Read the book: «The Bible and Polygamy», page 6

Translators have no right to give a double translation to the same Hebrew word, in the same phrase; if they translate veishah one, they are not at liberty to translate the same word in the same phrase over again and call it wife. This Dr. Edwards, or some other monogamist, has done, and inserted this false translation in the margin. What object such translator had in deceiving the public must be best known to himself: he probably was actuated by a zeal to find some law against polygamy, and concluded to manufacture the word "wife," and place it in the margin, without any original Hebrew word to represent it. Ahot, when standing alone, is rendered sister; when preceded by ishah, is rendered another; the suffix ah, attached to ahot, is translated "her;" both together (ahot-ah) are rendered "her sister," that is sister's sister; when ahot is rendered "another," its suffix ah represents "her" or more properly the noun sister, for which it stands. The phrase will then read: Veishah (one) el-ahotah (sister to another) lo (neither) tikkah (shalt thou take) which, when transposed, reads thus: Neither shalt thou take one sister to another. This form of translation agrees with the rendering given to the same Hebrew words or phrase in the seven other passages of Scripture, referred to by Dr. Newman and Dr. Edwards. (See Exodus xxvi, 3, 5; Ezekiel i, 9, 11, 23; also iii, 13.)

It will be seen that the latter form of translation gives precisely the same idea as that given by the English translators in the text. It also agrees with the twelve preceding verses of the law, prohibiting intermarriages among blood relations, and forms a part and parcel of the same code; while the word "wife," inserted in the margin, is not, and cannot, by any possible rule of interpretation, be extorted from the original connection with the second form of translation.

Why should King James' literal translation "wife" and "sister" be set aside for "one to another?" Because they saw a necessity for it. There is this difference: in all the other seven passages where the words Veishah el-ahotah occur, there is a noun in the nominative case preceding them, denoting something to be coupled together. Exodus 26th chapter, 3rd verse contains ishah el-ahotah twice, signifying to couple together the curtains one to another, the same words being used that are used in this text. Go to the fifth verse of the same chapter, and there we have the loops of the curtains joined together one to another, the noun in the nominative case being expressed. Next go to Ezekiel, 1st chapter, 9th, 11th and 23rd verses, and these three passages give the rendering of these same words, coupling the wings of the cherubim one to another. Then go again to the 3rd chapter of Ezekiel and 13th verse, and the wings of the living creatures were joined together one to another. But in the text under consideration no such noun in the nominative case occurs; and hence the English translators concluded to give each word its literal translation.

The law was given to prevent quarrels, which are apt to arise among blood relations. We might look for quarrels on the other side between women who were not related by blood; but what are the facts in relation to quarrels between blood relations? Go back to Cain and Abel. Who was it spilled the blood of Abel? It was a blood relation, his brother. Who was it that cast Joseph into the pit to perish with hunger, and afterwards dragged him forth from his den and sold him as a slave to persons trading through the country? It was blood relations. Who slew the seventy sons of Gideon upon one stone? It was one of their own brothers that hired men to do it. Who was it that rebelled against King David, and caused him with all his wives and household, excepting ten concubines, to flee out of Jerusalem? It was his blood relation, his own son Absalom. Who quarrelled in the family of Jacob? Did Bilhah quarrel with Zilpah? No. Did Leah quarrel with Bilhah or Zilpah? No such thing is recorded. Did Rachel quarrel with either of the handmaidens? There is not a word concerning the matter. The little, petty difficulties occurred between the two sisters, blood relations, Rachel and Leah. And this law was probably given to prevent such vexations between blood relations – between sister and sister.

Having effectually proved the marginal reading to be false, I will now defy not only the learned gentleman, but all the world of Hebrew scholars to find any word in the original to be translated "wife" if ishah be first translated "one."

I am informed I have only fifteen minutes. I was not aware I had spoken a quarter of the time. I shall have to leave this subject and proceed to another.

The next subject to which I will call your attention is in regard to the general or unlimited language of the laws given in the various passages which I have quoted. If a man shall commit rape, if a man shall entice a maid, if a man shall do this, or that, or the other, is the language of these passages. Will any person pretend to say that a married man is not a man? And if a married person is a man, it proves that the law is applicable to married men, and if so it rests with my learned friend to prove that it is limited. Moreover, the passage from the margin in Leviticus was quoted by Dr. Newman as a great fundamental law by which all the other passages were to be overturned. But it has failed; and, therefore, the other passages quoted by me, stand good unless something else can be found by the learned gentleman to support his forlorn hope.

