I am informed I have only fifteen minutes. I was not aware I had spoken a quarter of the time. I shall have to leave this subject and proceed to another.
The next subject to which I will call your attention is in regard to the general or unlimited language of the laws given in the various passages which I have quoted. If a man shall commit rape, if a man shall entice a maid, if a man shall do this, or that, or the other, is the language of these passages. Will any person pretend to say that a married man is not a man? And if a married person is a man, it proves that the law is applicable to married men, and if so it rests with my learned friend to prove that it is limited. Moreover, the passage from the margin in Leviticus was quoted by Dr. Newman as a great fundamental law by which all the other passages were to be overturned. But it has failed; and, therefore, the other passages quoted by me, stand good unless something else can be found by the learned gentleman to support his forlorn hope.
Perhaps we may hear quoted in the answer to my remarks the passage that the future king of Israel was not to multiply wives to himself. That was the law. The word multiply is construed by those opposed to polygamy to mean that twice one make two, and hence that he was not to multiply wives, or, in other words, that he was not to take two. But the command was also given that the future king of Israel was not to multiply horses anymore than wives. Twice one make two again. Was the future king of Israel not to have more than one horse? The idea is ridiculous! The future king of Israel was not to multiply them; not to have them in multitude, that is, only to take such a number as God saw proper to give him.
We might next refer you to the uncle of Ruth's dead husband, old Boaz, who represented himself as not being the nearest kin. There was another nearer who had the Divine right to take her, and this other happened to be the brother of Boaz, perhaps a little older. Josephus tells us, according to the learned gentleman, that this oldest brother was a married man. Suppose we admit it. Did Boaz not know that his brother was married when he represented him as the nearest of kin and had the right before him? And even the brother acknowledges his right, and says to Boaz: "Redeem thou my right to thyself." He had the right to marry her. This, then, we arrive at by the assistance of Josephus; and it proves that married men were required to comply with the law. I have no further time to remark on this passage. I wish now to examine a passage that is contained in Matthew, in regard to divorces, and also in Malachi, on the same subject. Malachi, or the Lord by the mouth of Malachi, informs the people that the Lord hated putting away. He gave the reason why a wife should not be put away. Not a word against polygamy in either passage.
But there is certain reasoning introduced to show that a wife should not be put away. In the beginning the Lord made one, that is a wife for Adam, that he might not be alone. Woman was given to man for a companion, that he might protect her, and for other holy purposes, but not to be put away for trivial causes; and it was cause of condemnation in those days for a man to put away his wife. But there is not a word in Malachi condemnatory of a man marrying more than one wife. Jesus also gives the law respecting divorces, that they should not put away their wives for any other cause than that of fornication; and he that took a wife that was put away would commit adultery. Jesus says, in the 5th chapter, that he that putteth away his wife for any other cause than fornication causes her to commit adultery. Then the husband is a guilty accomplice, and if he puts away his wife unjustly he is guilty of adultery himself, the same as a confederate in murder is himself a murderer. As an adulterer he has no right to take another wife; he has not the right to take even one wife. His right is to be stoned to death; to suffer the penalty of death for his sin of adultery. Consequently, if he has no right to even life itself, he has no right to a wife. But the case of such a man, who has become an adulterer by putting away his wife, and has no right to marry another, has no application, nor has the argument drawn from it any application, to the man who keeps his wife and takes another. The law referred to by my learned opponent, in Leviticus xviii and 18, shows that polygamy was in existence, but was to be kept within the circle of those who were not blood relations.
Concerning the phrase "duty of marriage," occurring in the passage, "If a man take another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." The condition here referred to is sometimes more than mere betrothal. It is something showing that the individual has been not merely previously betrothed, but is actually in the married state, and the duty of marriage is clearly expressed. What is the meaning of the original word? It does not mean dwelling nor refuge, as asserted in the New York Herald by Dr. Newman. Four passages are quoted by him in which the Hebrew word for dwelling occurs, but the word translated "duty" of marriage, is entirely a distinct word from that used in the four passages referred to. Does not the learned Dr. know the difference between two Hebrew words? Or what was his object in referring to a word elsewhere in the Scripture that does not even occur in the text under consideration? In a Hebrew and English Lexicon, (published by Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M., Prof. of Sacred Liter., in the Theology School in Yale College,) page 160, it refers to this very Hebrew word and to the very passage, Ex. xxxi, 10, and translates it thus:—"cohabitation,"—"duty of marriage." "Duty of marriage" then is "cohabitation:" thus God commands a man who takes another wife, not to diminish the duty of cohabitation with the first. Would God command undiminished "cohabitation" with a woman merely betrothed and not married?
While I have a few moments left let me refer you to Hosea. I wish all of you, when you go home, to read the second chapter of Hosea, and you will find, with regard to Hosea's having divorced his first wife because of her whoredoms, that no such thing is recorded as stated by Mr. Newman yesterday. The Lord tells Hosea to go and speak to his brethren, (not to his son,) to his sisters, (not his daughter,) of the house of Israel, and tell them what the Lord will do; that he may not acknowledge them any longer as a wife. Hosea bore the word of the Lord to Israel, whom his own two wives represented, saying that their whoredoms, their wickedness and idolatries had kindled the anger of the Lord against them.
Having discussed the subject so far I leave it now with all candid persons to judge. Here is the law of God; here is the command of the Most High, general in its nature, not limited, nor can it be proved to be so. There is no law against it, but it stands as immovable as the Rock of Ages, and will stand when all things on the earth and the earth itself shall pass away.
Dr. J. F. NEWMAN Said:
Respected Umpires, and Ladies and Gentlemen: