The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-08-23

married mere to the same ma then / alirm that
law as given By his servant Moses More than this
if IL here means two literal SISTERS, and whereas
Jacob married two sisters. ana whereas according
to Mormon doctrine God worked u miracle Leah
and Rachel that they might have children, aud
whereas t Is here said that the said miracles
such m racles the approval Of incest II 1t
be true that God dii not express disapproya OF
JACOBS having two wives. neither did he express
ulsapproyal OF his having two sisters "a wives
therefore the Divine silence IN the one case IL the
onset TO the Divine silence in the other case Now
you driven 10 the conclusion thar either nv in
terpreiation Of this passage Is correct, Neither
shall o man take one wife another" or you must
admit That this passage meaning two literal sisters,
you therefore live In violation OF Gods law IL
is Tor my distinguished friend to choose
which ,han horn Of the dilemma he pieas s,,;
me chat l came here as q philantnropsst.
i nave only Kindness In my heart for these men
had believed in Q crushing ciyn law, should have
remained IN Washington. But | come here. beiev
ing the truth as 1t ~ IN Jesus ana therefore am
come, and am glad that | have the privilege OF
speaking what | believe TO he Gods truth In your
nearing.
The gentleman quoted Deuteronomy XXI. 1911
TO preserve the descent OF pr0pery-"Ir man have
TWO wives, one beIo' ed and the other hated: and
they have borne him children, both the beloved and
the hated; and II the first born be hers that was
hated, then 1t shall be, when he maketh MS sons
to inherit that which he hath. thar he may
not make the son OF the beloved first born beforeHhe
son or The hated which Is indeed the first born but
ne snail acknowledge the son or the hated for the
first oorn by giving him double portion OF all that
he hath for he the beginning OF his strength the
right OF the first born liz hIs.n How did he apply
this law, Why he frst assumed the prevalence Of
poiygamy among the Jews ia the wilderness ana
then said the law was made for polyganlic families
~ Wen az monogamists. He says, inasmuch as
polygamy Is nowhere condemned in the law OF
Cod, we are entitled 10 construe this law apply
ing 10 polygamists. But have shown already mat
therefore, this passage must be interpreted by that
winch have quoted. propose to erect tne balance
has produced by those SCALES of Ust.ce
In other words here stand; have recited unto
you GODS solemn law. Neither snail a man take
one wife unto another" and will try every passage
by this law. My friend spent an hour yesterday IN
seeking general law; on the other hand give on
one IN q minute. How natural Is this supposition
that when man has two wives In succession he
may love the last little better than the irst, ana
believe that IL common out here. loving the last
Ittle better than the first. How natural 1t Is for
second wife To influence the father In has disposition
OF his properly inducing him 20 confer his properly
upon her children. while the children or the first
wne poor woman. dead and gone, are deprived or
their property rights.
But surprising the meaning of this passage is 'wo
wives at the same time. this lie constituted
by any accepted rules OF Interpretation into SANE
ton OF polyganly. II 1t can can prove that sheep
stealing IL Just diyiney authorized For 1t Is IA
II Moses HAD sald-.lr in view OF the prevalence OF
polygamy q Jew shall so far forget and transgress
God's law OF monogamy as to take two wives at the
same time this shall not work the abrogaton OF the
law Of primogeniture; the FIRST born shall not he
cheated out of his rights" Now 1t Is said III
q IAuH HuNt Two WIVES very well. III
that slppositlon Is approval, also
are these words, al man shall steal OK or
sheep aud KIN 1t or stall 1t he shall restore i've
for the OK ana four sheep for sheep" II the
former assertion Is sanction OF poly gamy then the
latter assertion Is q sanction OF sheep stealing and
we can all go after the nOcks this afternoon. The
second chapter ne quotes Is Exodus XXI. ILL., refer
ring to the laws OF breach or promise Mr. Pratt
TINS approves or layors polygamy in his opinion :.
