jecture, the Apoftle was engaged in the decifion of, in the text before us. "Let every man keep his wife to himself, and not difpofe of her to another." This is our Author's idea: but as his conjecture was prefumptuous, fo his tranflation is unwarranted. The univerfal acceptation of xw, both in facred and profane writers, is that which is very juftly adopted in the Englifh tranflation of the New Teftament; and fimply meansprefent tenure or poffeffion. When compounded with the prepofition xxTx (as xxTEXw, in Luke viii. 15.), it hath indeed the fignification to which Mr. Madan would apply it in the prefent inftance. But as a proof that it doth not fully express this idea of itself, we would refer the Reader to John xiv. 21. that hath (ewv) my commandments, and keepeth them (Tepwv), he it is that loveth me.'

"He

But the argument of the "greateft pith and moment" is founded on the difference-the emphatic difference between Euт8 and do! Our Author's reafonings on this head are fo curious, and withal fo totally falfe and groundlefs, that we imagine it will afford fome entertainment to our critical Readers by producing them at full length.

'I would obferve, that there is a very remarkable difference of expreffion, which, though preferved in many other tranflations, is not in ours. We render the two claufes just alike, whereas they are not fo in the original, but-înv EAYTOY γυναικα and τον ΙΔΙΟΝ ανδρα .... Let every man have His wife; and every woman her own husband.". -If "all Scripture be given by the infpiration of God," I cannot but think, that there is fome weighty reafon for the difference of expreffion in giving the epithet do to the hufband with respect to the wife, and not to the wife with respect to the hufband. This is obfervable, not only in this place, but in many others (Eph. iv. 24, 25. Col. iii. 18, 19, &c.). The word idios hath certainly an emphatic meaning wherever we find it; therefore must have its emphafis in this place as well as in others. It seems to de

note fuch an appropriation of the husband to the wife, as that she 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 fervant? xup-proprio domino-" to his OWN mafter he ftandeth or falleth." Here idios is used as an epithet to the mafter with respect to the fervant; and muft denote fuch an appropriation of the mafter to the fervant as to exempt the fervant from the authority, power, controul, command or fervice of any other but his own master: for (as was obferved before) 66 no man can serve two masters," though the mafter may have many fervants; nor is any of his fervants the lefs fo, because he hath others. So here, the hufband is ftyled ίδιον.

dov, to denote that no other man can have any power, propriety or interest whatever in the fociety of the wife but the idios avmp -the proper and appropriate husband. I own, that I can account for this difference of expreffion no other way than by fuppofing the Scripture confiftent with itself, and that the dif tinction fo evident in the Old Teftament, was to be preferved throughout the New Teftament, viz. That though a man might› have more than one wife, yet that a woman could have but one husband had the more, neither could be properly idios avmpfor fhe would be as much the property of one as of the other: whereas, doubtlefs, though a man hath two wives, each may be properly ftyled yun sauT8-his wife. Hence yuvn is never found with the exclufive idios, but coupled only with the pronoun poffeffive, εαυτά.

We had no doubt of the fallacy of these reasonings before we particularly examined the New Teftament with respect to the meaning of the words in all the places where they are used. Our examination only confirmed our prior fentiments with regard to their acceptation; and we now pofitively affert, in oppofition, to all that this writer hath laboured to prove, that Exuтos and dos are ufed indifcriminately by the facred writers, to express the fame, precife idea: and, in fupport of this affertion, we refer the learned Reader to the following texts, in the original. Matth. xxv. 14. compared with Rev. x. 7. In the former text, it is faid τους ΙΔΙΟΥΣ δελες ; in the latter-τοις ΕΑΥΤΟΥ Sounas.On the comparison of these two paffages, the Reader δουλας. will inftantly fee the futility of an obfervation quoted above, and which was introduced with folemn parade, to strengthen the main argument in the matter of dics-viz.-" to his owN mafter-T di nupiw-proprio domino-he ftandeth or falleth." (Vid. fupra.)