Perhaps we may hear quoted in the answer to my remarks the passage that the future king of Israel was not to multiply wives to himself. That was the law. The word multiply is construed by those opposed to polygamy to mean that twice one make two, and hence that he was not to multiply wives, or, in other words, that he was not to take two. But the command was also given that the future king of Israel was not to multiply horses anymore than wives. Twice one make two again. Was the future king of Israel not to have more than one horse? The idea is ridiculous! The future king of Israel was not to multiply them; not to have them in multitude, that is, only to take such a number as God saw proper to give him.

We might next refer you to the uncle of Ruth's dead husband, old Boaz, who represented himself as not being the nearest kin. There was another nearer who had the Divine right to take her, and this other happened to be the brother of Boaz, perhaps a little older. Josephus tells us, according to the learned gentleman, that this oldest brother was a married man. Suppose we admit it. Did Boaz not know that his brother was married when he represented him as the nearest of kin and had the right before him? And even the brother acknowledges his right, and says to Boaz: "Redeem thou my right to thyself." He had the right to marry her. This, then, we arrive at by the assistance of Josephus; and it proves that married men were required to comply with the law. I have no further time to remark on this passage. I wish now to examine a passage that is contained in Matthew, in regard to divorces, and also in Malachi, on the same subject. Malachi, or the Lord by the mouth of Malachi, informs the people that the Lord hated putting away. He gave the reason why a wife should not be put away. Not a word against polygamy in either passage.

But there is certain reasoning introduced to show that a wife should not be put away. In the beginning the Lord made one, that is a wife for Adam, that he might not be alone. Woman was given to man for a companion, that he might protect her, and for other holy purposes, but not to be put away for trivial causes; and it was cause of condemnation in those days for a man to put away his wife. But there is not a word in Malachi condemnatory of a man marrying more than one wife. Jesus also gives the law respecting divorces, that they should not put away their wives for any other cause than that of fornication; and he that took a wife that was put away would commit adultery. Jesus says, in the 5th chapter, that he that putteth away his wife for any other cause than fornication causes her to commit adultery. Then the husband is a guilty accomplice, and if he puts away his wife unjustly he is guilty of adultery himself, the same as a confederate in murder is himself a murderer. As an adulterer he has no right to take another wife; he has not the right to take even one wife. His right is to be stoned to death; to suffer the penalty of death for his sin of adultery. Consequently, if he has no right to even life itself, he has no right to a wife. But the case of such a man, who has become an adulterer by putting away his wife, and has no right to marry another, has no application, nor has the argument drawn from it any application, to the man who keeps his wife and takes another. The law referred to by my learned opponent, in Leviticus xviii and 18, shows that polygamy was in existence, but was to be kept within the circle of those who were not blood relations.

Concerning the phrase "duty of marriage," occurring in the passage, "If a man take another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." The condition here referred to is sometimes more than mere betrothal. It is something showing that the individual has been not merely previously betrothed, but is actually in the married state, and the duty of marriage is clearly expressed. What is the meaning of the original word? It does not mean dwelling nor refuge, as asserted in the New York Herald by Dr. Newman. Four passages are quoted by him in which the Hebrew word for dwelling occurs, but the word translated "duty" of marriage, is entirely a distinct word from that used in the four passages referred to. Does not the learned Dr. know the difference between two Hebrew words? Or what was his object in referring to a word elsewhere in the Scripture that does not even occur in the text under consideration? In a Hebrew and English Lexicon, (published by Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M., Prof. of Sacred Liter., in the Theology School in Yale College,) page 160, it refers to this very Hebrew word and to the very passage, Ex. xxxi, 10, and translates it thus: – "cohabitation," – "duty of marriage." "Duty of marriage" then is "cohabitation: " thus God commands a man who takes another wife, not to diminish the duty of cohabitation with the first. Would God command undiminished "cohabitation" with a woman merely betrothed and not married?

