, 1870-08-20


idoltasrF, and sodomy-
But let him push thia Argument little fur
thtr 1t was eaid that Il this text WAS not In
tended to prohibit the marriage OF two ais-
tc1a, then sucl, marriage was nowhere in tho
Ell 10 declared incessuous. lie replied that it
w.s 60 declared and forbidden by consequence
and analogy. For example: In verse 7, the
son vas forbidden to marry his mother. from
Which we infer that the daughter was also for
hidden to marty her father, though it was no.
where expressly stated. Aud in verse l6.
it VAS forbidden to marry brothers
uer, that it WIS forbidden to marry wife's
sister. Both wore equally forbidden By the
la~ OF God. Again, il the text In verse 10.
was intended to prohibit the marriage OF two
siAtere, then there was = repetition Of tho
same law in this csse in this chapter Yet
in the chapter. And il for argument, he
conceded that it meant, simply, to prohibit
the marriage OF two sisters, Jet, that was not
permission 10 mAK1y two women who we're
not sisters. Finally. it was not denied that
the MoErnoDs marry two eisteza, mother and
daughter, &c. They we're therefore compelled
to admit that his reading Of this text WA the
true one. OF that they were living in violation
OF Gods lau. Nor conld the example OF
Jacob, or the Divine silence regarding his
polygany aud ipcest, although that silence
WAS an approval Of one as much ~ it was OF
the other, be pleaded in eItenuatiou, for the
Law prohibiting both had not been given in
Jacobs time, and where there MAS no law thera
could he no sin.
Nr. Newman then passed to the e1amina-
have two wivcs," DC. His opponent had as-
serted the prevalence OF poIygany among the
Hebrews at the time this Law was
were not excluded from its provisions, and.
inasEnnch ~ We could find no condemnation
Of rolygnmE in the Bible, therefore, it waa
fairly construed to man Il man have two
Wives Al the same time, Ac., thereby sauction-
ing I mans having two wives at the same
sumption. and ho had shown that polygamy
was positively prohibited by tho Bible. This
rssssGe must he read in the light Of Gods
solemn Law agains, po1ygamy. 1t Was evil
IDENTIFY designed 10 Eubderve tho regular de-
scent Of property in the family, and referred
But, c1'nceding that it did refer to coatempo-
rary wives. for Argument, Il. it could bo con-
s1rued ~ authorizing polsg1my, then tho
pllrase, opening tht nineteenth chapter OF Le-
w.t.: II man eteal an ox or shecl,." 4tc.,
could he construed II authorizing thiosing.
alr. Newman maintained that the passage
from E1cdun xxi, TO. did not refer to
marriage Ut all, Init to betroths1: that the
word wise was not in tho original, but supplied
by the English tsanA1ato.u. It simply meant
that II the master, or his soD, for whom girl
had worked sa1 years, upon condition OF be-
lions, should charge his mind befofe mar
1iaEe and break on tho engagement and be-
troth another, he should not diminish tho
marriage dover Of the girl Where was the
sanction Of polygamy in this text2
In reference to tho quotation from Dent.
erased brothers widow, under certain circum-
stances. Mr.: Newman challenged the proof
that it forced 4 married mln to rnarry another
woman, and irBtsnccd the cases ofiTamar and
EutG. in one Of which the man could not havo
been manled because he WAS yet boy, and in
tia othes Of which, according to Josephus, u
married kinrMan nearer than Dcaz refused to
comply with this supposed law on tho ground
that hs vas already married, and Bsaz linn
SELF, 20 fur IA we know, was not married.
And, jEe ging this by The great 1aw ooudcmn-
ing |;oisgau'y, WIN! ..ar-:,ou Tor that practice
could no tortured from It?
me taaaage from Numb xxi, 17,l8, had
nothing whateser to do With polygany. 1t
Aas au aeconnt Of 4 military e1pedi,iou
tson OF tue people, and the reduction Of the
!ett to domestic elavery. His opponent had
laid Grett st1ess Oh the number Of these vir-
Etns-32, ,G00-hut what was that for servants
among 2.5o0 COO people? He quoted also in
Tbs connection, Dsut- 11i,; lo-ls: "When
AtoA EVCSA AVAtA ~ hA9 uE. line DAS-
sage was designed to regulate tho
treatment Of CAPTIVE women By the
conqucror, who deeircd her for vito, and
hal no nlote 10 do with rolygamy than With
tbcfs CT murder. Every jurist would agree
with HIM that this passage should bo judged
ly .he great central law he had found in tie
Ilele on The SUBJECT, and, so judged, how did
i saEcticn pol;eaEy?
