viduals than upon the rest of the community. When a man is directed to pay, or do any thing more than is prescribed to his equals in fociety, if it be a punithment at all, it is as much one of a pofitive nature, as if he is enjoined the payment of a fine, or is condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Dr. C, next purfues the hiftory of thofe laws, which affect marriage, concubinage, and the rights of illegitimate children: 1. In the earliest ages of which any accounts have been handed down to us. In the Jewish institutions. 3. In the Grecian inftitutions. 4. In the Roman code. 5. In the laws of the middle ages and the canon law. The laws affecting illegitimate children, though leaft connected with the fubject matter of the cafe that he reports, occupy the more confiderable portion of his work. In fuch a rudimental Effay, it was not to be expected that much time would be confumed upon the hiftory of thefe fubjects during the first ages of the world. The difcuffion is therefore not improperly confined by Dr. C. to a small compafs. But we are compelled to remark, that the information contained in this petty space, of little more than a fingle page, is extremely inaccurate. Dr. C. obferves, that "in the fimplicity" not the beft felected term when speaking of their vices," of the early ages of the world, not only concubinage, but the most cafual and temporary connexions were openly permitted without cenfure, as appears by the curious picture of primitive life, which is difplayed in the Book of Genetis, and particularly by the ftories of Tamar, and the daughters of Lot, and it seems that little or no distinction was made between bastards and legitimate children." Never were infiances chofen more unfortunately than those cited by Dr. C. to prove his pofition. The ftory of Tamar, inftead of fhowing that the moft cafual and temporary connections were openly permitted without cenfure, establishes, to demonftration, that they were esteemed at that period to be highly difgraceful to the man, and criminal in the woman. While Judah fuppofes that Tamar is an harlot, he neither ventures to her himself with the promised prefent of a kid, nor entrusts it to the diligence of a fervant. The fecret commiffion is confided to his intimate friend. So much does he fear the difgrace incident to the discovery of his licentious intercoufe, that when he hears that the has departed with his fignet, his bracelets, and his ftaff, he affigns this as the reafon why the fhall be permitted to return them, and that no further fearch be made for her. "Let her take it, left we be ashamed," or, as it is literally interpreted in the marginal note, " become at contempt,' As As to Tamar, fo far was her conduct from being confidered as a flight irregularity, fcarcely requiring reprehenfion, that it is exprefsly declared to be punithable with death. When Judah is told that his daughter-in-law "hath played the harlot, and alfo that the is with child by whoredom," he fays, "bring her forth and let her be burnt ;" and it is not until the is actually brought forth to have the fentence put in execution, that the difcovery is made. Her fubfequent exemption from punishment depended upon the particular fituation of the family, and the obligation of the father to provide an hufband for her in his family, his eldest fon, who had weddled her, having died without iffue. It appears further, that the children born of that intercourse were confidered as legitimate, and one of them is enumerated among the progenitors of David, and in the pedigree of our bleffed Saviour himself, St. Matthew, c, i, v. 3, St. Luke, c. iii, v. 33. The daughters of Lot neither thought nor acted as if their project was innocent and void of reproach. They do not juftify it as a customary practice of the time in which they lived, although they had recently inhabited a moft wicked and depraved city. They excufe it upon the plea of neceffity, as living fecluded from the rest of mankind. So far are they from conceiving that their father would accede to their incestuous wishes, that they refolve to intoxicate him, in order to accomplish their purpose; and it is exprefsly ftated, in the old man's exculpation, that he neither perceived "when they lay down, nor when they arofe." Not lefs unhappy is the example which is cited to prove, that there was then little or no distinction made between baftards and legitimate children, In a more illuftrious inftance," fays Dr. Croke," the pofterity of Jacob's concubines partook of the patriarch's bleffing, and were admitted equally with the defcendants of his wives to fhare in the divifion of the promised land." If Dr. C. had confulted the 30th chap. of Genefis, he must have feen, that the offspring of Bilhah and Zilpah, whom he calls concubines, were legitimate children. The very ceremony of adoption is defcribed, by which their offspring were to be deemed, not the children of the actual mother, but of the barren wife; by whofe defire and advice the intercourse was brought about. Thus Rachel obferves to Jacob, v. 3. Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her, and the fhall bear upon my knees, that I may alfo have children by her." And fo far is Bilhah from deferving the appellation of concubine, with which Dr. C. difhonours her, that it is exprefsly faid, in the the enfuing verfe, "that the," i. e. Rachel, "gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife." Neither is the author more fuccefsful in fome of the inftances which he takes from the heroic times of ancient Greece. That of Hercules does not much affift him. It is not a juft inference, that illegitimate children were held in equal refpect with thofe born in wedlock, because the birth of an hero is referred to the licentious interference of a deity. The artificial luftre of a divine genealogy conferred upon those who have achieved mighty actions, is in general to be afcribed to man's attachment to the wonderful, and his inclination to attribute uncommon excellence to an extraordinary cause. The moft that could be inferred from the fact is, that the people of thofe dark and fuperftitious ages confidered it as more honourable to be the illegitimate offspring of a god, than the lawful progeny of a mortal. When the fiction did not then originate in