Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1873-02-19
scRIPTURAL LAW OF DIVORCE.
That chapter I'm Deuteronomy =
DaVfa, MREdalens, Etc.

That Chapter I'm Deuteronomy =
DaVfa, MaEdalens, Etc.
To the Editor of the Ledger:
We are quite unaccustomed to writing
newspaper communications, and should
not now rush into print If We did mol
consider that we, in our character as
men, had been somewhat reflected upon.
In Sundays Appeal we read an article
upon divorces, in which men are consld'
erably blackened and women held up as
long-suffering and much enduring
class. as we do not believe these to be
the facts, we cannot refrain from putting
in our protest. The first objection we
make TO Mrs. Elizabeth Avery Meri-
wethers article is that the quotation,
Deut. xxiv-i, is not correct. We quite
agree with Mrs. NJ. that the quotation as
given BY her makes man out monster
and a fiend. But it presents quite a
different aspect when the whole sentence
is taken together. Mrs. Meriwether
represents the Biblical man as divorcing
at pleasure. If we understand Deut.
xxiv-i correctly, divorces are only to be
allowed upon a good and sufficient
reason, which reason is expressed
therein. Eight qcords are dropped
by Mrs. M, and her case is then
made out By reference to the
chapter we think she will find this TO be
the case. Perhaps Mrs. NJ. quoted from
memory perhaps thought the reason an
insufficient one. If the latter, she after
wards contradicts herself, as she ex-
pressly states that these Jewish laws
were good in their time. Having taken
her text Mrs. NJ. then proceeds TO go for
man and represents him as perfect
little busy bee, rowing from flower to
flower" We would suggest to Mrs. NJ.
that the busy bee would not rove from
flower to flower were there not flowers
for him to rove to. She uses double
edged sword. She says: eff man had
a sickly, broken down or faded wife, or
if BY nature he was fond Of variety, and
liked new wife every year, or every
month in the year, all he had to do was
to scribble that little bill Of divorce, put
it into his wife's hand, take her by the
shoulder and shove her out of the house.
This was called putting her away" This
is little fight of the Imagination which
certainly is not supported by Deut.
xxiv--i, or by any other portion Of the
Bible we have ever seen. As imagination,
it is good. Learned critics have pazzled
themselves trying to determine whether
Homer, Virgil or Milton had the great
est imagination. We would suggest
Mrs. NJ as a compromise, suitiDg all
parties. By Deut. xiv, the man is
allowed to put away or divorce his wife
when a very fraudulent case OF false
pretenses is made out
Mrs. NJ hits King David rap or two.
We acknowledge he was hard old nut;
but III Samuel, vi-xxiii, does not say that
he put away or divorced his wife, Michal.
The lsmentable fact recorded in that
verse seems to us. to be a judgment of
God, and no fault Of King David's, as is
evidenced by the word therefore at
the commencement of the sentence.
We also object 70 the Jewish and
Christian religions being made answer
able for the acts OF Ahasuerus. If we
remember correctly he was King Of one
of the infdel nations which had subdued
the jews. We cordially indorse all that
Mrs. NJ. has said concerning AhasueruF.
We should be as averse TO seeing wo-
men stoned TO death now or stubborn
sons meet an untimely fate at the hands
Of the paternal relatives as Mrs. NJ. All
this, however, we think "cuts no figure
to the case. We think with Mrs. NJ,
that these Jewish laws are out of date,
and simply desire TO see them correctly
stated. We think they we're mistated-
uninientionally, Of course. Mrs. NJ.
admits these laws to have been good in
their day. We do not wish to discuss
divorce, but simply to Vindicate man.
The New Testament certainly does
make q new divorce law. IL is more
liberal to woman 10 that il makes man
stand by his bargains whether good or
bad. The point, however, that we de-
sired TO make is, that under the old jew
ish law there must have been some rea-
son 10 found divorce upon. Mrs. NJ
seems to think that mans desire for va
riety was a sufficient reason. We do not
remember any old patriarch who pro
cured q divorce for such a reason; We
are not Bible-Eise, however. Even if
this we're 50, Mrs. NJ. has said that the
Law under which be procured his divorce
was good in It's time
Mrs. N. grows sentimental over the
worlds Magialens. and complains q
good deal that the World casts rtonas ~