The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-08-18

hlm the worms shali iced sweet!y on him. he shall "
n0more remembered, and wickedness shall be broker
| as tree. He evil entreateth the barren thai
beareth not. and doth not good 70 the widow:
the adulterer commits his sin with the whore Jizneh
"But draw near nither ye sons Of the sorceress the
conclude that from the seventh commandment, from
the common meaning Of adultery and f0rnication o.
given by Christ. and from Job and Isaiah, that the
woman Is an adulterer. For II the married man who
cohaljlts with single woman Is only . forni
Gator, ana single man who cohabits 18th mar
ried woman Is an aduterer, then this Ii distinction
without o difference, and it Il without sanction
But it may be asked, sIr this is 80, why then does
the Mosaic law mention the married woman andnot
Il %ae W. o sns uSn &
special penalties were denounced against
such r. connection With married woman
age and birth OF Christ from interruption and con.
course with married woman was had by q man
other than her husband, but no such danger could
unmarried woman. The latter act was q sin against
the Divine law; the former act was sin against the
Divine ,,l law and clvli Temporary law THIS tempe
luting @ descent OF turning aside an inheritance
and OF imposing upon man Q child which did not
belong to him. THIS form OF adultery was considered
great social wrong against which society protected
itself by severer penalties than from unchase act
not involving the same contingencies. But now the
object OF those special civil laws having ceased,
Christ having come. they are no longer OF binding
force, and now botn the man and the woman guilty
OF adultery are amenable to the Divine law, and both
are equally condemned by Christ
But II o married mans copulating with an unmar-
ried woman Ii adultery then all the patrlarchs were
adnlterers, because they were polygamists-not all
OF them, for all of them were no. polyganists and
those who were and were thus guilty repented and
dismissed Hagar Jacob had children Of only one
Observation-Disclosures his conversion. Jacob lived l47
he became polygamist; twenty two OF which he
lived In polygamy; forty Of which he lived alter he
his life there were iz5 years curing which he was
not polygamist David put away all his wives eight
years before his DEATH These men were not exposed
to temporal death because they took unmarried
women and all but Solomon abandoned polygamy,
and, IN the opinion OF Adam Clark he was probably
lost 1t is true GIDEON is mentioned by St. Paul In
Hebrew, XII, az among those who died in the faith
but the case o. Gideon proves too much, us he was an
idoator II the Scriptures are silent as to his hay.
his having abandoned tdolatry. Therefore the case
Of Gideon proves nothing FOR the cause Of the poly
pathological historical and legal facts is that poly
gamy Is adultery.
THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT APPROVE PoLYGAMY.
Now we pass to fourth argument or propo-
sltOnnamely that there is no passage OF Scripture
correctly interpreted which sactlOns p0lygamy.
Sand II q man shall sell his daughter to he maid
servant she Shall not 60 out as the man servants do.
II she please not her master, who hath betrothed
her TO himself, then shall he let her be redeemed;
to sell her unto strange nation he shall have
no power. seeing that he hath dealt deceitfully
III
son he shall deal with her after the manner Of
daughters. And II he take HIM another wife her
food her rament and her duty of marriage shall he
not diminish. Aud II he do not these three unto
her then shall she go out free without money" The
significant points IN this passage are that Jewish
father In destitute circumstances permitted to
apprentice his daughter FOR a given term OF years
and for q pecunary considerations but around these
privileges extended TO the father were certain legal
guards:-That he could not apprentice his daughter
beyond term OF six years; that she should be free
at the expiration Of that term Or sooner her master
to whom she was apprenticed was to marry her or
his son was to take her to wife. These are the facts
What is The use made OF this passage BY the poyga
is "lf he take him another WIFE," But the term
.wie" Is neither In the Hebrew nor in the Greek.
said about marriage. Bo,rotha with the - jews 1
engaged to the young lady and the young lady to the
young man; but before the contamination. If the
other''-not another "wifen but another "betroth-
ed then shall he do certain things namely lie shall
raiment and her dwelling That is Gods opinion Of
the meanness Of man who will break his marriage
vows.
Again, 1t is supposed that Exodus xii, 1s, IL
"And II q man entice maid that is not Detrothed
aud lie with her he shall surely endow her TO be his
HIM he shall pay money according to the d0wry OF
virgins.' And Deuteronomy XIII, %, 2o-"If q man
hod on e p lie WITH ns ey be
found, then the man that lay with her shall give
unto the damseps father nfty shekels Of silver and
he may not put her away all hts days" It Is sup
posed that these passages support polygamy by sup
the superstition Is not well founded. These laws are
either subordinate to The first law Of MARRIAGE or
they ARE not dnt S y q, 90 ac mot Ss9 ss
ssii '' binding y upon mapkind IT, then they
and hence no longer in force. 1t Is sound maxim
In Jurisprudence that special laws should be inter-
BY az cona ss
two laws included married men, but being incOn-
sistent with the original marriage they have passed
But the practice OF the modern Jews Is to the point
illustrative OF the true intent OF these enactments
Virgin to marry er bu # Married ma
to maintain her. These laws, therefore, refer to
single men in their obligation to marry and to mar
r1ed men in their obligations to pay the forfeiture IN
money 1t is tremendous fact that the father OF
the debauched damsel could refuse to give his
daughter In marriage TO her seducer II, therefore,
sexual intercourse between a married man and an
unmarried woman Is marriage, the father had the
legal right to annul Gods law OF marriage. PO-
1ygamy Is or Is not commanded by Moses. Ii 1t Is,
then the modern Jew las above) disobeys Moses II
It is not, then pOlygamy Is not binding on Jew or
The polygamists also quote Deuteronomy XIV,
6-10-"H brethren dwell together, and one Of them
die, and have no child the wife OF the dead shall not
marry without unto o stranger; her husbands
brother shall 60 In unto her. ana take her to him to
wife and perform the duty OF husbands brother
unto her And 1t shall be that the first born which
she beareth shall succeed in the name Of his brother
which Is dead that his name shall not be put out Of
Israeli And II the man like not to take hts brothers
wife then let his brothers. wife 60 up to the gate
unto the elders and say, My husbands brother re-
fuseth to raise up unto his brother name In Israel he
VIII not perform the duty Of my husbands brother.'
Then the elders OF his city shall call him and speak
unto him. and II he stand to It, ana say 4 like not
to take her. then shall his brothers. wife come
unto him in the presence Of the elders and loose his
shoe from OF his foot and spit In his face, and shall
answer and say so shall it be done unto that man
that Will not build up his br0tner's house, And his
name shall be called In Israel the house OF him that
hath his shoe loOsed.n
This Is regarded as strong proor-text by the po-
lygamists. The object OF this law Is to secure the
ate ancestral names and ancestral inheritances.
Now, we affirm that this law was not binding upon
married man, and there Is no instance In the Bible
where such marriage was performed by married
man. For instance, take the case OF lamar. The
sons OF judah were not married because OF their
youth; they were too young to have been married.
SO also take the case OF Ruth. Ruth, you know,