The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-09-03

founded on this data Divide 2. 800 900 persons by
2, 273 fist born males, and we ind one hrst born
male to every liz persons. What Q large family for
80 coo families and the quotient gives eighty
three persons ia a family. Eghty-thrce per-
sons In family sspp0seS nsss h 's@e
and vile we have the very respectable number
OF eiRhtyone children TO each monogamc wile.
And II assume the number or males and females 10
be exactly equal, making no allowance for the de-
struction Of the male infants we shall then have to
OF age so as to keep good the number OF $500, 006
This would Still make elghty-0ne children on an
average IN each OF the 80 ooo monogamc families.
polygamlc households, 50 as to reduce the number
that each woman would have. II we suppose The
average number OF wives TO be seven-the average
number recollect-there may be many that have no
wfe at all; there may be many m0nOgamic
families ana then there may be many poly
gamlc having from one wife up to thirty
or forty But we VIII average them, the
10000 families we viii average them to seven wives
apiece. We should then h We one husband to seven
wives, and seventy-fve children, making eighty
three in family. In the polygamic household this
OF the 100000 poygamic wives and $1,000 husbands.
When we take the 1000 married men from the
6o5 800 men over twenty years old, we have 57S $50
unmarried men 10 Israel. II we deduct 2l0 900 mar
ried women from the 1908 $50 females over twenty
years we have 793,550 unmarried females over
twenty years old. This would be enough to supply
ali the unmarried men with one wife EACH leaving
sui balance or 220 900 unmarried females to live old
maids or enter into polygamic households The
law guaranteeing the rights OF the first born
which has been referred to In other portions OF
discussion, includes these twenty-five thousand two
hundred and seventy-three 1rst-Dorn male children
In Israethat is, one persC H. one first born person,
to every one hundred and Twelve persons in Israel,
esteemed ana learned friend Mr. Newman, al two
anu half millions. Here, then, was aw given to
regulate the rights OF the fst born applying 70 over
twenty-five thousand frsl.bOrn mae children In
Israel; that they should all inherit double portion
OF the goods and inheritances OF their fathers.
But now, then, having brought forth these stats.
tlcS let a few moments examine the results
more closely. now can any one prove from the
statistics given in Numbers, In the Bloe2 How
can any one assume them to be monOgamlc
and be conslstent9 Is 1t reasonable, Is 1t consistent
10 suppose tlau these households could have been
monogamic In their natureY BY no means; 1t can
not be so. Ipresume that my friend, noJwlthstand-
Ing his great desire and earnestness TO overthrow
polygamy-I presume that he Will not have the con-
science TO say to this people that one wife can
BRING forth eigntyone children In household. II
ihey cannot and we can depend upon these num-
Ders these biblical statistics, then let Mr. Newman,
who assumes that the males ana females equal
snow how these great and wOnderlui households
could be produced among Israel II there were only
two polyganic families In their midst II requires
something more powerful than that medicinal herb
called nlandrakes 10 which Mr.. Newman refers in
his rejoinder TO my reply III the New YORK HERALD.
tLaughter.) think there are no mandrakes at the
present day thae would accomplish sucn wonders as
Having then established tina. Israel was poly.
game nation, remember that when God gives laws
He gives them TO poygamlc nation, the mono.
gainic families being the exception, and few Of them
compared To the pOygalnlc. They were founded
IN the days OK Israel, that Is, OF Jacob. He COM
menced the WORK ANA 1t was continued in poiygamy
until they became very, numerous very great and
powerful, WINE here and there might be found q
monoganlic Ia nlly with only one wife. Now, II God
gave laws To people OF these mixed forms OF mar
rlage III the wilderness OF course He would adapt
laws to both classes OF families. ae would not shut
out the Isolated Instance that could DO
picked up here anu there Of man having but one
WIFE, bat he would adapt his law the condition OF
The monogamic and polygamic forms OF marriage
throughout al Israeli
Rut GOV In IN
laws given for the regulation OF the institution, that
they bear upon their face its condemnation and re-
Iers 70 the laws that have been passed In Paris
regulate the social evil also the excise laws passed
In our country 10 regulate fntemperance, and that
these laws or regulation seem to be con-
to be condemnatory Of these crimes. Admit 1t.