In fupport of our obfervation, we would alfo beg our Readers to confult the following paffages in the Greek ;-viz. Rom. iv. 19. 1 Cor. vi. 18. and I Cor. vii. 4. and alfo Eph. v. 28. Let him compare 1 Cor. iv. 12. with the fame Epistle, chap. xi. 5. and alfo 2 Theff. ii. 6. with Titus, i. 3. And, as the Author hath affixed such an emphatic meaning-fuch an appropriative fenfe to dios (as if it were effential to and infeparable from avnp), we fhall only refer the Reader to Mark x. 11, 12. and Rev. xxi. 2. for a full confutation of every thing he hath advanced on this head.

We should be forry to grow tiresome in expofing this writer's critical talents; but we cannot conclude this part of the subject without producing one inftance more of his grofs ignorance, or wilful mifreprefentation of Holy Writ-accompanied, as it is, with all the apparent pomp of learning, and all the oftentation of orthodoxy! In Rom. viii. 32. we meet with a very mate

rial proof (fays Mr. Madan) of the emphatical import of the word idios, to denote Chrift's being God's own, proper Son, in fuch a sense as no creature is, or can be. So in the paffage under confideration, the word dies denotes that the man is the woman's husband in such a fenfe as no other man is or can be." It is the peculiar infelicity of this Author to be most posi tive where he hath the greatest reason to be diffident; and to ftep forward with an air of unblushing self-confidence, to poffefs the very ground that will not afford him one inch of folid matter to reft his foot on :-for, in the very chapter where he finds dros united to vios, he might have found ours advanced to the fame dignity, and standing in the fatne connection See Rom. viii. 3. "God fending his own fontov EATTOT VLOV. Blufh, confidence!--for here thou canst have no res fuge even in evafion.

Having driven this Writer from every hiding place to which fophiftry itself could lead him, we leave the facred text, cleared from the rubbish of falfe criticism, to fpeak for itself. "Now

concerning the things whereof ye wrote me; it is good for a man not to touch a woman. NEVERTHELESS, on account of fornications-on account of the great hazards which arife from a fingle life, where the temptations to the breach of chastity, by various acts of lewdness, are in many cafes peculiarly strong and almost irrefiftible-let every man. [exasTos corresponding, not fo much with ap, hufband, as with the preceding relative avpwmos, man, in general] have his own wife, and every woman her own husband." The Apostle adds, ver. 4. "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewife alfo the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife? How can the latter part of this verfe agree with the doctrine of polygamy? Tortured and disfigured by the Jefuitifm of this Author, it ftill oppofes his doctrine. For it plainly afferts, that the claims of the hufband and wife are reciprocal, and in the fame degree. We afk Mr. Madan, how the bufband hath power over the body of his wife? He will anfwer, that this power confifts in the husband's fole and exclufive right to the entire and unalienable poffeffion of his wife. But is it not equally clear, that the power of the wife is precifely of the fame nature, and to the fame extent? Is not the expreffion literally the fame? Can we imagine, that in one cafe it means a limitation, and in the other a latitude, of conjugal duty-that the poffeffion of one is confined to an individual, and that of the other, unlimited by any number whatever? The fuppofition is the moft extravagant and unnatural that abfurdity can devife, tyranny adopt, or lewdnefs vindicate.

Our limits will not permit us to enter into a minute examination of his pofition refpecting the immutability of the Divinelaw. Under this head, we could point out various inftances

of

of palpable mistakes, grofs misreprefentations, and most infignificant criticism. His general idea on this fubject may be collected from the conclufion of the 5th chapter. From all that hath been faid, I do conclude, that Chrift was not a deftroyer of the old law, nor the giver of a new one :—that therefore, the bufinefs of polygamy, and ALL OTHER points, rela tive to the commerce of the fexes, were fully adjusted and fettled by the Divine Law, fubject to no alteration or change whatfoever, by any power in EARTH or HEAVEN. For thus fays the SPIRIT, Ecclef. iii. 14. "Whatfoever God doth, it fhall be forever; nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it."

This general and unqualified pofition, delivered with the folemn tone of an oracle, muft, to be true, admit of no excep tion in any one cafe whatever. Now, we could produce many clear and unequivocal exceptions; but we think one inftance, which we fhall produce, fufficient of itself to demonftrate the fallacy of our Author's reafonings on this fubject.

