As a fifth proposition; Dr. Channing says—“_I shall consider the
argument which the Scriptures are thought to furnish in favour of
slavery._”
In the course of these studies, we have often had occasion to refer to
the Scripture in our support. We have shown that even the Decalogue gave
rules in regulation of the treatment of slaves; that commands from the
mouth of God himself were delivered to Abraham concerning his slaves;
that the Almighty from Sinai delivered to Moses laws, directing him whom
they might have as slaves,—slaves forever, and to be inherited by their
children after them; rules directing the government and treatment of
slaves, who had become such under different circumstances. We have
adverted to the spirit of prophecy on the subject of the providence of
God touching the matter, to the illustrations of our Saviour, and the
lessons of the apostles. Others have done the same before us. But Dr.
Channing says, page 99—“In this age of the world, and amid the light
which has been thrown on the true interpretation of the Scriptures, such
reasoning hardly deserves notice.”
Had Tom Paine been an abolitionist, he could scarcely have said more! He
continues—“A few words only will be offered in reply. This reasoning
proves too much. If usages sanctioned in the Old Testament, and not
forbidden in the New, are right, then our moral code will undergo a sad
deterioration. Polygamy was allowed to the Israelites, was the practice
of the holiest men, and was common and licensed in the age of the
apostles. * * * Why may not Scripture be used to stock our houses with
wives as well as slaves.”
We know not what new light has come to this age of the world, enabling
it to interpret the Scriptures more accurately than is afforded by the
language of the Scriptures themselves. Whatever it may be, we shall not
deprive Dr. Channing nor his disciples of its entire benefit, by the
appropriation of its use to ourselves; and therefore we shall proceed to
examine his position, by interpreting the Scriptures in the
old-fashioned way—understanding them to mean what they say.
The first instance the idea is brought to view which we express by the
term _wife_, is found in _Gen._ ii. 20 “There was not found a _help
meet_ for him.” The original is לֹֽא־מָצָ֥א עֵ֖זֶר בְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ _not
found_, _discovered_, _help, aid, or assistance_, _flowing_,
_proceeding_, _at_, _to_, or _for him_. Let it be noticed that the idea
is in the singular. The word _ishsha_, used to mean _one woman_, or
_wife_, is so distinctly singular, that it sometimes demands to be
translated by the word _one_, as we shall hereafter find.
Same chapter, verse 22: “Made he a _woman_,” אִשָׁ֑ה _ishsha_, _woman_,
_wife_.
Ver. 23: “Shall be called _woman_,” אִשָּ֔ה _ishsha_, _woman_, _wife_.
Ver. 24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
cleave unto his wife,” אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ _ishto_, _his wife_, _his woman_, “and
they shall be one flesh.”
Ver. 25: “The man and his wife,” אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ _ishto_, _wife_, _woman_.
These terms are all in the singular number. We propose for
consideration, how far these passages are to be understood as a law and
rule of action among men.
_Gen._ vii. 7: “And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his
sons’ wives with him, into the ark.”
Ver. 9: “There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and
female, as God had commanded Noah.”
We propose also for consideration, how far these passages are an
indication of the law of God, and his providence, as bearing on
polygamy.
_Exod._ xx. 17 (18th ver. of the Hebrew text): “Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour’s _wife_,” אֵ֣שֶׁת, _esheth_, in the construct state, showing
that she was appropriated to the neighbour in the singular number. If
the passage had read, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s _wives_, or
any of them, the interpretation must have been quite different.
So also _Deut._ v. 21: “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s
_wife_,” אֵ֣שֶׁת, _esheth_.
The twenty-second chapter of Deuteronomy relates the law concerning a
portion of the relations incident to a married state; but we find the
idea always advanced in the singular number. There was no direction
concerning his _wives_. Had the decalogue announced, “Thou shalt have
but one wife,” the language of these explanations and directions, to be
in unison therewith, need not have been changed.
