The New York herald., 1870-05-30

dressing was the sanctity OF marriage In that the
His design for the multiplication Of the human spe.
cies; that Moses because OF the wickedness OF tne
e a s
as adultery the wicked practice which then existed
to an alarming extent OF putting away one wife with
out suctent cause In order to crafty their beasty
SUCH WICKED, HEARrLEss MARRIAGES,
preceded by the mOnstrOus cruelty OF divorce, were
only to be recognized In the catalogue Of Grimes II
could not be said OF such marriages, "What God
Tnsy we're no Dart Of the divine Institution, and
therefore aduiterOus and the children bastards
while on shs other hand the poygsst who Sd hon ON
his pea peaceful family circle was approbsted Of God
were not bastards, but legitimate and blessed OF
God, as Ia abundantly proved In the divine oraces
in the form ef aenuncistion against polyramy, the
reverend doctor says:-
shall proceed to that Gods law condemns the
union In marriage OF more than two persons.
assss EseSs: S r :s!i b: dausssr
DO Il s not Ss her % e bath rel her
Ss @
he take him saoser wife, her her rament and her duty
three unto her, then shall she freq without money"
Having quoted the passage this reverend divine
supposes the purchased lady to stand in the relation
man Is still unmarried person. How far this sup
position Is founded on truth WIN appear from the
passage ftself-f he take him another wife, her food,
her rament and her duty OF marriage, he shall not
diminish
acknowledge the first lady as not only berothed, but
as actually lawful wife, and her "dity OF marriage
ne % aa ho sarred .u Ma ana h Hs a %vn
language calls her, and II He aso recognizes the
second lady as "another wife" and bestows on her
GOD GAVE LAWS
which not only sanction the taking OF another wife
while the first Is yet living. buC which also prescribe
three duties which the husband must fulfil to the
first wife. In this passage neither the husband nor
his wives were condemned as criminals and sub.
jeced TO fines and penalties; but both ladies' had the
hOnored title OF wives bestowed upon them by the
great Divine % sy Lawglyer Himself This portion Of
polygamy, honors 1t equally with monogamy.
The next passage referred to by this celebrated
divine against p0ygamy VIII be found IN LevIticus,
xviii, 1S. ''Neither shalt thou take wife to her SIS
ter. TO yex her. to uncover her nakedness besides
present rendering does not either directly indi-
rectly, condemn polygalny, the learned doctor Is
Obliged 10 seek in the margin for nm ,ne opinions Of
| opposed to polygamy. He finds that DR.. Edwards
| translates the words "a wife to her sister," zone
wife 10 another" BY this alteration he makes the
passage read, "Thou shalt not take one wife to
anotherr Any Impartial Hebrew scholar who has
no peculiar dogma TO sustain Will decide ut once
that the passage as 1t now stands In Levifcus the
true rendering Of the Hebrew, and that the sug-
fetched but are not true and are not in Keeping with
the context ann ouncing the law Of consangainity.
Poygamy, by this passage, is sindrectIy appreciated;
for, instead OF den0uncing ft as crtIne and
manding them 10 refrain from it, the Lord merely
prohibited the husband from marrying his wle's
Ter during her lifetime but placed no restraint upon
him IN regard to
PLURAL MARRIAGES WITH OTHER WOMEN,
in int the preceding part Of the Chapter The next law
referred to by Mr.. Newman Is in Deuteronomy Xxi,
15-l7:-"I a man have two wives, one beloved and
both the beloved and the hated; and II the rstborn
son be hers that was hated then it shall be- when he
maketh his sons to inherit that which he lath that
he may not make the son OF the beloved firstb0rn
before the son Of the hated which is indeed the rs
born but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated
for the frstborn, by given him double portion of
all that he hath for lie is the beginning OF his
strength; the right OF the III hrstborn rs IS hisn The
ferred 10 In this passage might have been successive
wives the hated one having been divorced or dead;
pOlygamist. But as plurality OF wives had been
practiced by them from the days of Abraham be-
tween four anu five hundred years, 1t Is very evil
dent that the law was given TO regulate
THE NUMEROUS FAMILIES or poLYGAMIsTs
conveys the idea OF the simultaneous existence Of
the TWO wives: there Is no reference TO past time.
1t does not say II man has mad two wives that IS,
have two WIVES" clearly referring to their cOtem-
porary existence Win the husband. This, then, Is
another additional evidence that God gave laws re-
gulating the descent OF property Ia p0ygamous
families. God bestows the honored title or wives
upon both women, and acknowledges their children
as legitimate and though the hated wife happened
to be the second, and the nrstborn happened to be
her son. yet he was the legal heir 70 the double por
brand Of namy upon bastards, declaring that '.tiiey
it' unto the tenth i' eenerations best., XIII ~ ''
The next passage adduced BY the reverend gentle
manis found In Deuteronomy, XIV, 5-i0.
Ifbrethren dwell together and OF them and have
child the wife Of the dead shall marry without unto
sr y s S % % SfsF shall ,e g in ne
brother unto her And snail be that the hrborn when
dead that his M name be not put out 10 Israel And
My husbands brother efuseth up his brother
a S Sy h%y and
@ hen and m TO viz Il say Linz LINZ mot the to
sence Of the elders and loose his shoe from oG his foot and
" unto @ % viii Na not sad sy Up lis 'p
him that hath his shoe loosed
Mr.. Newman advances the following supposition
In regard 10 ths law:-"!he object OF this law was
the preservation Of families and family Inheritance
But chs law continues ne, DOES not snnctton or
ece1t conntce at poiyganty, as will appear from the
that IS they have not yet married and become heads
OF families. This 1act excludes all married mea
from the obligations OF the law.r
From the simpe TACT that The 'breihren dwell to-
Gcthern Mr.. Newman has drawn the sweeping con-
clason thai they were all unmarried men, and that
fact which no one will cai Ia question that one OF
TUE PEoULIARlriEs OF ISRAEL
was TO 'dwe together" Indeed 1t was q command
Of their Divine Lawgiver that eaCa tribe should re-
ceive their separate nhefitanccs and dwell together
instead OF alternating their ineritances and mixing
up and losing all distinctions OF tribes. These tribes
were again subdivded into smaller divisions called
Families, each consisting OF hundreds ana Of thou.
SANDS. and IN some Instances of tens Of thousands
tSee Numbers, XVI: also !. Chronicles Ezra Nehe-
mah anu many other Dook5.) 1t necessary
that these families, as a general custom, should
dwell together that the genealQgles might not be
lost. Again, these large family Subdivisions werc
still further divided into numerous branches dwell
ing together III the same region. And each branch
were again divided into households consisting OF
nearer blood re atlon such as grandfaters fathers
children. These most generally had their inher-
tances side by side IN the same neighb)rhood Such
were the ones whom the God OF Israel addressed as
'brethren dwelling together" They we.e mea and
not chi,dren-men capable OF performing the
duties Of marriage to the widows OF their de.
ceased brethren, tnat the first born Of the remarked
widow might succeed to the Inheritance ana thus
prevent the estate from being alenated to strangers
In other great families in Israel of more distant
kin. 1t mattered not how large q family OF mar
ried brothers there might be dwelling together in
the same neighborhooi, II they all but one died
childiess the surviving brother would be obliged by
lie 10 tn rho wi Gnvf