While I have a few moments left let me refer you to Hosea. I wish all of you, when you go home, to read the second chapter of Hosea, and you will find, with regard to Hosea's having divorced his first wife because of her whoredoms, that no such thing is recorded as stated by Mr. Newman yesterday. The Lord tells Hosea to go and speak to his brethren, (not to his son,) to his sisters, (not his daughter,) of the house of Israel, and tell them what the Lord will do; that he may not acknowledge them any longer as a wife. Hosea bore the word of the Lord to Israel, whom his own two wives represented, saying that their whoredoms, their wickedness and idolatries had kindled the anger of the Lord against them.

Having discussed the subject so far I leave it now with all candid persons to judge. Here is the law of God; here is the command of the Most High, general in its nature, not limited, nor can it be proved to be so. There is no law against it, but it stands as immovable as the Rock of Ages, and will stand when all things on the earth and the earth itself shall pass away.

Dr. J. F. NEWMAN Said:

Respected Umpires, and Ladies and Gentlemen:

I had heard, prior to my coming to your city, that my distinguished opponent was eminent in mathematics, and certainly his display to-day confirms that reputation. Unfortunately, however, he is incorrect in his statements. First, he assumes that the slaying of all the male children of the Hebrews was continued through eighty years; but he has failed to produce the proof. To do this was his starting point. He assumes it; where is the proof, either in the Bible or in Josephus? And until he can prove that the destruction of the male children went on for eighty years, I say this argument has no more foundation than a vision. Then he makes another blunder: the 303,550, the number of men above twenty years of age, mentioned in this case, were men to go to war; they were not the total population of the Jewish nation, and yet my mathematical friend stands up here to-day and declares that the whole male population above twenty years of age consisted of 303,550, whereas it is a fact that this number did not include all the males.

Then again the 22,273 first-born do not represent the number of families in Israel at that time, for many of the first-born were dead. These are the blunders that the gentleman has made to-day, and I challenge him to produce the contrary and prove that he is not guilty of these numerical blunders. Then he denies the assertion made yesterday that there could not be brought forward more than one or two instances of polygamy in the history of Israel from the time the Hebrews left Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. Has he disproved that? He has attempted to prove it by a mathematical problem, which problem is based on error: his premises are wrong, therefore his conclusions are false. Why didn't he turn to King James' translation? I will help him to one polygamist, that is Caleb. Why didn't he start with old Caleb and go down and give us name after name and date after date of the polygamists recorded in the history of the Jews while they were in the wilderness? Ladies and gentlemen, he had none to give, and therefore the assertion made yesterday is true, that during the sojourn of the children of Israel in the wilderness there is but one instance of polygamy recorded.

Now we come to the law that I laid down yesterday – "Neither shalt thou take one wife to another." I reaffirm that the translation in the margin is perfect to a word. He labors to show that God does not mean what He says. That the phrase "one wife to another," may be equally rendered one woman to another, or one wife to her sister. The very same phrase is used in the other seven passages named by Dr. Dwight. For example, Exodus xxvi, 3, Ezekiel i, 9, etc. He admits the translation in these passages to be correct. If it is correct in these passages, why is it not correct in the other? His very admission knocks to pieces his argument. Why then does he labor to create the impression that the Hebrew ishau means woman, or wife? What is the object of the travail of his soul? The word ahoot, he contends, means sister; but sister itself, is a word which means a specific relation, and a generic relation. Every woman is sister to every other woman, and I challenge the gentleman to meet me on paper at any time, in the newspapers of your city or elsewhere upon the Hebrew of this text. I reaffirm it, reaffirm it in the hearing of this learned gentleman, reaffirm it in the hearing of these Hebraists, that as it is said in the margin, is the true rendering, namely, "neither shalt thou take one wife to another." But supposing that is incorrect, permit me, before I pass on, to remind you of this fact, he refers, I think, in his first speech, to the "margin;" the "margin" was correct then and there, but it is not here. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways; correct when he wants to quote from the "margin," but not when I want to do so. He quoted from the margin, and I followed his illustrious example.

