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_.