The New York herald., 1870-04-25

duty Of marriage ne shat nol dimnsa And u no
90 not these three uno ncr, tnen shall she 40 FREQ
THE SIGNIFICANT POINTS
Ia TINS passage are:--Tae Jaw permitted father
~ VINO was IN utter destisution 20 apprentice ms
uduEutcr lOf monetary consideration: bit the ap.
premiership was guardeo oy the following condi
tiols;-Ine period OF the hdealure could mol ex.
time. or sooner. as al the wear OF jubilee.
or at the death OF her master sne
her IN marriage, either for him self or his Such
are tae TWO general conditions or the udenture out
what are the facts touching the oetrotheiP 1t i'm
portant TO remember that tho Jews made ds,luc.
lion between betrothM ana narriaVe, as we recos.
marnage. Now Law directs that n the masser,
having oetr0hed her, shall change ms mind before
her to 90 redeemed la suis csss snc nai not ne.
come MS wlie. And the law furtAer provides that
n,sr tue m master hs sna @ parota as % ms sou ana 4
Shall change MS MUD and prefer another ald take
her TO vile. then the betrothed snau have her mar.
rage DOVER AMI II ne fans TO do THIS, ''lhen snal
sne 20 out free without money" Inat 10 witaout
paying the price OF ner REDEMPTION. thus the law g
| on the SIDE OF the woman for her protection, ana
does not, directly or indirectly sanction po.y2am0as
| marriages. Win equal confidence
TIE ABETToRs oL poLyGAMY
quote Levlticus XVIII 13--"xelther snat tNou take
wife to her sister TO vex her, TO uncover ter ma.
accepted canon OF IN expectation thar ae scope OF
the law must 90 considered Ia determining the
OF any portion OF the Jaw and 1t Is equally binding
upon Us 10 ascertain the nnd OF the legislator from
| the preface Of tne .aw when slcn preiace is gwen.
l
and in the third 1t is stated, "Ater the dongs
o. the land OF Egypt wherein ye owel ye sbaii MT
whittier oring you. slal ye no. 40; neither snal 70
| walk In their ofdnancee." Wnat were their ordi-
nancesS Both the Egyplians ana the canaantes
polygamy. From verse,sx 10 verse seventeen inclu-
| sve the law OF consangrinity Is lad down and the
| blood relationships are deaned within the llls OF
| wnch persons were forbidden to marry. But In
verse eighteen the aw against polyeamy s given
Neither shat tnon take W.e 70 ner ss!er;' or as
the marginal reading Is, "ihou shalt take one
| wife to another.D And this rendering Is sustained
D%ss AseoPans ss"e g Dr. E%ards 1ns Inc
words, whlch we translate, "a wite TO her sister,
passage they refer to naalmaie obocts such as the
1 wrgs Of the cherublm. lemons, mortices, &C., and
n@e S cosp exaa kasss Of ONE e 90
| mere iorb!d, as the margin pre- ses IT, tile taxing
OF one wife to another In her l4.e time. Aud the
PRonipIrloN OF A PLURALITY OF WIVES
Is natural logical and mercifll because 1t would
ovSs h'taptSxS and m is hs Il o si
gamoqs marriages Is the history OF fam fam,
smeen es0's 10 JACOB o scoo 70 DaSa r from
David 10 Solomon, ana In subsequent times. tho yio
lalon Of TINS divine law mas been ATTENDED BY such
| we are reduced to the necessity OF admitting that
sisters thus married are more likey to quarfe with
each other thar other women, which is us absurd as
1t Is ignorant. Here tnen, have tho SIMPLE post
tive command given By he Amigaty, "Il0u shalt
Wiin perhaps even greater assurance OF success
| Deuteronomy xxi, i5 IL, has ooen quoscd:-''If
hated and tiiey have borie MA caapsn. bSH the
beloved ana the hated. and II the hrst born son be
nerS nat n,, was mated ~ tnen III. 10 sha pe when ne
| nc may not make the son OF the beloved first born
before the the son OF the hated, winch s indeed the
| first born. But he shall acknowledge the son OF the
haied Tor the first born By giving nim double por
tlcn OF al thai he hath, for hs Is the begnnlng OF
hts strength tue right OF the first born s hs.n The
design OF tins law IS to secure the FIRST born son
| TILE RIdHr or PRiModENJrURE.