The subject is continued through the first five verses of the
twenty-fourth chapter, but we find the idea _wife_ still expressed in
the same careful language, conveying the idea, as appropriated to one
man, in the person of one female only. The term “new wife,” here used,
does not imply that she is an addition to others in like condition, but
that her condition of being a wife is _new_, as is most clearly shown by
the word חֲדָשָׁ֔ה _hadasha_, from which it is translated. The sentiment
or condition explained in this passage is illustrated by our Saviour in
_Luke_ xiv. 20: “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot
come,”—that is, until the expiration of the year,—having reference to
this very passage in Deuteronomy for authority. But this passage is made
very plain by a direct command of God: see _Deut._ xx. 7: “And what man
is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? Let him go
and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man
take her.”
But the institution of marriage was established, before the fall of man,
by the appropriation of one woman to one man. Now, that this fact, this
example, stands as a command, is clear from the words of Jesus Christ,
in _Matt._ xix. 4, 5: “And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that
he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and
said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall
cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they
are no more twain, but one flesh.”
We trust, “at this age of the world,” there is a sufficiency of light,
among even the most unlearned of us, whereby we shall be enabled to
interpret these scriptures, not to license polygamy, but to
discountenance and forbid it, by showing that they teach a contrary
doctrine. But, perhaps, the explanation is more decided in _Mark_ x.
8–11: And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain,
but one flesh.” “And he saith unto them, whoever shall put away his
wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”
Surely, if a man commit adultery by marrying the second when he has
turned off the previous, it may be a stronger case of adultery to marry
a second wife _without turning off the first one_!
We think St. Paul interprets the Scriptures in the old-fashioned way,
_Eph._ v. 31: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
and shall be joined unto his wife, and they _two_ shall be _one flesh_.”
See 1 _Cor._ vi. 16–18: “What! know ye not that he which is joined to a
harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. Flee
fornication.” And further, the deductions that St. Paul made from these
teachings are plainly drawn out in his lessons to Timothy: “If a man
desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must
be blameless, the husband of one wife.” “Let the deacons be the husbands
of one wife.” 1 _Tim._ iii. 1, 2, 12.
“These things command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth; but be
thou an example of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity,
in faith, in purity.” 1 _Tim._ iv. 11, 12.
And we now beg to inquire whether this lesson to Timothy is not founded
upon the law as delivered to Moses? “And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak
unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them:” * * * “They
shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God.” *
* * “They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither
shall they take a woman put away from her husband.” * * * “And _he that
is_ the high priest among his brethren * * * shall take a wife in her
virginity.” “A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or a harlot,
these he shall not take; but he shall take a virgin of his own people to
wife.” “Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the
Lord do sanctify him.” _Lev._ xxi. 1, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15.
We doubt not it will be conceded that the teachings of the Bible are,
that polygamy includes the crime of adultery and fornication, both of
which have a tendency towards a general promiscuous intercourse. In
addition to the express commands as to the views thus involved, to our
mind there are specifications on the subject equally decisive. “If any
man take a wife * * * and give occasion of speech against her, * * *
then shall the father of the damsel and her mother take and bring forth
the tokens; * * * and the damsel’s father shall say, * * * and, lo, he
hath given occasion of speech against her. * * * And the elders of the
city shall take that man and chastise him; and they shall amerce him in
a hundred shekels of silver, * * * and she shall be his wife; he may not
put her away all his days.” “But if this thing is true, and the tokens
of her virginity be not found for the damsel; then they shall bring out
the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of the city
shall stone her with stones that she die.” * * * “If a man be found
lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them
die.” * * * “If a damsel _that is_ a virgin be betrothed unto a husband,
and a man find her in the city and lie with her; then ye shall bring
them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with
stones that they die.” * * * “But if a man find a betrothed damsel in
the field, and the man force her and lie with her; then the man only
that lay with her shall die.” * * * “If a man find a damsel that is a
virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her,
and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the
damsel’s father fifty _shekels_ of silver, and she shall be his wife: *
* * he may not put her away all his days.” _Deut._ xxii. 13–25, 28, 29.
“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even unto
his tenth generation.” _Idem_, xxiii. 2.
“These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses between a man and
his wife, between the father and his daughter, _being yet_ in her youth
in her father’s house.” _Num._ xxx. 16.
“When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, *
* * and shalt say, I will set a king over me,” &c. * * * “But he shall
not,” &c. * * * “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his
heart turn not away.” _Deut._ xvii. 14–17.
The inferences to be drawn from a review of these statutes, in
opposition to polygamy, we deem of easy deduction. We leave them for the
consideration of those who shall examine the subject.
We deem it extraordinary that, “at this age of the world,” we should
find men who seem to think that because Moses had a statute which, under
certain circumstances, authorized husbands to divorce their wives, that
thereby he permitted polygamy.
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that
she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some _uncleanness_
in her,” (it is the same word elsewhere translated _nakedness_,) “then
let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and
send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house,
she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate
her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and
sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took
her to be his wife; her former husband which sent her away may not take
her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for this is
abomination before the Lord.” _Deut._ xxiv. 1–4.
Is there any thing here that favours polygamy? Such was the law. But in
the original, there is a term used which became the subject of
discussion among the Jews, perhaps shortly after its promulgation. This
term, in our translation “uncleanness,” some understand to mean such
moral or physical defects as rendered her marriage highly improper or a
nullity; others understand it to mean, or rather to extend to and
embrace, all dislike on the part of the husband whereby he became
desirous to be separated from her.
This interpretation seemed most conducive to the power of the husband,
and, therefore, probably had the most advocates; and it is said that the
Jewish rulers so suffered it to be understood, and that even Moses, as a
man, suffered it; noticing that where the wife became greatly _hated_ by
the husband, she was extremely liable to abuse, unless this law was so
explained as to permit a divorce. The Jews kept up the dispute about
this matter down to the days of our Saviour; when the Pharisees, with
the view to place before him a difficult question, and one that might
entangle him, if answered adverse to the popular idea, presented it to
him, as related in _Matt._ xix. He promptly decides the question,
whereupon they say—
“Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put
her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your
hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it
was not so. And I say unto you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and
whoever marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery.” _Matt._
xix. 7, 8, 9.
Mark describes this interview thus: “And the Pharisees came to him, and
asked him, saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife, tempting
him? And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And
they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her
away. Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart
he wrote you this precept: but from the beginning of the creation, God
made them male and female.” _Mark_ x. 2–6.
But do these answers, either way, favour polygamy? Is it not clear that
the law was in opposition to it?
It is true, the Jews, corrupted by the neighbouring nations who fell
into it, practised the habit to a great extent; and so they did idolatry
and many other sins. But was _idolatry allowed to the Israelites_?
What truth can there be in the assertion that they were _allowed_ a
thing, in the practice of which they had to trample their laws under
foot? And, under the statement of the facts, what truth is there in the
assertion that “polygamy was licensed in the age of the apostles?”
If such was “the practice of the holiest men,” it proves nothing except
that the holiest men were in the practice of breaking the law.
It is true that a looseness of adjudication on the subject of divorce
grew up, perhaps even from the time of Moses, among the Jews, on account
of the dispute about the interpretation of the law. But upon the
supposition that the law was correctly interpreted by those who
advocated the greatest laxity, which Jesus Christ sufficiently
condemned, yet there is found nothing favouring polygamy in it; for even
the loosest interpretation supposed a divorce necessary. The dispute was
not about polygamy; but about what predicates rendered a divorce legal.
In the books of the Old Testament we find the accounts of many crimes
that were committed in those olden days; but can any one be so stupid as
to suppose the law permitted those crimes, because the history of them
has reached us through these books?
