only in this place, but in * many others. Εph. ν. 24, 25. τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, their own bu/bands-τὰς γυναικας ἑαυτῶν, your wives; and ver. 28, Tas έautuv yuvāmas, their wives-TV ixuт8 yuvama, his wife.Again, Col. iii. 18, 19. τοις ἰδίοις ανδρασιν -propriis viris-their own husbandsτὰς γυναικας, your wives (ἑαυτῶν being understood). St. Peter, who was the apof tle of the circumcifion, ufes the fame mode of expreffion, 1 Pet. iii. 1. Let the wives be fubject, Tois idios dvdpdow-propriis viris -to their own husbands. The word idios has certainly an emphatical meaning wherever we find it, therefore must have its emphafis in this place, as well as in others. It feems to denote fuch 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

*Rom. viii. 32. we meet with a very material proof of the emphatical import of the word 'Ios, to denote CHRIST's being Gon's own proper fon, in fuch a fenfe as no creature is or can be. So, in the paffage under confideration, the word los denotes that the man is the woman's husband, in fuch a fenfe as no other man is or can be. CHRIST, John v. 18, is faid to call GOD Idrov Tepa-His own proper Father :-this must be in a fenfe as exclufive of all other beings, as the idios ayup is exclufive of all other men.

another

another man's fervant? Tidis nupiw-proprio domino-to his own mafter he ftandeth or falleth. Here dos is used as an epithet. to the mafter with refpect to the fervant (as 1 Tim. vi. 1. Tit. ii. 9.) and muft denote fuch an appropriation of the master to the fervant, as to exempt the fervant, from the authority, power, controul, command, or fervice of any other, but that of his own (Ids) mafter; for, as was obferved before, no man can ferve two mafters, though the master may have many. fervants; nor is any of his fervants the lefs fo, becaufse he has others. So here, 1 Cor. vii. 2. and the other paffages re-› ferred to, the husband is ftyled istov, to denote that no other man can have any power, propriety, or interest whatsoever in the fociety of the wife, but the idios avnp, the proper and appropriated hufband. 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 fo evident in the Old Teftament, was to be preferved throughout the New Teftament-that though a man might have more than one wife, yet a woman could have but one husband; had the more, neither could be styled properly ids àvyp. for the would be as much the property of

cf

one as of the other, or rather be in common between, or amongst them, according to their number; whereas, doubtless, though a man has two wives, each may be properly styled yú iaurĞU-* bis wife. 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 idios 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 these shall continue. Whereas yuvy, wife, is never found with the exclufive idios, but coupled only with the pronoun poffeffive ἑαυτό. 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 respect to Jacob, was youn sauT8, his wife (Gen. xxx. 26. xxxi. 50.) and he the idios ȧvup, the husband, exclufively of all other men,

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

appropriated

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 fuch a cuftom as Plutarch fhews to have originated from the famous lawgiver of Sparta, fhould reach Corinth, which stood at the edge of Peloponnefus, is not at all furprizing, when we find it had even reached to Rome. Cato of Utica actually gave his wife Marcia to his friend Hortenfius, and himself affifted 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 were, with refpect to David, each of them yuvn Eaut8, his ́wife-for the

* In fhort, this cuftom of lending wives to each other was fo common among the Gentiles, that it is inconceivable fuch a practice fhould not be among the Corinthians. Cæfar tells us of the antient Britains-" Ten or twelve of them have wives in com66 mon amongst them-but every woman's children 66 are accounted his, who firit poffeffed her when a virgin; fo many men, having each of them mar"ried his proper wife, afterwards agreed upon that "friendly way of poffeffing them." De B. G. lib. v. Much more to the fame purpofe may be found in Puffendorf, book vi. c. 1. § 15.

46

Holy

1

Holy Ghost faith, 1 Sam. xxv. 43. they were both of them his wives: and therefore he was the idios dvp, 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 Moses.

Saying that this text forbids polygamy, because 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

* 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 shalt do no manner of work, thou nor thy fon, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-fervant, 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 manfervant, one maid-fervant, &c.? So the ninth commandment-" Thou shalt not bear false wit

nefs against thy neighbour."-Endlefs 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, fo as to include many, and indeed all of the kind which is fpoken of: and in this fenfe the word wife must be understood, Cor. vii. 2, in order to make the text harmonize with the Old Teftament.

Shalt