m man have two wives i lie sa had them he ms st
neousy or ia succession. Tho former intsrpreta-
probable from the tenor Of the Mosaic law. Suppose
pciygamy was unknown at that time, the int9rpre-
| tation or succession would be accepted at once
Hence it Is not illogical 1t may be the true one Bus
conceding that poiygamy dad exist, but contrary TO
the tenor oi the Mosaic law, taen the Interpretation
OF Succession wonld stiil DO tae true one. Arc we
not bound to interpret one portion OF a law OY the
tenor OF the whole awg Now the question is, what
is the object o. this aws TO secure TO the rst bora
| son the rights granted MIN by the law OF prlmogen-
ture. Very wei. Is not this law applicable to mono
gamy, or a succession OF wives, which is the same
thlngi All must concede that plurality OF wives 10
not essential to the iulnlment OF the law. A man
having had one wife and she being dead, and
| may he not love the latter moro than
| at her suggestion and perhaps aG ner demand wish
20 advance ner son To the rights and possessions NJ
| for father to show partiaty FOR the children OF
second wife, and especially when the second wife
demands II as only a woman can demand i.s Then
there Is nothing Illogical In the supDJsItOn that the
| ''tw0 wves'' here mentioned were had IN success
| sion And TINS suppostion IS STRENGTHENED by the
fact that III the days Of Moses divorces wero fre-
| quent and this law was applicable to successive
] poygamy--tbat is, when man dismissed one wils
| and too9 another, By boyn OF whom ns was the
| iaiher OF children, and loved one more than the
| other. In either case whether the succession was
| 10 homogeneous marriages. The passage, therefore,
proves nothing for poiy.alny, but like rGcse prev
,ns ons %@sn oS eorscy 10 con
| God and crime against humanity.
Next TO this passage Deuteronomy XIV. 5-10, ia
| adduCed as proof ucxt:-.f brethren dwell to.
gcther, and one OF thom die ana have child, the
wife OF the dead shall nos marry without unto q
stranger; her husbands brother snail go ia unto
aud take her TO nm TO wife, and perform the duty OF
husbands brother unto ncr. And it shall oe that
the first born which she peareth shall succeed n the
| name OF his brother which - dead, that his name
os nos put out la Israel. And II the man like not
go up to the gate unto the elders aad say, My hus
Dands brother refasetn to raise up unto mis- brother
name IN Israel he VIII NOT perform the duty OF my
call him and speak un,o him. and II he stand TO it
and say, like not to take her tnen shall his BROTH
er's wife come unto him, IN the presence OF the
elders, and loose his shoe from or his foot and spit
IN his face ana shall answer say, SO shall iC be
ers house, ard his name shall be called in Israel
The house OF him that hath his shoe loosed." TIE
aud family inheritance. But mus law
| DOES NOT SANCTION, Or EYES CONNIyE AT PoLGAMY,
as rsh WIN appear % from ths following reasons:.Ihe
| not yet married. and become heads OF families.
lniS TACT excludes all married men from the ObllgA
items or the law, and all the facts in the Bible touch
ing TINS point justify this interpretation Take the
case Of famar recorded in Genesis xxXviii. The
sons OF Judah were not married, which Is clear from
their respective ages. Take the case Of Ruin and
her kinsman He at lrss consents to redeem the
Inheritance OF MahOn; but when Boaz SAID to him,
Thou must also buy 1t of Ruth the Moab!tess, the
vile OF the dead, to raise up the name the dead
| upon nis inheritance" he Declined Lest mar
| my own inheritance" The meaning of which is
two families and TWO nnerltances TO care for are too
| much for one man. And now, If you will turn 10
Josephus' Antiquities book ", chap. Sec A., you
Will there reat as the reason for his declining, that
| he had vic already, ana children also. On such
questions J0sephus Is good authority.
And then turn to Luke Xxx, %, ana the question
boz" Is intensely PERSONAL but loses oil its signif-
| canoe II the subsequent brothers had mad other
wives. ana you w observe that the right Of re-.
1 married men being compelled to decline, they
simply drew or the shoe, while the unmarried man
who refused not only drew or tue 6hoe but sub.