The New York Herald Newspaper, May 30, 1870, Page 4

4 NEW YORK HERALD, MONDAY, MAY 30, 1870.—TRIPLE SHEET. without faith, y “Good master,” the Saviour replied, “Why do you call me govd? ‘there is none good but one, and that 18 God;” by which he intimated that goodness in perfection is ouly to be found in God, There ts a morality which ‘some men boast of apart from Christian morality. Tinsel may shine more brightly than pure gold. There are many persons who are golden at the heart, yet in their exterior rt they are perhaps narrow-iniuded and unattractive. When the young man said to Ohrist, | who giveth in the victory, through our Lord Jeans Christ CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. Sermon by Rev. A. W. Pitzer. WASHINGTON, May 29, 1810, At the Central Presbytertwn church, in the Colum- ‘There are others, who give to the poor, who are ap- | bian Law Building, the discourse to-day was deliv. arentiy models of virtue, Who-let no oceasi 0 be equa! to others ta gene! An their hearts they are foul, w vice. The moral virtue flows streams from a@ fountain or and kin Minas! yet | £Fed by Rey. A. W. Pitzer, whose text was taken ‘and wedde! to | from Romans vit., 24—“O, wretched man that I am; religion a8 | who shall deliver me trom the body of, this death?” cone ae vt of this chapter, sald the good man tsa godly man, an honest man, He will | TH¢ latter portion . Preacher, not chant ‘you, he will not defraud the government. | is expressive of the experience of Saul of Tarsus word. Artois dita guar wah r he will not sbr: mu) the though 1 be unpopular, nor Bander fowrong though it be popular. A good man, ff he enters , THE ARENA OF POLITICS, ‘will maintain his bir gon Mh if he lose his ofMce, for he disdains @ place obt by fraud or held by bribery. Neither willhe permit others to be dis- honest for him, We always find some good men in office, showing that God takes care of His people, The man tolerates other sects, but he never icipates in their errors, He always as @ kind ‘word for those in distress; he stretches out his hand | Which ceanseth from all sin. In tho text he to the needy; he raises up the wretched. He puis not out his Money to ears, nor does he take a re- ward against the innocent. He incurs no ob- Restens, which he has not a hope of ful- ailing, for he knows that a tailure to fulfil them will involve the innocent. He practices all the moral virtues. How can @ man who believes in a God and a crucified Saviour tive in tie daily commission of Known sins? The presence of @ good man often restrains a whole company from excesses, | Lord Jesus, Aman may be amiable, affectionate and generous, as amini® | afer his conversion. If any man is competent to give correct information upon the subject of religion children to refrain from all incestuous marriages? Ta the Rev, Dr. Newman Prepares to defend the con- clusions of his own lo; ‘Must all generations from Adam to Moses be Umited in marriage to blood rela- tions of the nearest degree—namely, brothers and isters—becanse it was $o1n the second generation no provision made to avoid tt great iple which our Lord wished to Pere Nai ee. ee seve, whom » was Los ‘essing, sanctity of marriage in that Sila design for tne multipucation of the human spe mi ‘y ene because of the wickedness of the permitted divorces; that He, the Saviour, the unjust law of divorce and condemued lultery the Wicked hpencdice which then existed extent of putting away one wife with- to gi thelr beastly j that man 1s the Apostle Paul, the author of this | 0! fo ba Tecnentaed jn Sia canelogas of crimes. It Epistle to the Romans, He was a Jew of pure blood, @ Pharisce, @ rigid observer of the civil ceremonial moral law; but when he saw Jesus and hoy ormallsm “and selftiguteoumness, bad ten sm, i. vain. Henceforth he . ‘TAUSTS ONLY IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS canter, ves expression to his alings @8 @ converted siuner striving atter holiness of heart and po of life— “O, wretched man that I am!” From this text we learn, first, that the Christian 1s not a ainiess being. No such thing as sinless perfection exists, No salut ‘ove life is recorded in the Bible ever claimed it. The angel said :—Call His namie Jesus, because He shall save His people trom their sins.” ‘The 0 is one Who expects to be saved from all his sins Dy the am, Moses, David, Peter, all stoned and are sinners saved by grace. Every yet a combination of such qualities will not consti- believer has some sin im heart or life to bewaul. tute goodness. GOODNESS THE PRODUCT OF GRACE. Goodness is not the product of nature but of grace. It is an exotic. Christ said, “Unless a man be born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” When the Bible speaks of a good man it means a converted man, oue who has been bronght from darkness into light. In the beginuing Ged stretched forth hts haad and turned darkness into light, chaos into order. In the same way the divine intluence ope- rates oh the soul of a good man, CENTENARY METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. Discourse on the Chinese Missions by Kev. Ss. L. Baldwin. Union Hall, Jersey City, was filled yesterday by a respoctalie assemblage of Methodists, who came chiefly to hear the discourse of Rey. Mr. Baldwin, ‘This clergyman has just returned to his native laud aiter a sojourn of many years in China, where he labored for the conversion of that people, After the chanting of the usaal hymns he proceeded