And now, my friends, supposing that the text means just what he says, namely, "neither shalt thou take a wife unto her sister, to vex her;" supposing that is the rendering, and he asserts it is, and he is a Hebraist, I argued and brought the proof yesterday that this law of Moses is not kept by the Mormons; in other words there are men in your very midst who have married sisters. Where was the gentleman's solemn denunciation of the violation of God's law? Why did he not lift his voice and vindicate the Divine law? But not a solitary word of disapproval is uttered! Yesterday he pronounced a curse – "cursed is he that conforms not to the words of this law, to do them." Does not the curse rest upon him and upon his people? I gave him the liberty to choose whether this text condemned polygamy, or whether it condemned a man for marrying two sisters; he must take his choice, the horns of the dilemma are before him. For the sake of saving polygamy he stands up here, in the presence of Almighty God and His holy angels, and before this intelligent congregation he admits that in this church, and with this people, God's holy law is set at defiance. What respect, therefore, can we have for the gentleman's argument, drawn from the teachings of Moses, in support of polygamy?

He refers us to the multiplication of horses. I suppose a king may have one horse or two, there is no special rule; but there is a special rule as to the number of wives. Neither shall the king multiply wives. God, in the beginning, gave the first man one wife, and Christ and Paul sustain that law as binding upon us. And now, supposing that that is not accepted as a law, what then? Why there is no limit to the number of wives, none at all. How many shall a man have? Seven, twenty, fifty, sixty, a hundred? Why, they somewhere quote a passage that if a man forsake his wife he shall have a hundred. Well, he ought to go on forsaking; for if he will forsake a hundred he will have ten thousand; and if he forsake ten thousand he will have so many more in proportion. It is his business to go on forsaking. That is in the Professor's book called the Seer. Such a man would keep the Almighty busy creating women for him.

I regret very much that I have not time to notice all the points which have been brought forward. I desired to do so. I plead for more time; my friends plead for more time; but time was denied us, I am therefore restricted to an hour. Now, I propose to follow out the line of argument which I was pursuing yesterday when my time expired, and I propose to carry out and apply the great law brought forward yesterday – "Neither shall a man take one wife unto another;" and in doing this we call your attention to the fact that in the Bible there are only twenty-five or thirty specially recorded cases of polygamy, all told, out of thousands and millions of people. I say twenty-five or thirty specially recorded cases, which polygamists of our day claim in support of their position. I propose to take up, say half a dozen of the most prominent ones. I divide the period, before the law and after the law. I take up Abraham. It is asserted that he was a polygamist. I deny it. There is no proof that Abraham was guilty of polygamy. What are the facts? When he was called of the Almighty to be the founder of a great nation, a promise was given him that he should have a numerous posterity. At that time he was a monogamist, had but one wife – the noble Sarah. Six years passed and the promise was not fulfilled. Then Sarah, desiring to help the Lord to keep His promise, brought her Egyptian maid Hagar, and offered her as a substitute for herself to Abraham. Mind you, Abraham did not go after Hagar, but Sarah produced her as a substitute. Immediately after the act was performed Sarah discovered her sin and said, "My wrong be upon thee." "I have committed sin, but I did it for thy sake, and therefore the wrong that I have committed is upon thee." Then look at the subsequent facts: by the Divine command this Egyptian girl was sent away from the abode of Abraham by the mutual consent of the husband and the wife; by the Divine command, it is said that she was recognized as the wife of Abraham, but I say you cannot prove it from the Bible; but it is said that she was promised a numerous posterity. It was also foretold that Ishmael should be a wild man – "his hand against every man and every man's hand against him." Did that prediction justify Ishmael in being a robber and a murderer? No, certainly not; neither did the other prediction, that Hagar should have a numerous posterity, justify the action of Abraham in taking her. After she had been sent away by Divine command, God said unto Abraham – "now walk before me and be thou perfect."

These are the facts my friends. I know that some will refer you to Keturah; but this is the fact in regard to her: Abraham lived thirty-eight years after the death of Sarah; the energy miraculously given to Abraham's body for the generation of Isaac was continued after Sarah's death; but to suppose that he took Keturah during Sarah's lifetime is to do violence to his moral character. But it is said he sent away the sons of Keturah with presents during his lifetime, therefore it must have been during the life time of Sarah. He lived thirty-eight years after the death of Sarah, and he sent these sons away eight years before his death, and they were from twenty-five to thirty years old. Then this venerable Patriarch stands forth as a monogamist and not as a polygamist.