When the Parislans have passed laws to
regulate the social evil they nave denounced 1t
as u crime. When the inhabitants OF this country
have passed laws to regulate intemperance they
have denounced 1t as crime, and when Gods laws
are given, or even laws enacted by human legisla-
ton, they generally delounce the crime and attach
murder inc penalty was THAT the murderer Should
die. When laws were gven to punish the thief and
the blasphemer and the sabbath breaker We find
was punished II was TO be by st0ning him to DEATH
God Then gave laws 70 regulate those things in
these great and abolninaple crimes by law,
has he not right 10 regulate that which Is
good aud :, moral as We'll as that which Is
circumcision and he gave laws regulating It; shall
therefore say. according to The logic OF the gen
tleman, that circumcision wSs CONDEMNED by the
law OF Cd because 1t was regulated by the law OF
God? Why, that would be his logic. That would
be the natural conclusion, according TO the gentle
mans logic. Again, wnen God instituted the pass
oyer he gave laws how they should conduct the
passover; does that condemn the passover as being
Immoral because 1t was regulated by lawi But, to
closer home God gave laws TO regulate the IN
stituton vi marriage does that prove that Mono
gamy Is condemned by the lay o. God i because 1t Is
We now come, tntn, to that passage that was
80 often referred to in the gentlcman's reply yester
day afternoon. / WAS very glad to nave the gentle
man refer to this passage. The law, according to
King James translation, as we all heard yesterday
afternoon, reads Ike tnis:-Nei,her snalt thou take
law according to King James translation. My
friend, together with Dr.. Dwight, Dr. Edwards and
several other celebrated commentators, disagree
with that interpretation: and somebody (who IL was
l know not has inserted IN the margin, Neither
shalt thou take one VIE e. 10 another
argued that the Interpretation IN the margin must
be correct while King james ranslators must have
been mistaken. Now, recoliect that the great COM
mentators that have thus altered King James trans
latiOn were monogamsts. SO were The transators
of the Bible. They were all monogamists- mono.
gamists contendng against m0nogamistS III regard
to the true translation OF this passage IL has been
argued by my esteemed ana learned friend that me
original Hebrew signifies something literally differ
ent from That which Is contained IA KING James
translation. These are his words, as VIII
De io"nd snd MS NfsS sermon ms seer
OF Columbia upon this same thing:-"But in
verse eighteen the law against pOlygamy Is given
Neither snat thou take wife TO her sister, or, as
the marginal reading -, Thou shalt not take one
wife to aoLher; and this rendering Is sustained by
Cookson, Bishop Jewel, Or. Edwards and Dr..
Dwight" four eminent monogamists. According
to DR.. towards tho words winch were translated "a
wife to her sister, are found In the Hebrew but
eight times. Now, nave not been favored with
these authorities; have not had access to them.
Here IN these noun ain wilds 1t Is difficult to get
books. "la each PASSAGE resunng his quotation
from DIR, Newman's sermon, 'tiey refer to lnan-
mate obects;' that is, In each OF the eight places
out in the Hebrew, and can refer you to the
chapter and verse where the eight passages
are ionnd and I don't know how many
more; but it Is said by the Rev. DR.. Newman that
they are only found eight times-readlng again from
Dr. Newmali-"in each passage they refer 10 tnani-
mate objects, such rs the wings OF tho cherubim,
tencns nortices &c, and signify coupling together
one to another;r as "rhou shalt not take one wife
to anoiher,-hOne to another" keep that In
mind .they denote the exact likeness OF one thing
to another''--that s all true; we admit that-"and
the taking OF one wife to another" FORBID t"-