamy to Lamech, of the race of Cain *, Mr. Madan is anxious to give it a more refpectable origin, and thinks that its credit is injured by making it the offspring of an accurfed generation. But all his efforts to remove the reproach of its birth are the ineffectual struggles of error and fophiftry. Polygamy is defecrated in its founder; and emphatically defecrated by the term given to it by Theophilus, when he speaks of its original introduction. He calls it wouuia-a term which he afterwards applies to the adulterous and infamous marriages of the heathen deities. To this practice he opposes the + monogamy of the Chriftians; and that purity of conduct which was univerfally held in the highest eftimation by them.

Though we are by no means difpofed to rely implicitly on the Fathers, or at all events to exalt the teftimony of any individual among them into an incontrovertible evidence, yet when they univerfally concur, not in a point of speculative reafoning, but in their teftimony to a matter of fact-a point of common and general practice which was visible to all, and could be mifunderstood by none, it would difcover equal arrogance and obftinacy-and we may add, folly to both-to difcredit it as infuficient evidence. It would difcover the most uncandid and inveterate temper to pronounce, not only one, but ALL the primitive Fathers in an error; and to reprefent them either as fools, who were themfelves deceived, or impoftors who meant to deceive others. At this rate, what becomes of hiftory? What credit is due to any human teftimony? By what characters fhall we difcriminate the true and falfe? And what is it that, in any cafe, can give it authority, or make it an object of rational confidence?

But it will be faid, that the moft ancient Fathers frequently ran into great abfurdities." And what if they did? We will grant that they were frequently abfurd in their fpeculations,

and trifling and puerile in their allufions. But we are not vindicating them as reafoners. We do not exalt them to the bench as judges; we are only producing them at the bar, as evidences. We are only paying the flighteft tribute that can be paid to their integrity, as men. We only give them the credit that is due to common truth and honefty. In a word, we confider them (and the prefent argument requires nothing more) as credible hiftorians, not of a fingle event, which might have been originally related on doubtful fame, or traditional evidence, but of a general and obvious practice-uncontroverted, unquestioned. Nor is it the teftimony of an individual, whofe prejudices might be fupposed to misrepresent, or whose ignorance might really mistake, even a matter of fact: but it is the concurrent teftimony of the first and greatest lights of the Chriftian church: it is the teftimony of ALL who have written on the subject; for here amidst all their diffenfions they perfectly accord; and the only reason that can be given for fo univerfal a harmony is this-the fact was so obvious there could be no mistake, and fo common there could be no difagreement.

We have now examined the leading principle of the third volume of Thelyphthora; and we flatter ourselves we have not been wholly unfuccefsful in expofing its weaknefs, and detecting its fallacy.

We have fhewn that Mr. Madan's view of the opinions of the primitive church is a compound of error, mifrepresentation, and malice that his appeal to St. Clement, is a ftriking inftance of grofs delufion, or glaring difingenuity: that his quotations are frequently partial and deficient; his tranflations imperfect and deceptive; and that the whole tendency of his Work is pernicious and immoral. B....k.

ART. II. The Private Life of Lewis XV. In which are contained the principal Events, remarkable Occurrences, and Anecdotes of his Reign. Tranflated from the French by J. O. Juftamond,

F. R. S. 4 Vols. Svo. 11. Boards. Dilly. 1781.

N writing the hiftory of princes and great men, who are at prefent on the political theatre, or have lately left it, there is fo much danger of being biaffed by partial attachments or private intereft, that the hiftorian who, in executing this difficult tak, holds the fcale of juftice with a fteady hand, and diftributes to every character its due proportion of praise or blame, has no mall fhare of merit. In this refpect the hiftory now before us deferves particular commendation. The Author, neither blinded by that vulgar prejudice which cafts a veil over the facred perfons of princes, nor influenced by the narrow fpirit of pationality, treats the character of the monarch, and the actions

of