Adultery was deemed, by the law of Mofes, a capital offence : and it is fo enormous and aggravated a crime in Mr. Madan's eye, that he laments that the feverity of the ancient law fhould. be relaxed, with respect to the punishment of it, in Chriftian countries. He wishes to fee the law, which adjudged death to both parties, revived with all its horrors. How far this would. be confiftent with found policy, or Chriftian lenity, it is not our bufinefs to examine. But fuppofing the tremendous fanctions which guarded the law of marriage and betrathment (both being deemed equally facred) were re-eftablished, we afk this ChriftianLevite, whether he would permit the old exception in favour of the man who only committed adultery with a bond-woman, to ftand in lege Mofaicâ RESTITUTA ?-Would he have that exception fanctioned by our Legislature ? Or, as a Chriftian-as a Chriftian, we fay, would he admit of na diftinction between "Greek or Jew, Scythian, Barbarian, bond or free;" and fo make adultery capital in all cafes, fet the married or betrothed woman be of what country, condition, or complexion whatfoever? In Deut. xxii. 23, 24. it is enacted by a pofitive ordinance, that the defilement of a virgin, betrothed to a husband, fhould be punished with death. "Ye fhall bring them both out unto the gate of the city, and ye fhall ftone them with ftones that they die," &c. But in the cafe of the bond-maid, the feverity of this law was relaxed to both parties; though it would need. fomething more acute than the ingenuity of Mr. Madan, to point out the effential difference, in a moral view, between adul-, tery with a bond-woman and a free. And yet the Law, which, Mr. M. calls immutable, and which had fully adjusted all points. relative to the commerce of the fexes, treats adultery with the

former

former as a matter of private and venial trefpafs; and enacts; that "whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bond maid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her, the fhall be fcourged: they fhall not put her to death, because the was not free. And he fhall bring his trefpafsoffering, &c. and the priest shall make an attonement for him, &c. and the fin which he hath done fhall be forgiven him." See Lev. xix. 20.

Far, very far, be it, either from our defign, or our wishes, to infinuate the flighteft reflection on the Mofaic law. We are thoroughly fatisfied as to its admirable policy:-but furely it cannot be revived, even in matters relative to the commerce of the fexes,' and other affairs of moral, civil, and domeftic life, without overturning the great laws of a Chriftian ftate; and introducing a train of evils, that the gentle fpirit of the Gospel and all its pure principles and motives were defigned to controul and extirpate.

The Author would accufe us of an important defect in the review of his Treatife, did we omit to mention a great modern authority, to which he appeals with fome degree of exultation in favour of polygamy. It is the authority of the celebrated Bishop Burnet, whofe fmall tract on this fubject is depofited in the British Museum; and having been tranfcribed from that copy, is here printed entire, by way of Appendix to the 4th chapter. His arguments indeed are of the moft trite and hacknied nature but there is one obfervation which we cannot allow ourselves to pafs over without taking fome notice of it. "It is to be confeffed (fays the Bifhop), that polygamy was much condemned by the antients, though, I think, I have met with fomething about it that is little noticed:- but of that I can adventure to say nothing, at this diftance from my books and papers." Dr. Delany, in his "Reflections on Polygamy, quotes this very paffage, and obferves, that "this was the beft excufe that could be given for fo rafh a decifion, which it would have been for the honour of the Bishop's reading to have retracted when he returned to his books."- -Mr. Madan is very angry with the learned Dean for this unfair' reflection; and expreffes his forrow that his lordfhip was fo far diftant from his books and papers; otherwife (he concludes) it is moft probable, that the Bishop would have produced fome valuable teftimonies from the ancients, concerning which he hints at, as little noticed.'

What important difcoveries his lordfhip might have made, is a matter quite undetermined, and therefore we have no concern with Mr. Madan's MOST PROBABLE. What hath not been done, muft, in the prefent cafe, pafs for what could not be done and we think Dr. Delany perfectly juftified in his reflections