Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-04-25

verse, and the question when the Saduneeea
personal, but loses all ta Significance u the
subsequent brothers had had other wives;
was recognized In the lAwi and 10 the ease OF
married men being compelled to decline they |
simply draw OF the shoe, while the unmar-
lied man who ssS s nS' ,S Ssy SSw ON WhHS
he had rejected spat In hi, face. And the
argument Il strengthened By the fact that we
have no knowledge either IN sacred OF ptoiane
his maTtiage to the beautiful Ruth. This IL
one OF the elearest cases In the Bible for mo-
Y iInt The text most confidently relied on to
gustaip the legal sanction Of Polygamy III
Samuel, xii chap, sth verse; And gave thee
thy masters house, and thy masters wives
Israel aud Of Judah, and II that had been too
little would moreover have given unto NEE
such and such 's,SE :, hs ~ EiSa
dom from saul 70 David, and 10 Pfoof y 10
stated that even SAul's household had fallen
i ssIsd Nv %omsP Tor We nSWhsrs read that saul
had more than one vile, whose name was
Ahipoam. Rilpah wM second g,Ie, OF ~
are therefore meant. To give these into
Dayld's bosom simply implies protection.
AbrAham's bosom TO which Lslafus was car
fied, was place OF protection hgurauyely eN-
pressed. II does not mean that they became
his wives, for Bishop Patrick In his common
t.tis, rs, lusy sall I ma,s s@Sp w hof ysw y,
a king no more than his sceptre or his crown,
much less his widow or one divorced who was
10 remain widow % ne ssy S 81 hsT Gss.n
not vet eonsldered are all AS susceptible OF an
easy and logical explanation as those already
there IL not one text In the Bible which even
supports polygamous marriages.
q But what the passage. which condemn
polyEAmyt Upoh no subject are the inspired
wi tiers more explicit than on this, and It 10 to
be regretted that some commentators, who
have not given special attention TO the sub
jeot, have not only conceded too much, which
on more thorough investigation would have
been denied, but have treated the subject with
aSuperfciality unworthy Of men Of leatnins
tion. For many years many able ministers
conceded that the Bible sanctioned and author.
S,ssysI but there 70 sSd on
whose mind puter light ahone, who brayely
defended the Scriptures and u L. not too
tloS 81 peislsai and moral Ideas through which
we have Just passed, that within the next ten
years men will wonder At the attempt Of any
man who Interpreted the Bible In the Interests
on slavery. This l. SnaioEouS TO the case be-
fore me. The events OF the hour will force
biblical scholars to make the study Of the
that which has hiihefto been conceded will
hereafter be denied, Oookson and Paley, aud
Edwards and Dwight, and other eminent scho.
lars, who have eonsistently expounded tho
Scriptures as condemning polygamy will DO
sustained BY the profound scholars OF the
Church in an lands. Biblical interpretation
but with theology, as with every branch OF
science, as the human mind is lifted up, clearer
ii Il msTyeious fact tn II the homogeneous
chAraetsI Of the nrst marriage 90 record 10
anifmed BY Moses, the lawyer, Malachi, the
new dIspensation OF religious truth and
worship, and by 81. Paul, the great Apostle to
the gentiles. That marriage 10 recorded 10
father and mother, and shall eleaye unto his
wife, and they shall be one nesh.n Language
cannot be more simple and explicit. In enter
ali other natural eonnestions, even parental
eudeAFmenta, which are held to be the
strongest, and shall "clsAye unto HE wife,
E ave 1 unto Adam Su, S oss WosSs lie s;Suid
have created moreI one was suficient. 10
their opposite physical mental and moral
characteristics man and woman became In
marriage a perfect humanity-"ons nesh."
And 10 prove the ohlgA tions Of this dual
union, Of one man and one woman In wedloek,
these same words are quoted by MAlNchi,
iihl, Is. And In sanction Of Moses and MAlA.
chi our Lord quotes these very words In Mat.
thew, xixi5, 2. In these wotds Christ condemns
both successive aud Simultaneous polygAmyJ
AAd 1t lie remarkable that the sin here con-
demned by our Lord does not consist In put
ting away former wife. Man and wife may
ifSnsEression, but the sin consists 10 the fact,
and shall marry another" lie has no right
FoiloSInE Ia the footsteps OF his MAster,st
Paul quotes them In Epheslans, v;2s, 81. Thus,
| touohing this remarkable passage what
| IL the sun They were recorded By Moses
| In the opening ehAptetG OF the Bible; they are
repeated and explained BY Malachi In the last
book of the Old Testamentj they are repeated
md enforced BY Christ 10 the nrst book o. the
| enforce the same doctrine Of duality In mar
Tlage BY ST. Paul, the greatest Of all the APos.
This 10 enforced by the seventh comma nd
| ment, OF which Matthew v, Is, 10 the eEposi-
ton. And as a further enforcement Of this
| grand truth, history repeats itaelf AZ uod
designed 10 the beginning to people the whole
| earth from the ofspriDg OF Adam and Eve, 80
after the flood God purposed to repeople the
| world by the eight persons saved In the ark
| four men and four women.
In DeS tsSt%Sy XVI. II, po,ys.@y is sS
pAtes that the Jews will desire q king, and
commands what they shall not do, and among
| the inhibitlona 10 the one he "bhAlt not null
tiply wives unto himseltn Add similar law
| And this law 10 carried out by 81. Paul 10
| his directions to Timothy-l Tim. Ill. 2. This
10 regarded by some a. very weak proof
| text, but regard II a. one OF the strongest In
the bible. A bishop, then, must be blameless,
the husband OF one wife. The Abettofa OF
polyEamy assume that bishop must have one
vile, and ~ many more A. he pleaaea.
But the distinction 10 not between an un-
married man and married man, but between
a man With one wife and 4 man With many
unmarried man aud a married one-thAt is, n
q bishop must have one wife HOieHs r0ieHs-
then no unmarried man can be an elder in the
Church Of dod. liza minister loses his wife,
he must cease to be minister till he gets
another. And what shall We do with John
the baptist, with st; Paul himself, with
Bishop AshbuTy, and with John Wesley, who
remained unmarried many years, and ~ had
been better for him and the Church II he had
never married, for he got genuine JeIsbsl,
or below. ILAuEhterl
Blackstone has well said, tvol !, page $50, of
By BY the S Is% Of he New T s.,s%sSSt." consumed
The census Of the world, so far as taken, as
| to the proportion of mAiel and females, con
law. The lbjSnstion h. "LSt every man NAVE
his own wife, And let every woman have her
own husband" Now, take the census OF the
world, and what are the iaeisl According to
the following; White population, II, SIS, 900
mAleE and Il, 5Si 900 females, there being an sx.
900 males and /, OO2I 900 females, an sTeeSS Of
Take The census for 1900. white population,
l6,Osb, 100 males and lbS5s, l05 females, an ex-
cess Of over 100000 maies. OoIorsd popuIa.
tion, l,9s2, 900 males and l,0Tl, 900 females, an
excess Of II 900 males. Indian population,
70 500 males And II 200 females, an excess Of
! 100 males.
In Great Britain there 10 an excess OF TOO, 900
females, but add the proportions OF males and
females OF the United StAtea and Great Brit.
ain, representing two great branches OF the
AnElO-SaXon race, and the proportion OF the
| sexes 10 about equal Ia France there are
lOol4,0OO males and 10, O57, 900 females. In Aus
| tTiA there are II $4,000 males aud iTT8t 900
| females. In Italy there are l7,T7T, 900 males
and l2,6Ts,OO0 females. In PruSsIA there are
l,BTl 900 males and u, 100 900 females. Here IL
an excess OF GA 900 females In these I've great
| European nations, with total population OF
| l8s, OOO, O0Oi that 10 one vile for each man and
the one hundred and thiFty-eighth part OF an
| other wife for the same man. lLAughterl but
now add the number OF soldiers 10 those 1oun-
tries, which are not included In the civil llsts,
| and the population IL about equAliIed. And
judging from the relative proportion OF the
sexea In Indian and negro population OF this
| country, we may conclude that the same Law
Of equalization holds good In Its application
to the nations Of Asia and Africa,
| Thus nature provides for the right Of each
| man to one wife. But polygAmy violates this
| right, for N one man takes twelYes wives, then
| eleven men are cheated out Of their natural
rights, PolygAmy 10 a domestic AristooTacy,
tTamplins under foot the rights OF the common
| people.
Or. Newman then proceeded to consider the
| pTdeficC recorded In the Bible as distinguished
| from the law therein. The nrst instance OF