"The ancient Medes compelled their citizens, in one canton, to take seven wives; in another, each woman to receive five husbands; according as war had made, in one quarter of their country, an extraordinary havoc among the men, or the women had been carried away by an enemy from another. This regulation, so far as it was adapted to the proportion which subsisted between the number of males and females, was founded in the reason upon which the most improved nations of Europe proceed at present.
"Cæsar found among the inhabitants of this island a species of polygamy, if it may be so called, which was perfectly singular. Uxores, says he, habent deni duodenique inter se communes; et maxime fratres cum fratribus, parentesque cum liberis: sed si qui sint ex his nati, corum habentur liberi, quo primum virgo quaque deducta est."
The same perspicuous writer adds, upon the subject of divorce, "The Scriptures seem to have drawn the obligation tighter than the law of nature left it. 'Whosoever,' saith Christ, 'shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery.' The law of Moses, for reasons of local expediency, permitted the Jewish husband to put away his wife; but whether for every cause, or for what causes, appears to have been controverted amongst the interpreters of those times. Christ, the precepts of whose religion were calculated for more general use and observation, revokes this permission, (as given to the Jews 'for the hardness of their hearts,') and promulges a law which was thenceforward to confine divorces to the single cause of adultery in the wife. And I see no sufficient reason to depart from the plain and strict meaning of Christ's words. The rule was new. It both surprised and offended his disciples, yet Christ added nothing to relax or explain it.
"Inferior causes may justify the separation of husband and wife, although they will not authorize such a dissolution of the marriage contract as would leave either party at liberty to marry again; for it is that liberty, in which the danger and mischief of divorces principally consist. If the care of children does not require that they should live together, and it is become, in the serious judgment of both, necessary for their mutual happiness that they should separate, let them separate by consent. Nevertheless, this necessity can hardly exist, without guilt and misconduct on one side or on both. Moreover, cruelty, ill usage, extreme violence, or moroseness of temper, or other great and continual provocations, make it lawful for the party aggrieved to withdraw from the society of the offender, without his or her consent. The law which imposes the marriage vow, whereby the parties promise to 'keep to each other,' or in other words to live together, must be understood to impose it with a silent reservation of these cases; because the same law has constituted a judicial relief from the tyranny of her husband, by the divorce à mensa et toro, and by the provision which it makes for the separate maintenance of the injured wife. St. Paul, likewise, distinguishes between a wife merely separating herself from the family of her husband, and her marrying again: 'Let not the wife depart from her husband; but, and if she do depart, let her remain unmarried.'" [[114]]
Notwithstanding the survey we have taken of the general degradation of the female sex, where the benign influences of Christianity have been unfelt, the argument may be confronted by a formidable array of plausible objections. It may be said, that amidst the barbarity of the SCANDINAVIAN NATIONS, they treated their women with extraordinary respect. The Scythians exempted the daughter from the punishment in which the son was obliged to partake with the father, and the German women even inherited the throne. Some of the laws, among the Goths, respecting illicit intercourse, were highly reasonable and just, and our remote ancestors may be cited as examples of treating women with the utmost veneration. It may seem indicative also of the prevalence of similar sentiments, that the ancient mythologies abound in female divinities: the Phoenicians worshipped the goddess Astarte, the Scythians, Appia, the Scandinavians, Friggia, the wife of Odin. It may be further urged, with regard to the GREEKS and ROMANS, that though the melancholy picture we have already drawn of their conduct be true, yet their history presents some remarkable evidences of the elevated condition of their women, and the honourable regard which they obtained. Among the former, indeed, few instances can be adduced, in addition to that of Areta, the daughter of Aristippus, who fixed upon her son the surname of Μητροδιδακτος, or disciple of his mother, in consequence of her having been his instructer in the sciences and philosophy. The Romans, at some periods of their history, paid extraordinary respect to their women; the institution of the vestals is a memorial of the estimation in which female virtue was held, and the emperor Heliogabalus was desirous that his wife