ced fome other matrimonial regulation, which by writers might be mistaken for a law appointing matrimony. However that be, one part of the report is undoubtedly erroneous; for it will be made evident afterward, that in the hunter-state, or even in that of fhepherds, it is impracticable for any woman, by her own induftry alone, to rear a numerous iffue. If this be at all poffible, it can only be in the torrid zone, where people live on fruits and roots, which are produced in plenty with very little labour. Upon that account, Diodorus Siculus is lefs blameable for listening to a report, that the inhabitants of Taprobana, fuppofed to be the island of Ceylon, never marry, but that women are used promifcuously. At the fame time, as there is no fuch custom at present in the Eaft Indies, there is no good ground to believe, that it ever was cuftomary; and the Eaft Indies were fo little known to the ancient Greeks, that their authors cannot be much relied on, in the accounts they give of that diftant region. The authority of Cicero, however respectable in other matters, will not be much regarded upon the prefent queftion, when

the

the paffage above quoted is diffected. How crude must his notions be of the primitive state of man, when he denies to favages any sense of religion or of moral duty! Ought we to rely more on him, when he denies that they have any notion of matrimony? Caefar's account of the ancient Britons approaches the nearest to a loose commerce with women, tho' in the main it is good evidence against Cicero. It was common, he fays, for a number of brothers, or other near relations, to use their wives promifcuoufly. The offspring however were not common; for each man maintained the children that were produced by his own wife. Herodotus reports the fame of the Massagetae.

Laying thus afide the great names of Cicero, Herodotus, and Pliny, the field lies open to a fair and impartial inveftigation. And as the means provided by nature for continuing the race of other animals, may probably throw light upon the oeconomy of nature with respect to man; I begin with that article, which has not engaged the attention of naturalifts for much as it ought to have done. With respect to animals whofe nourishment is grafs,

VOL. II.

B

grafs, pairing would be of no ufe: the female feeds herfelf and her young at the fame inftant; and nothing is left for the male to do. On the other hand, all brute animals whofe young require the nurfing care of both parents, are directed by nature to pair; nor is that connection diffolved till the young can provide for themfelves. Pairing is indifpenfable to wild birds that build on trees; because the male must provide food for his mate while fhe is hatching the eggs. And as they have commonly a numerous iffue, it requires the labour of both to pick up for themselves and for their young. Upon that account it is fo ordered, that the young are fufficiently vigorous to provide for themselves, before a new brood is produced.

food

What I have now opened fuggests the following question, Whether, according to the oeconomy above difplayed, are we to prefume, or not, that man is directed by nature to matrimony? If analogy can be relied on, the affirmative must be held, as there is no other creature in the known world to which pairing is fo neceffary. Man is an animal of long life, and is proportionally

woman,

portionally flow in growing to maturity : he is a helpless being before the age of fifteen or fixteen; and there may be in a family ten or twelve children of different births, before the eldest can shift for itself. Now in the original state of hunting and fishing, which are laborious occupations, and not always fuccefsful, a fuckling her infant, is not able to provide food even for herself, far lefs for ten or twelve voracious children. Matrimony, therefore, or pairing, is fo neceffary to the human race, that it must be natural and instinctive. When fuch ample means are provided for continuing every other animal race, is it fuppofable that the chief race is neglected? Providential care defcends even to vegetable life; every plant bears a profufion of feed; and in order to cover the earth with vegetables, fome feeds have wings, fome are fcattered by means of a spring, and fome are fo light as to be carried about by the wind. Brute animals which do not pair, have grafs and other food in plenty, enabling the female to feed her young without needing any affiftance from the male. But where the young require the nursing care

of

of both parents, pairing is a law of nature. When other races are fo amply provided for, can it be feriously thought, that Providence is lefs attentive to the human race? If men and women were not impelled by nature to matrimony, they would be lefs fitted for continuing the fpecies, than even the humbleft plant. Have we not then reafon fairly to conclude, that matrimony in the human race is an appointment of nature? Can that conclufion be refifted by any one who believes in Providence, and in final causes *.

To confirm this doctrine, let the confequences of a loofe commerce between the fexes be examined. The carnal appetite, when confined to one object, feldom tranfgreffes the bounds of temperance. But were it encouraged to roam, like a bee fucking honey from every flower, every new object would inflame the imagina

* It appears a wife appointment of Providence, that women give over child-bearing at fifty, while they are fill in vigour of mind and body to take care of their offspring. Did the power of procreation continue in women to old age as in men, children would often be left in the wide world, without a mortal to look after them.