to address the congregation, taking his text from the prophecy of Isaiah—“Behold, these shal! come trom far; and lo! these from the North and from the West, and these from the land of Sinim.” The speaker se- Jected the text not because he was about to preach @ sermon, but because it 1s supposed that wnen the prophet spoke of the distant country, and described its natives advancing to the fold of Christ, he referred to the land of China, This vast empire is about to become a great field for missionary labor, and can lay special claim to the attention of Christian Americans. It is similarly situated with respect to the ocean, and is boundless tn extent, like our own. Its people, however, numbering 400,009,000 of souls are beyond the pale of Christianity, and hence it has a!ways ‘been the spectal object of the Christian Church to bring to them the tidings of the gospel. Not long ago prayers were offered in our counctls that China, then isolated and comparatively unkuown, might ere long be OPENED TO THE WORD OF GoD. agreeably to our desires, the United States gov- ernment has obtatued the solemn assiirance of ihe Emperor that in every quarter of his dominions the teachers of religion shalt have freedom to preach aud hold their meetings. The representatives of European sovereigns took no part in uging the Em- peror to make those concessions. In 1847 our church sent out its first missionary band toChina. They encountered numerous disappointments, and the peculiar diilect of the people of Fouchal, on whose shores tey had landed, was no sinal\ obstacle to their progress. Time, however, made them con- versant wih some four thonsani Chinese charac. ters, every word bhetng a monosyliable, Many words and phrases copsequently have digerent meanings, and the tone in“ which they are spoken becomes the sole criterion of their meaning. On one occasion where the preacher was discoursing to a number of Chinamen, he stopped at intervals, saying—‘Do you waderstand mey? Next day be was informed by a brother that in conse- quence of the wrong pitch of tis voice in putting the question he was really saying “pO YoU KNOW HOW TO LovR?? During the delivery of their sermons the inhabi- tants would come in—some with axes, saws or ham- mers under their arms, others with clubs, mallets aud implemen's, emblemat of their ree spective — proie sions, would) = saunter carelessly round tie reh, criticising the gesticulaions of the speaker, making remarks on the shape of his coat, and wonder ng at the man- ners of the foreigner. Whether the preacher was itinerant or not, the audience was sure to be so, At Juimes they interrupted the speaker, asking if all the peop:e in America were like him, whether the land and the trees were the same as in China, or whether the sky and the same stars passed over their heads. They were very anxious to learn also if the Americans had a sun and moon, and were astounded to hear that they were the same lights that appeared in their own country. By de- grees evangelism went on, prejudices were broken down, missionaries were respected, and many na- tives ceased to worship idols. The manager had often requested them to abandon their missions, but they persevered, and alter ten years had the pleas- ure of secing ONB MAN CONVERTED. A child was then bn omy two young men were admitted to the church and became ministers. Tie Jatter had the happiness of seeing their aged father die confessing the power of Jesus. At the end of thitteen years there were a few Christians attached to the church, and sevesuteea confirmed opium smokers were on the path to reformation. One eee, Was induced to give up the wicked ‘ice = «completely, and he now feels happy. There was a’ blacksmith there who kept his Bible perpetually at hand, and had one eye on the Scriptures while the other eye was 01 hus work. Another remarkable conversion was that a rer and smoker, who is now an ordained ined “The Peter,” on account of the n his character anit that of saint ters were invited to preach at , Wiere at the present day you would he j by natives in singing praise to Jesus. Seve who had bowed to idols ten years previonsly were ord ed recently by Bishop Kingsley. During that svlcuin ceremony the hymn Ob, how happy a: Who the Sartor hose preses power of he’ minis « was subg testified to the nd white the postulants bss te good bishop Was filed with the spirit of God. Five Nundred miles in the interior, oa the Yang-tse-Ktane, another mis- sion has becn establisted, and there isa churca of six members ‘Thirty persons offered the speaker a chapel if he would go and taik to them about Jesus. In sightof t imperial restience at Pekin is another missionary church, where a brother dwelis who Nas baptised 112 per- gous. The Pekin dialect is spoken ail over the northern provinces and is of much use to the mis- sionary. ‘There are 200 Christians in Pckin, but not of ine Methodist denowination. At the close of the interesting discourse prayer ‘Was recited by the eee Rey. J. B. Faulks, for the success of the missions in China and the welfave of those who have embraced the faitn. WASHINGTON CHURCHES, METZ:ROY BALL UMVERSALIST CHURCH. The Doctrine of Funishment—Sermon by Rev. H. R. Walworth. Wa TON, May 20, 1870. At the Metzerot Hall Untversalist Church, Rey. H. R, Waiworth, of Baltimore, preached on the doctrme of punishment, taking for his text Hebrews xiL., 9, 10. ‘The reverend speaker commenced by saying that it 1s only on the supposition