Then we come to the case of Jacob. What are the facts in regard to him? Brought up in the sanctity of monogamy, after having robbed his brother of his birth-right, after having lied to his blind old father, he then steals away and goes to Padan-aram and there falls in love with Rachel; but in his bridal bed he finds Rachel's sister Leah. He did not enter polygamy voluntarily but he was imposed upon. As he had taken advantage of the blindness of his father and thereby imposed upon him, so also was he imposed upon by Laban in the darkness of the night. But I hold this to be true that Jacob is nowhere regarded as a saintly man prior to his conversion at the brook Jabbok. After that he appears to us in a saintly character. It is a remarkable fact that Jacob lived 147 years all told, eighty-seven of which he lived before he became a polygamist. He lived twenty-two years in polygamy, he lived forty years after he had abandoned polygamy, so that out of 147 years there were only twenty-two years during which he had any connection with polygamy.

I wish my friend had referred to the case of Moses. In his sermon on celestial marriage he claims that Moses was a polygamist, and he declares that the leprosy that was sent upon Miriam was for her interference with the polygamous marriage of Moses. What are the facts? There is no record of a second marriage. Zipporah is the only name given as the wife of Moses. What, then, is the assertion made? Simply this: It is recorded: and Moses was content to dwell with Jethro. He gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter. Josephus speaks of Jethro having two daughters, and distinctly says that he gave Moses one of them. In Numbers xii and 1st, it is said:

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Now it is affirmed that two women are here mentioned, whereas nothing can be more untrue. Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman are one and identical; it is one and the same person called by different names. Let us see: The father of Zipporah was the priest of Midian; and according to the best authorities Midian and Ethiopia are identical terms, and apply to that portion of Arabia where Jethro lived. So the appellation Midian, Ethiopia and Arabia are applied to the Arabian peninsula. See Appleton's American Encyclopedia, volumes 6, 7 and 11. Then Moses, the Jewish law-giver, stands forth as a monogamist, having but one wife. Moses was not a polygamist. Surely the founder of a polygamist nation and the revealer of a polygamist law, as this gentleman claims, should have set an example, and should have had a dozen or a hundred wives. This son of Jochebed; he was a monogamist, and stands forth as being a reproof to polygamists in all generations.

Now we come to Gideon. And what about this man? An angel appeared to him, that is true; but if the practice of polygamy by Gideon is a law to us, then the practice of idolatry by Gideon is also a law to us. If there is silence in the Bible touching the polygamy of Gideon, there is also silence in the Bible touching his idolatry, and if one is sanctioned so also is the other.

I wish my friend had brought up the case of Hannah, the wife of Elkanah. I can prove to a demonstration that Hannah was the first wife of Elkanah; but being barren Elkanah takes another wife. But Hannah, in the anxiety of her heart, pleads to the Almighty, and God honored her motherhood by answering her prayer. It is asked "Is not this a sanction of polygamy?" Nay, a sanction of monogamy, because she was the first wife of Elkanah, and because Elkanah had been guilty of infidelity and married another wife, was that a reason why Hannah should not have her rights from High Heaven, why God Almighty should not answer her prayer? You ask me why did not she pray before. Can you tell me why Isaac did not pray twenty years sooner for his wife, Rebecca, that she might have children? I can not tell and you can not tell, all that I assert is that Hannah was the first wife of Elkanah, and God honored and blessed the beautiful Samuel.

Now we come to David. Why did not my friend bring up David, the great warrior, king and poet, the ruler of Israel? He might have mentioned him, with ten wives all told; he might also have mentioned him as the adulterer, who committed one of the most premeditated, cold-blooded murders on record, simply to cover up his crime of adultery. How often do you hear quoted the words "and I gave thy master's wives into thy bosom!"? Is this an approval of polygamy? If you will read on you will find also that God also promises to give his (David's) wives to another, and that another should lie with them in the sight of the sun. Surely if one is an approval of polygamy the other is an approval of rebellion and incest! David lived to be seventy-five years old. He was twenty-seven years old when he took his first wife Michael, the daughter of Saul. For the next forty years we find him complicated with the evils, crimes and sorrows of polygamy; and the old man, seeing its great sin, thoroughly repented of it and put it away from him, and for the last eight years of his life endeavored to atone, as best he could, for his troubled and guilty experience.