should have a voice in the senate. They allowed their women to celebrate an annual feast, to commemorate the reconciliation between them and the Sabines, by means of their wives; and they erected an equestrian statue to Cloelia, and a temple to Fortune, in honour of the sex; because the mother and wife of Coriolanus had caused that hero to retire weeping from his native country, when he was irresistible by arms. [[115]] But the most plausible objection to the general argument seems derivable from the history of CHIVALRY, under whose influence it is alleged that women were not only not degraded, but were actually advanced to the highest condition, and possessed the most commanding influence. The knights, at their installation, took solemn vows of self-devotement to the cause of female honour; and ladies were constantly engaged as umpires at tournaments, took off the armour of the conquerors, and irivested them with magnificent robes. The middle ages witnessed the extraordinary sight of knight-errants wandering over distant countries, with their sword and lance in hand, to contest the point of the beauty and virtue of their ladies, with all who ventured to intimate the slightest doubt or suspicion on the subject. Their expeditions were usually made in consequence of some requisition on the part of their mistresses, or to fulfil a vow voluntarily incurred in a moment of intoxication and excitement.
The reply to these general objections has been in part anticipated. Christianity assigns to women their proper place in society, neither admitting of their being tyrannized over by despotic authority, nor impiously honoured by a ridiculous adulation. They are to be viewed as help meets, not, as slaves; to be respected and loved, but not deified. While the religion of Jesus raises them to great consideration in the scale of society, it imposes a salutary restraint upon human passions, and checks every approach to the assumption of an unnatural superiority. It bestows a rank which secures them from contempt or disregard, while it equally prevents a senseless adoration: so that its principles disallow the barbaric treatment of uncivilized nations and the follies of the chivalrous ages.
In the different periods and places to which the objection refers, the conduct of mankind was marked with inconsistency. Greece and Rome exhibit ample specimens of this nature; and the time of chivalry afford illustrations equally remarkable. The knights of the order were not distinguished by fidelity to their wives, or by a concern for the education of their daughters: their devotion to the female sex was, in fact, without principle and without love; they fought, from vanity and fashion, for persons whom they had basely dishonoured and secretly despised; and while their flattery and folly were sufficiently discreditable to their own understandings and hearts, they tended in a deplorable degree to corrupt the principles of those whom they professed to value.
It is further obvious, that in the very best periods of Greek and Roman history there existed no security against a change in the treatment of women, arising from the general recognition of any of those great principles of moral conduct which constitute the basis of good government and of well-regulated society. Passion predominated above reason, and received its impulse solely from casual circumstances. It was, in fact, accidental, whether it should operate amiably or malignantly; and the felicity of one half of the human species depended upon the precarious and ever vacillating humour of the other. Virtue was scarcely seen upon the earth, except at occasional and often distant visitations, or as she shed a fitful and flickering light into the retreats of systematic philosophy. Woman was at the mercy of every wind--to-day honoured--to-morrow despised--now a goddess--and anon a slave! Viewing heathen countries in the most favourable aspect in which history presents them, and admitting to the fullest extent the correctness of those details of virtue and valour which she has transmitted to us, the conduct of the Celtic and Scandinavian nations, and instances deduced from cultivated and classic regions, or from modern times, can only be considered as exceptions which do not impugn the general alignment, corroborated as it has been by a historical and geographical delineation of society in every age of the world, and every quarter of the globe.
Behold Christianity, then, walking forth in her purity and greatness to bless the earth, diffusing her light in every direction, distributing her charities on either hand, quenching the flames of lust and the fires of ambition, silencing discord, spreading peace, and creating all things new! Angels watch her progress, celebrate her influence, and anticipate her final triumphs! The moral creation brightens beneath her smiles, and owns her renovating power; at her approach man loses his fierceness and woman her chains; each becomes blessed in the other, and God glorified in both!