Leigh, Crit. Sac. obferves this, as occurring every where in the facred writings of the New Teftament-uxoribus fui idioi avopes tribuuntur paffim in facris. Leigh fub voc. idios. Eph. v. 24, 25. Tois idios avdpáow, their own husbands—τὰς γυνᾶικας ἑαυτῶν, your wives ;and ver. 28, Tas šauтwv yuvamas, their wivesThν Eauт8 yuvama, his wife.-Again, Col. iii. 18, 19. Tõis idious àvdpaσi-propriis viris-their OWN husbands τὰς γυναικας, your wives (ἑαυτῶν being understood). St. Peter, who was the apoftle of the circumcifion, uses the fame mode of expreffion, 1 Pet. iii. 1. Let the wives be Subject, TOIS idios dvdpάow-propriis viris-to their own husbands. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 5. The word idios has certainly an emphatical meaning wherever we find it, therefore muft have its emphasis in this place, as well as in others. It seems to denote such an appropriation of the husband to the wife, as that the could not have, or go to any other man. This idea may be illuftrated from Rom. xiv. 4. Who art thou that judgest another man's fer

deration, the word Idos denotes that the man is the woman's husband, in such a sense as no other man is or can be. CHRIST, John v. 18, is faid to call GOD IS lov Пarepa-His own proper father:-this must be in a sense as exclufive of all other beings, as the idios avap is exclusive of all other men.

So I Cor. xv. 38. God giveth it a body as it pleafeth Him, and to every feed-To idov owμa-his own body, i. e. fo peculiarly appropriated to that fort of grain that it can pafs into no other. Thus hath GOD given to every WIFE-τον ίδιον ανδρα her own- · peculiar -appropriated HUSBAND-fo that, while he liveth (Rom. vii. 3.) fhe can pass to no other man.

want? Tw idiw nupiw-proprio domino-to his OWN mafter he ftandeth or falleth. Here idios is used as an epithet to the master with respect to the fervant (as 1 Tim. vi. I. Tit. ii. 9.) and must denote such an appropriation of the master to the fervant, as to exempt the fervant from the authority, power, controul, command, or service of any other, but that of his own (188) mafter; for, as was obferved before, no man can serve two masters, though the mafter may have many fervants; nor is any of his fervants the lefs fo, because he has others. So here, I Cor. vii. 2. and the other paffages referred to, the husband is ftyled idov, to denote, that no other man can have any power, propriety, or interest whatsoever in the fociety of the wife, but the idios asup, the proper and appropriated, peculiar husband. I own that I can account for this difference of expreffion in no other way, than by fuppofing the fcripture confiftent with itself, and that the diftinction so evident in the Old Teftament was to be preserved throughout the New Testament-that though a man might have more than one wife, yet a woman could have but one husband; had the more, neither could be ftyled properly idios avnp, for he would be as much the property of one as of the other, or rather be in common between, or among them, according to their number; whereas, doubtlefs, though a man has two wives, each may be properly styled yúv čautõu—*his wife.

* The propriety of this can hardly be difputed, when we reflect that it is the conftant language of the Old Teftament.

No

pro

No man may be faid to have an exclufive property in, or appropriation of himself to, a perfon or thing, which others may share with him therefore the word idics is peculiarly adapted to denote the exclufive appropriation of the husband to the wife to be, like the exclufive appropriation of the mafter to the fervant, fuch a one as gives to him alone, exclufive of all others, the whole attention, obedience, and fervice of the party, fo long as the relation which requires thefe fhall continue. Whereas you, wife, is never found with the exclufive idics, but coupled only with the noun poffeffive ἑαυτῶ. To illuftrate what has been faid, we may obferve as to Jacob and his two wives, Leah and Rachel, Rachel as well as Leah, with refpect to Jacob, was yuvŋ έauт8, ἑαυτο, his wife (Gen. xxx. 26. xxxi. 50.) and he the idios avnp, the busband, exclufively of all other men, appropriated to both, infomuch that neither could have gone to any other man, without being an adulterefs: but we no where find Jacob, nor any other polygamist, ftigmatized as an adulterer or fornicator, on account of his having two wives. That such a custom as Plutarch fhews to have originated from the famous lawgiver of Sparta, ihould reach Corinth, which stood at the edge of Peloponnefus, is not at all furprizing, when we find it had even reached to * Rome. Numa Pompilius,

the

* In fhort, this cuftam of lending wives to each other was so common among the Gentiles, that it is inconceivable fuch a practice fhould not be among the Corinthians.

Cafar

the famous fucceffor of Romulus, anno 715 before Christ, established this horrid practice among the Romans. He was a great reformer of religion, and improver of the laws, in which he is faid "to have had a particular

66

regard to the preferving of modesty in wo66 men. Nevertheless, he permitted huf"bands to lend their wives, after they had "had children by them. This was a kind "of temporary divorce, in favour of those "men whose wives were barren; but the "husbands ftill continued to have the fame << power over them, and could call them "home, or lend them to others, as they pleased." Ant. Univ. Hift. vol. xi.

p. 298.

That this practice long continued at Rome, there can be little doubt; for, about 700 years afterwards, we find, tut ato of Utica actually gave his wife Marcia to his friend Hortenfius, and himself aflifted at the wedding.

The words of the text clearly apply to the forbidding fo monftrous a breach of the law of marriage, and apply equally to polygamy as to monogamy. Abigail and Ahinoam

Gefar tells us of the antient Britons" Ten or twelve "of them have wives in common amongst them-but 66 every woman's children are accounted his, who first "poffeffed her when a virgin; fo many men, having "each of them married his proper wife, afterwards "agreed upon that friendly way of poffeffing them." De B. G. lib. v. Much more to the fame purpose may be found in Puffendorf, book vi. c. 1. § 15.

were,

were, with refpect to David, each of them yun Eauт8, his wife-for the Holy Ghost faith, 1 Sam. xxv. 43. they were both of them his wives : and therefore he was the ίδιος άνηρ, the peculiar, proper, appropriated husband to both. If DAVID had taken another man's wife, or either of them had been lent out or given to another man, this would have fallen directly under the interdict of the apostle, who here fays no more than is exactly confonant with the law of Mofes.

Saying that this text forbids polygamy, becaufe the word wife is in the fingular number, is mere trifling; as much fo, as contending that a man is to love but one* neighbour, because it is faid, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; not neighbours; or that he fhall keep but one fervant, because it is said,

*We meet with numberlefs paffages in the fcripture, where the fingular is not to be understood exclufively, that is, fo as not to include the plural, but diftributively fo as to include it. Witness the paffages referred to, as alfo the fourth commandment- Thou fhalt do no "manner of work, thou nor thy fon, nor thy daughter, "nor thy man-ferant, nor thy maid-fervant, nor the Stranger that is within thy gates." Are we to gather from hence, that a man is to have but one fon, one daughter, one man-fervant, one maid-fervant, &c.? So the ninth commandment-" Thou shalt not bear false wit"ness against thy neighbour."-Endless are the examples of this fort, which might be brought, to fhew that, in many inftances, the fingular number cannot be confined to an exclufive fenfe, but muft, of neceffity, be extended diftributively, so as to include many, and indeed all of the kind which is fpoken of: and in this sense the word wife must be understood, 1 Cor. vii. 2, in order to make the text harmonize with the Old Testament.

Rom.