And what of Solomon? He is the greatest polygamist – the possessor of a thousand wives! Had this gentleman told me that Solomon's greatness was predicted, and therefore his polygamic birth was approved, and his polygamic marriage also approbated, I can remind him of the fact that the future greatness of Christ was foretold; but the foretelling of the future greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ was not an approval of the betrayal by Judas and the crucifixion by the Jews. Neither was the mere foretelling of the future greatness of Solomon an approval of the polygamic character of his birth.

I suppose the gentleman on this occasion would have referred to the law of bastardy and have said, if my doctrine is true, then Solomon and others were bastards. I could have wished that he had produced that point. He did quote and declare in this temple, not long since, in reference to the law touching bastardy, that a bastard should be branded with infamy to the tenth generation. But it is plain that he has misunderstood the law respecting bastards, as contained in Deuteronomy xxiii and 2nd. It is known from history that the same signification has not always been attached to this term. We say a bastard is one born out of wedlock, that is monogamous matrimony. In Athens, in the days of Pericles, five centuries before Christ, all were declared bastards by law who were not the children of native Athenians. And we here assert to-day that the gentleman can not bring forward a law from the book of Jewish laws to prove that a child born of a Jew and Jewess, whether married or not, was a bastard. The only child recognized as a bastard by Jewish law is a child born of a Jew and a Pagan woman; therefore the objection falls to the ground, and Solomon and others, who were not to blame for the character of their birth, are exonerated.

The geometrical progression of evil in this system of polygamy is seen in the first three kings, Saul, David and Solomon. Saul had a wife and a concubine – two women; David had ten women, Solomon had a thousand, and it broke the kingdom asunder. God says it was for that very cause. He had multiplied his wives to such an extent, that they had not only led him astray from God into idolatry, but the very costliness of his harem was a burden upon the people too heavy for them to bear. I said the other day that polygamy might do for kings and priests and nabobs, but could not do for poor men; it costs too much and the people are taxed too much to support the harem.

Ah! you bring forward these few cases of polygamy! Name them if you please. Lamech the murderer; Jacob, who deceived his blind old father, and robbed his brother of his birthright; David, who seduced another man's wife and murdered that man by putting him in front of the battle, and old Solomon, who turned to be an idolater. These are some polygamists! Now let me call the roll of honor: There were Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Joseph and Samuel and all the prophets and apostles. You are accustomed to hear, from this sacred place, that all the patriarchs and all the kings and all the prophets were polygamists. I assert to the contrary, and these great and eminent men whom I have just mentioned, belonging to the roll of honor, were monogamists.

Yesterday the gentleman gave me three challenges; he challenged me to show that the New Testament condemned polygamy. I now proceed to do it. I quote Paul's words, 1st Corinthians, 7th chap., 2nd and 4th verses:

Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Marriage is a remedy against fornication, and this is the subject of the chapter. This is the opinion of Clark, Henry, Whitby, Langley and others. One great evil prevailed at Corinth – a community of wives, which the apostle here calls fornication. St. Paul strikes at the very root of the evil and commands that every man have his own wife and that every woman have her own husband: that is, let every man have his own peculiar, proper and appropriate wife, and the wife her own proper, peculiar and appropriate husband. In this there is mutual appropriation and exclusiveness of right; and this command of Paul agrees with the law of Moses in Leviticus xviii, 18: "Neither shalt thou take one wife unto another," and the two are one statute, clear and unquestionable for monogamy and against polygamy. The apostle teaches the reciprocal duties of husband and wife, and the exclusive right of each. In verse four it is distinctly affirmed that the husband has exclusive power over the body of his wife, as the wife has exclusive power over the body of her husband. It is universally admitted that this passage proves the exclusive right of the husband to the wife, and by parity it also proves the exclusive right of the wife to the husband. These relations are mutual, and if the husband can claim a whole wife, the wife can claim a whole husband. She has just as good a right to a whole husband as he has a right to a whole wife. First Corinthians, 6th chapter, 15th, 16th and 17th verses says: