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 ṛ (vav with sheva), whereas not one on the ground of consanguinity is thus introduced; illustrating the fact that each prohibition, succeeding the wife's granddaughter, 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 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.”

LESSON X.

DR. CHANNING says, page 101, vol. ii.—

"Slavery, at the age of the apostle, had so penetrated society, was so intimately interwoven with it, and the materials of servile war were so abundant, that a religion, preaching freedom to the slave, would have shaken the social fabric to its foundation, and would have armed against itself the whole power of the state. Paul did not then assail the institution. He satisfied himself with spreading principles which, however slowly, could not but work its destruction. * * * And how, in his circumstances, he could have done more for the subversion of slavery, I do not see."

May we request the disciples of Dr. Channing to read the chapter on "Slavery," in Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, and decide whether the above is borrowed in substance therefrom. And we beg further to inquire, whether it does not place Paul, considering "his circumstances," in an odious position? What, Paul satisfying himself to not do his duty! What, Paul shrink from assailing an institution because deeply rooted in power and sin!

What, Paul, the apostle of God, fearing, hesitating, failing to denounce a great sin, because it was penetrating through and intimately interwoven with society!

Why did he not manifest the same consideration in behalf of other great sins? Would it not be an easier and more rational way to account for his not assailing slavery, by supposing him to have known that it was the providence of God, in mercy, presenting some protection to those too degraded and low to protect themselves? If such supposition describes the true character of the institution of slavery, then the conduct of Paul in regard to it would have been just what it was. Paul lived all his life in the midst of slavery; as a man among men, he had a much better opportunity to know what was truth in the case than Dr. Channing. But as an apostle, Paul was taught of God. Will the disciples of Dr. Channing transfer these considerations from St. Paul to the Almighty, and say that he was afraid to announce his truth, his law, then to the world, lest it should stir up a little war in the Roman Empire? In what position does Dr. Channing place Him, who came to reveal truth, holding death and judgment in his hand!

"Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee: For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them." John xvii. 7, 8.

"I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Acts xx. 26, 27.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." Rom. iii. 4.

But we propose to the disciples of Dr. Channing an inquiry: If he could not see how St. Paul in his circumstances could have done more for the subversion of slavery, why did he not take St. Paul for his example, and suffer the matter to rest where St. Paul left it? For he says, vol. iii. page 152—"It becomes the preacher to remember that there is a silent, indirect influence, more sure and powerful than direct assaults on false opinions." Or was he less careless than St. Paul about stirring up a servile war, and of shaking our social fabric to its foundation? Or did the doctor's circumstances place him on higher ground than St. Paul? Had "this age of the world" presented him with new light on the true interpretation of the Scriptures? Had the afflatus of the Holy Spirit commissioned him to supersede Paul as an apostle? Are we to expect, through him, a new and improved edition of the

gospel? And is this the reason why an argument drawn from the Old Edition now "hardly deserves notice?"

Dr. Channing says, vol. ii. p. 104-"The very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed." Is then the Christian religion a fabrication of men? Was Christ himself an impostor? And could Dr. Channing loan himself to such a consideration?

“Upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. xvi. 18.

LESSON XI.

THE sixth position in the treatise under consideration is, "I shall offer some remarks on the means of removing it." His plan is, page 108-" In the first place, the great principle that man cannot rightfully be held as property, should be admitted by the slaveholder."

Dr. Channing seems to suppose that his previous arguments are sufficient to produce the proposed admission.

Page 109. "It would be cruelty to strike the fetters from a man, whose first steps would infallibly lead him to a precipice. The slave should not have an owner, but he should have a guardian."

We take this as an admission that the slave is not a fit subject for freedom. But he says

Page 110. "But there is but one weighty argument against im mediate emancipation; namely, that the slave would not support himself and his children by honest industry."

Dr. Channing's plan in short is, that the names, master and slave, shall be exchanged for guardian and ward; but he awards no compensation to the guardian ;-that the negro shall be told he is free; yet he should be compelled to work for his own and his family's support;-that none should be whipped who will toil "from

rational and honourable motives."

Page 112. "In case of being injured by his master in this or in any respect, he should be either set free, or, if unprepared for liberty, should be transmitted to another guardian.'

Dr. Channing proposes "bounties," "rewards," "new privileges," "increased indulgences," "prizes for good conduct," &c.,