DuI he ala not dwell long on TINS text He in ulged
In an episode on the lost manuscripts. Now let IA
inquire INTO the meaning OF this passage:-"And II a
not go out as the mcnscrvants II she please not
her master. who hath bethrothed her to himself.
then snail ne let her be redeemed 10 sell her
into strange nation he shall have no power, seeing
ne hath dealt deceitrully with her. And il he hath
betrothed her unto his son he shall deal with her
after the manner OF daughters. II he take him an
other wife her food, her raiment and her duty OF
marriage shall he not dninisi.n "And II he 40 not
these three her. then shall size go out free with
out money! What are the significant points In
this passage2 They are simply these:-According
to Jewish law destitute Jew was permitted TO ap-
prentice ms daughter for SIX years FOR pecuniary
considerations but to guard the rights OF the girl
there were certain conditions. First the period of
lndenture should not extend beyond wears; she
| should be free NJ the death OF her master oi
Ut the coming OF the year or jubilee. The
marry the girl what therefore, shall we conclud,
| from this passage Simply this: that neither Iii,
,ather nor the son married the girl but simply be
| trothed her; that Is, was engaged ner-proniiset
to marry her; but before the married relation was
| consummated the young man changed his mind, and
| then GOD Almighty, to indicate his dlspleasre at a
| man who viii break vow or engagement Gxes
tne following penalties, namely-that he shall
provide Tor this woman, whom he has wrOnged,
Der iOod, her rdl'nent and her dwelling
These are the facts; and the gentleman has not
proved the gentleman cannot prove that either the
Iather or the son married hlrlot. He says the
nonored term or wife Is theirs. HOnored term /.
Goa bless That term 1t IL an honOred term, sacred
as tae nature OF angels Ana YET have to inform
neither In the Hebrew in the Greek. The mean
ing - simply III he take another" that Is, al he
shall do thus and Where. then, IL the gentle
mans general law in approval OF polygamy
Inc next passage IS recorded In Deuteronomy
les:-"f brethren dwell together, and one OF them
Ole anu have no child the wife or the dead shall
brother shall go In unto her take her 10 him ~
wife and perform the duty of husbands brother
unto her. And 1t shall be that the first born which
sne Deareth shall succeed In the name of his brother
which is dead, that his name be not put out OF
Israel And If the man like not to take his brothers
vile, then let his brothers wife 20 up 10 the gate
unto the elders and say. my husbands brother re.
fuseth 70 raise up unto his brother IN Israel:
brother. Then the elders of his city snail
cali him ana SPEAK unto him, and II he
star stand r, to a T. and say IKE not to take
In the presence OF the elders and his snoe from
OIL his foot and spit in his face and shall answer
not build up his brothers. house. And his name
shall be called In Israeli the house OF him that natl
his shoe loosed." What Is the object OF this law
Evidently the preservation OF families and family
lnherltances And now | challenge the gentleman
TO bring forward a solitary instance In the Bible
where married man was compelled TO obey this
law. Take tie case or Tamar. Certainly the
brother that was to marry her could not have been
married man, because she had to " ait until he
grew up Then take the case or Ruth. Ruth, yo,
know. loses her NOBLE Mahlon far beyond the Jor
dan; she returns TO Bethlehem and goes to BOaz
near klnsnan, ana desires that he shall
marry her. Boaz says. There Is nearer kinsma1
! Will speak to him." It Is asked, Did not Boa
know whether that near kinsman was married or
n0tT" That was not the business OF Boaz The d.
vine law required that this man should appear at
the gate OF the city, before the elders and there
sert that ne was disqualfed for taking Ruth. be-
cause he was already a married man. And there is
no proof IN the Bible that BOaz had been married,
no more than this, that Josephus the Jewish nstu-
ran, asserts that the reason why the near klnsman
did not marry Ruth was that he had wife and chill
dren already 80 Judge this law. which IL said to
be general. Judge II by that law which mas been
land dOwn-"Nclther shall q man take one vile unto
another"
My friend there refers me TO Numbers XXI H. 49,
NOW, therefore, XIII every male among the little
ones, and XII every woman that haLh known man