the gratitude and admiration. of mankind, but from an actual wish to conceal illegitimacy, the conclusion is ftrong, that a diftinction was ufually made in favour of legitimate birth. A tale was neceffary to purify the hero's lineage from imputed difgrace, and to rescue his mother from the reproach of incontinence. But, independent of thefe general objections, the example of Hercules is peculiarly unfavourable. Upon the death of his putative father, Euryftheus proceeded to the throne of Argos, and the expulfion of his defcendants, the Heraclidæ, from the Peloponefus, conftitutes one of the most memorable epochs in the history and chronology of Greece. Dr. C. might have found a more appropriate inftance in Homer, which must have awakened him to a belief, that great preference was given to legitimate children, at least in the time of the poet, and, according to his opinion, in that of the Trojan war. In the 8th Book of the Iliad, v. 281, Agamemnon, when he is inciting Teucer to distinguifh himself in the battle, efteems it as a peculiar favour shown to the fkilful archer, by his father Telamon, that he brought him. up in his house, vodov Tep love; notwithstanding his being a baftard. The manners attributed by Dr. C. to the heroic times of Greece, muft, if this war did exift, have belonged to a period much more remote; to ages, of whofe habits tradition has preferved no traces, and in defcribing which conjecture may riot to extravagance, without fear of refutation; to the period exifting only in the imagination of poets, when men were deftitute of laws and language, or a fenfe of the advantages of focial life. The very inftitution of wedlock feems to infer a preference to be given to the iffue born under it. It is not probable, that where priority is fecured to the wife, it should not be be equally extended to her children. But there lurks even yet behind a more extraordinary mistake. Where, in the name of every claflical rudiment, did Mr. C. learn, that Achilles was reputed a bastard by his countrymen ? There is no marriage more famous, in the legends of antiquity, than that of Peleus and Thetis. Homer introduces the mother of the hero, making it the fubject of most bitter complaint against Jupiter, that he gave her in marriage to a mortal hufband, much againft her inclination. Τὸν δ ̓ ἐμέιβετ ̓ ἔπειτα Θέτις καταδακρυχέεσα Πολλά μάλ ἐκ ἐθέλεσα· ὁ μὲν δὴ γήραϊ λυγρῷ Iliad, lib. Σ, 428. Achilles himself is further represented by the poet, relating that the arms, which Hector had taken from the body of Patroclus, were the gift of the gods to his father on his wedding day. τεύχεα δ' Εκίως Iliad Σ, 82. Δηώσας ἀπέδυσε πελώρια, θαῦμα ιδέσθαι, Καλά, τὰ μὲν Πηλήϊ θεοὶ δόσαν, ἀγλάα δῶρα, *Ημαι τῶ, ὅτε Γε βροτε ἀνέρα ἔμβαλον ἐυνῇ. Ως ὄφελες (ὺ μὲν αὖθι μετ ̓ ἀθανάτης ἁλλησι Ναίεν, Πελὲς δὲ θνητὴν ἀγαγέσθαι ἀκοίτιν. One of the most familiar anecdotes in the Heathen mythology is reprefented as having happened at the celebration of thefe nuptials. The marriage which gave birth to the hero, occafioned alfo a quarrel that covered him with glory, and proved the cause of his immature death. The celebrated conteft between the rival goddeffes, for pre-eminence in beauty, originated from the golden apple flung among the deities affembled at this feftival, with an infcription, that it fhould be given to. the fairet. This, as every fchool-boy knows, produced the fatal judgment of Paris at Mount Ida, which was revenged by the utter deftruction of his country. In confidering his fubject, fo far as it comprehends the laws of Greece, Dr. C. is by no means fatisfactory. He has no reference to that very useful work, the Archæologia Græca of Arch Archbishop Potter. Upon a comparison between the informa tion contained in the two Books on this fubject, there feems a fimilarity, not only of ideas, but also in the manner of connecting them together, which might juftify a fufpicion, that Dr. C. owes greater obligations to that work than he has chofen. to acknowledge. What may chiefly ferve to refcue him from the imputation is, that fome of its moft valuable materials are omitted in the Effay. There is an opinion ftated in the Archæologia, lib. 4. chap. ii. to which he ought to have attended: the Bishop ftates, that the mother's confent, as well as the father's, was neceffary to a marriage. The notion feems by no means correct; and we wonder that Dr. C. fhould pass it by unnoticed, when he has remarked upon the rule of the civil law in this particular, p. 89 of his Effay. But he has neither informed us whether a marriage was valid by the Athenian law, though the confent of the parent was withheld, or, if confent was neceffary during a certain age, at what period it used to be fo. Yet thefe points were more immediately connected with the fubject-matter of the cafe which he profeffes to have given rife to his Effay, than many which he has difcuffed more at large. If any one feels inclined to commend fuch diligence, it must be in the spirit of Demipho in the play, who, after a grave confultation with his three lawyers, on a fimilar queftion, exclaims, Feciftis probe: Incertior fum multò quàm dudum. The limits to which we must of neceffity restrict our ac count of all works of this fize and importance, must prevent us from examining the obfervations of Dr. C. and tracing him to his authorities with equal minutenefs through the remainder of his Effay. His outline of the Roman law feems executed with fufficient accuracy, and is calculated to give the general reader all that knowledge which he ufually covets to acquire. It is indeed to be withed, that he had treated in a more particular manner of the laws of England, which regu late the inftitution of marriage, and the rights of children. The reader will naturally and reafonably expect more upon that head than a dry communication: "that the comparison (i. e. of England) with other laws will be beft made by confulting the correfponding heads in the abridgments and digefts," accompanied with a partial enumeration of a few difinctions. This would have enabled Dr. C. to justify the preference which he has properly given to the conftitutions of our own law, above thofe with which he has compared them, upon grounds more fatisfactory than he has now taken. (To be concluded in our next.) Авт, |