If the polygamy of Jacob, rehearsed in these books, teaches the doctrine
that these books permitted polygamy,—then, because these books relate
the history of the murder of Abel, it must be said that these books
permit murder? And because, in these books, we have the account of the
disobedience of Adam and Eve, that therefore disobedience to the command
of God is legalized also!
Before we can say that polygamy is countenanced by the Old Testament as
well as slavery, we must find some special law to that effect. And some
of the advocates of abolition, striving to make a parallel between
slavery and polygamy, pretend they have done so in _Lev._ xviii. 18:
“Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex _her_, to uncover
her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime.”
These advocates interpret this law to permit a man to marry two wives or
more, so that no two of them are sisters; and because few take the
trouble to contradict them, they seem to think their interpretation to
be true, and urge it as such.
It was clear the law permitted no additional wife, so as to allow two or
more wives, unless, by the example of Jacob, the law was ameliorated.
His example was the taking of sisters; and if the original be correctly
translated, his example is condemned by the law cited. We surely fail to
see how forbidding polygamy as to sisters, permits it as to others.
Louisiana by law forbids any free white person being joined in marriage
to a person of colour. If that State, in addition, forbids free white
persons being married to slaves, does it repeal the law as to persons of
colour?
But to the Hebrew scholar we propose a small error in the translation of
this passage. The preceding twelve verses treat on the subject of whom
it is forbidden to marry on the account of consanguinity, the last of
which names the grand-daughter of a previous wife, declaring such act to
be wicked, and closes the list of objections on account of
consanguinity, unless such list be extended by the passage under review;
for the succeeding sentence is a prohibition of all females who may be
unclean; consanguinity is no more mentioned; yet these prohibitions
continue to the 23d verse; and it is to be noticed that each prohibition
succeeding the wife’s grand-daughter commences with a וְ (_vav with
sheva_), whereas not one on the ground of consanguinity is thus
introduced; illustrating the fact that each prohibition, succeeding the
wife’s grand-daughter, is founded upon new and distinct causes.
The widow of a deceased husband who had left no issue was permitted to
marry his brother; it was even made a duty. Therefore, by parity of
reason, there could be no objection, on the account of consanguinity,
for the husband of a deceased wife to marry her sister.
It is clear then that the person whom this clause of the law forbids to
marry, is some person other than a deceased wife’s sister.
We propose for consideration, as nearly literal as may be, to express
the idea conveyed—_Thou shalt not take one wife to another, to be
enemies, or to be exiles, the shame of thy bed-chamber through life_.
The doctrine it inculcates is, if a man has two wives, he must either
live in the midst of their rivalry and enmity, or exile one or both;
either of which is disgrace. The reading may be varied; but let the
Hebrew scholar compare the first three words of the original with
_Exod._ xxvi. 3, where they twice occur, and also with the 6th and 17th
verses of the same chapter, in each of which they are also found. Let
him notice that, in the passage before us, in the word translated
_sister_, the _vav_, under _holem_, is omitted; whereas such is not the
case in the preceding instances, where the word is correctly translated
to express a term of consanguinity; and we think he will abandon the
idea that אֲחֹתָהּ _ahotha_, in the passage before us, means _sister_;
and if not, the sentence stands a clear, indisputable, and general
condemnation of polygamy.
* * * * *
Can Dr. Channing’s disciples point out to us a law _allowing_ polygamy
in as direct terms as the following would have done, substituting the
word _wives_ for _slaves_?
“Thy _wives_ which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are
round about you: of them shall ye buy _wives_.” “Moreover, of the
children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy
_wives_”—“and of their families that are with you, which they beget in
your land, and they shall be your _wives_.” “And ye shall take them as
_wives_ for your children after you, and they shall have them for
_wives_”—“they shall be your _wives_ for ever.” Compare _Lev._ xxv. 44,
46.
Until they can do so, until they shall do so, we shall urge their not
doing it as one reason why the Scripture “cannot be used to stock our
houses with _wives_ as well as with slaves.”
------------------