wife, verfe 4. These words convey, as much as it is poffible for words to do, the wife's exclufive right to the perfon of her husband. As the wife has an exclufive right to the person of her husband, which is here fatisfactorily ascertained, all carnal commerce between him and another woman must be a violation of this right; therefore those whe apply this to a particular cafe, which they fay the Apostle had in view, have only ingeniously shifted the argument. If the argu ment is founded in truth, as it certainly isfor it would be impious even to doubt itit must hold equally strong against polygamous contracts, as against this celebrated doctrine of Plato, Kowas μèr yvväinasthat women WIVES-fhould be common. I need not tell my learned reader that this was a doctrine not only of the schools of the Platonists, but alfo of the Stoics-was attended to by Lycurgus, the famous legiflator, upon patriotic principles and in procefs of time became common, and was likewise most shamefully abused:but as to its first form, it is just as justifiable as polygamy itself. The truth is, Scripture abhors both; and they are both here X 2 upon here condemned :-for that exclufive right, which is truly explanatory of Gen. ii. 24. and which the Apoftle, from his first treating this fubject, feems to have had in his eye, which is made the ground of prohibiting a community of wives, as may be fuppofed from a parity of reason, must prohibit a married man, in all cafes, from all commerce with the female fex, and of course stamp a criminality on polygamy. That able difputant who writ Thelyphthora, is fenfible of the force of this argument, adduced not by human wisdom, but by inspiration :he has done all that he can to explain it away, without effect. Sophiftry may darken this Scripture-paffage, but cannot wholly elude its force; for while men are endued with common-fenfe, and will judge for themselves, it will be with them an irrefragable proof of the unlawfulness of polygamy. The husband's exclufive right to his wife, the reason why she may not be polygamous, is admitted, and may be proved by these words of St. Paul, Ἡ γυνὴ τῇ ἰδία σώματον ἐκ ἐξεσιάζει, ἀλλὰ ὁ ang--the wife bath not power over her own body, but her husband. Can any thing be more more convincing, with refpect to the husband's exclufive right to his wife, than this? It is admitted on all hands to be fatisfactory. It is alledged, as a reafon against polygamy, and very juftly, on the fide of the woman, by those who strenuously contend for it on the fide of the man. I only defire them to mark what follows-ows-SIMILITERequally just in the fame manner :-ö ávùp rẽ idíe, σώματΘ. ἐκ ἐξεσιάζει, ἀλλὰ ἡ γυνὴ—the hufband hath not power over his body, but his wife :-fo then here is exact equality with refpect to exclufive right, which prohibits both, or neither, from the practice of polygamy, and all promifcuous connections. BUT the writers on the other fide of the question tell us, that one expreffion includes exclusive right, and confequently a prohibition of polygamy; but the other does not― though to every body's apprehenfion the expreffions are literally 'the fame. So in effect we are told, that the fame words convey, and do not convey, an idea of exclufive right-prohibit, and do not prohibit, polygamy. This is a difpofition perfectly Gnathonian, prepared to say and X 3 and unfay at pleasure *.-N. B. This is called explaining the Scriptures. It is aftonishing to think of the perverfions and corruptions of Holy Writ that follow, when men are determined to make it speak any thing, and every thing, their fancy fuggefts:—even abandoned pofitions, by these means, have been attempted to be proved by the word of God; but fuch men are lefs pardonable than the rational deift :-nay, better men, hurried away by their prejudices, have fuppofed Scripture to speak the language of their fanciful ideas. Self-importance aiding the error, has not a little confirmed it; and thus circumftanced, we may confider them looking upon Scripture through the mirror of prejudice, and viewing things in a different light to what they appear to the unprejudiced-juft as "all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye." And with refpect to those Scripture-paffages above recited, certain I am, -Poftremo, imperavi egomet mihi, Omnia affentari. Ter. Eun. act. ii. scen. 2. "I've brought myself "To fay, unfay, swear, and forfwear at pleasure." COLEMAN. that 1 that those who pretend to prove the lawfulnefs of polygamy, under the Christian difpenfation, can never have attended to their real meaning. The husband is the unalienable right of his wife, and the wife of her husband; and when this right, which is mutual, is preserved inviolable, then will be avoided rás wopusias—thofe fornications—PROSTITUTIONS—Which the Apostle alludes to, and all others. This explanation, unfriendly indeed to polygamy, gives ftrength to his argument, which otherwife would be a mere nullity.—If I am not right in this, how could the hufband render τὴν οφειλομένην εύνοια the indebted good-will-duty of marriageàpols exactly fimilar to what the wife owes Tw and to her husband-verse 3. Hence we discover this truth, the duty between hufband and wife is equal; which will lead to another truth just as evident, both must be prohibited polygamous contracts, or neither; and that both are prohibited by Scripture, appears by the evidence adduced, I Do not look cepts I have just upon thefe particular prementioned, as merely for X 4 the |