Ills friend appeared to constrne tho t;yo
l1ws he cited, one from Ex- xii 1911. aud
the otLcE from Deut- xiii. g, q, ~ referring
10 the same thing, whereas the first w1s the
law OF seduction; the. second, Of rape. In
the ti:et. the father could object to the mar
nsee, il he saw fiji. hut not in the second.
What had cithor to do with poIygamy? Elder
Trait Eays this was the expression OF gen.
e1a1 Law commanding rolySAmy in curtain
cases, but it could not De 90, because it waa
IN direct conflict with the great Law rsobiting
polyeany. It vas d downright ass 1nption,
unsust4ined by particle Of proof.
The position ~as first taken, then these pas
sages hunted up and made, as far IS possible.
at.., at tho expense OF trua, OF oven fair,
rendering, 10 sustain it. II there was positive
Ia" thjoll,ing polycamy in this casc, then i
man was here given the power Of Annulliug
girl MAS allowed to object to tho bedrcer il be
l,leased. Mr. Newman might have said that
these laws could not have referred to married
men, btcause the cohabitatinn OF married
man with = maid other than Lis wife was
:4lnlIery. punishable. not b5 the compulsory
marriage. On bis part. OF the victim. but BY
.Ir. Newman then passed to First Chgou.
xxiv-.,3, IS. 16-abous Jchuiala giving Joash
two wives and the sacred writer saying they
we're both good men, ami Jeloiala vas buried
among the kings, ttc. air. Ns~nan affirmed
rsees that Joash had tho two wives at tho
same time, aud kaiI that 1elloiada Was
~ buried Among tho AfnEs' bccause he was
n,"{c thsn High Ptieet he was 1:og.nt Of the
realm. and that entitled him to bc buried in
the loyal mareoleMm.
At last he came to Hosea, chapters frat aui}
third. where Mr.. 1':att contended that Horea
Mss commanded TO marry an ta1lot and Al
adulte,ess At the ea,ns time. Mr.. Se~man
affirmed that tlse lrbt Of those comm Ands was
intended to signify 10 the Prophet aud the
Je~s the relation between the Lord aud lia
pcpple-shat Ho stood to them rs husband
tA1 required Ut tlem lis fidelity OF wife.
This usetathotical .tylo OF teachiug ho said
Nss ccmmon in the Scriptures. Further, that
ido!atEy as often called ~horslom-'.1 1tet Ys
70 ~horing after other Gods" &c; and
idciatrouH. Of adulterurs. And, before he
took t;sc second. l4e had dlvo1cel lie first for
adultery, according to the account. as be hal
right to 10, which hsd soemingty escaped
hi. tcaEutd fHenu's notice. Thus was not
polygsny. Again, this case and others had
bcett cited 10 show that G.,d sometimes COM
Dauaed the breaking Of His own laws. Tho
ttst we're typical actions. designed to ret forth
the relation betaeen Coz and His people.
The others bad nothing to do with polysalny.
tioninE polygamy7
Ms- Newman then read from Pratss .rgu-
ment Of yesterday to tho effect that the Nor
mons claimed no right 10 practice po1ygnmy
bccaure God commanded il in Mblo times.
etc aud declared that this was yielding tho
point in controversy, giving it up. aud he re-
tpccifu1iv asked him why, then, in a publs..-
tion called the .Ssr. in his correspondence
j. ith him through tue New York Herald, In
this discussion and from this stand. had he
not come out like man aud confessed tflat
they ptactised rolygamy because atr. Joseph
OF the question?
Mr. l'rntt had, Is Jet, offered nothing in
support Of the affirmative side OF this qaes-
t.oi' bas assumptions. He had assumed that
:here was no law III the Bible forbildins or
condemnine polyGamy. Had 10 proved it
ton. we're po'yganists. Hal ho proved it ?
He challenged prof that there were more
than two cAses OF rolygamy amcng them
from the time they t'!t Esypt till they arrived
in Pa1essine, the periol when the Law WIZ
given. He had assumed that the=e laws were
given ia regulate an institution already e1-
istinE. Had le proved that; And, suppose
it we're true, would. the legislation Of Moses
Regulating aud restraining polsgamy. sanction
III Netu tho laws regulating and restraining
the social evil and intenperAnco sanction oi
those evils He U'satt) bad aeenmed thai
| these laws uere general, and therefore sp
| piled to rolygrmista. He .(Sewman) had
proved TO the contrary. Neither ia these pas.
cages, nor in any other. WAS there an iut.ma
sion that they referred to polygamy.
leke,l hy the Almighty in the time Of mAn't
Innocence, ard that ro1ygamy had i'd oE1sii
! with other crimeH after tie fall. in t..e wick
ednees Of man. Wien God hal chosen ,h