that we have duties to per- form that there can be any ground for punishment. Our duties are many and of strong obligation, and if neglected punish nt ine’ 'y follows, Many or few stripes are avoided, according to the greatuess of our olfence, THE NECESSITY OF PUNISHMENT caveat of the imperfect nature of mankind, and God designs to perfect that nature 1 1s a part of the training which God uses. Puntshment is e severe side of training; reward is the pleasant side of if. Traiving is necessary to bring out the best results in ail natural things, as the plant or the tree; and so wilh man. The Greek word used to convey the idea of the pruning of trees in the classics 18 the same as that used in the New Testa- ment from the word punishment. Thvs all punisn- ment is for @ good purpose, no matter liow severe; it 18 meant for zoud, and in God’s hand must resuit in It often falis wita man, but caunot with Turning to MAN’S USE OF PUNISHMENT, the speaker sald that the infitction of punishment without a good object was mere barbarism, and its infliction with an evil object was revenge; but pun- isiment tgipites good to be accomplished for the person punished. This view was not only sup- ported by many passages of Seripture, but the rev- erend speaker also quoted the words of Plato to show that even heathen writers held the same view. When the good contemplated by the punishment Wad achieved then the punishment 1'self would end. The “peed could find no anal between the se- Yerest human punishment and the docirine of end- less woe, He then dweit upon the certainty of pun- isement for every sin, and forcibly closed with words of rej ng. i _view of the time when ali punish- ment should cease, because all sin should be ended ‘and the universe be abieto say, “Thanks te God, SINLESS “PERFECTION is the standa the goal, the end. Second, the Christian, though not sintess, 1s ever striving against sin. He hates sin, shuns sin, In his soul there are two forces—the power of good and the power of evil—sin and holiness, the new nature and the old ait mightiest contests of earth fade in‘o lusignificance when compared with these soul battles nid from mortal gaze. The 1ssues of the one end in time; the issues of the other endure through eternity, Third—In this conflict the Christian groans with the burden of his tndwelling sin, Eastern tyrants bound living prisoners to dead bodies, and compelled the living to bear the corpse until death ended the agony. The apostie compares this un- dwelling ain to the dead body, and groans to be de- livered. The true child of God prays and pants FOR DELIVERANCR FROM IMPURITY, imperiection and detilement. He wishes to be pure und iioly like the biessed Saviour. Fourth—The Christian willbe dglivered atlast, [tnank God, through. Jesus Christ, The omnipotence of Jesus Christ is pledged to each believer that He shall come off conqueror, and nore than conqueror, shall be saifictent. The thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, may buffet, Satan himself may sift the believer as wheat, but Jesus prays for his tempted, burdened, groaning people, and tfey are delivered. Christ is more poweriul than Satan, and grace ls stronger than sin. but within it ts ail the power of omnipotence. F.RST UNITARIAN CRURCH. Sermon by Rev. Calvin Reasoner. WASHINGTON, May 29, 1870, The pulpit of the First Onttarlan church, corner of D and Sixth streets, was filed to-day by the Rev. Calvin Reasoner, late of Ohio, who preached from the text, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God,” God is @ personal, or rather a spiritual being. His nature comprehends in completest fulness the es- sential attributes of the spirit, wisdom, goodneas, power. The prophet and Psalmist knew nothing about nature as under a system of inviolate law. To them nature’s processes Were all the results of arbi- trary, disconnected volition. We now know thatthe who:e of nature and the whole of humanilfe are under law; that ail the affairs of time have their an- vecedents and conseguents; that all are somehow UNDER THB GUIDANCE OF ALL-PERVADING LAW. Gravitation i larect or indirect result of will. The reguwiarity and constancy of law teach us the regularity and coastancy of the divine will, The scientific concepitoa of law and order is not de- structive of the higher conception of a heavenly father, for they are complimentary and answer ejualiy imperative demands of the human mind; but science must not have jor her practical methods fut sWay over the human mid fn all its outgolags. In other words, science must not forget her own iutul- tive groundwork, whereby she 1s related to religion, otherwise the spiritual which the religious facu.ty attests in nature would be taken @ntirely away. We would nave law and successton, BUT No GOD. Thought must not only be destructive, but con- stractive, reaching finally the rafinite subject, the divine cousctousne-8 everywhere present, to which no life or beauty is lost. This formiess presence is the basis and characteristic of all religion, of whatso- ever form. We may not know it perfectly, bat we may take all times and spaces and things as types ofthe Eternal One, The highest type 18 in the soul of man, and the highest testimonies of the soul are love, Wisdom and justice, and God, as known to us through these Iighest testimonies, becomes a pecs being, a Tather, the fandaifieutal thought of Christ THE GREAT MODERN SCHISiZ. A Murmon Eldar in Justification of Polygamy— Rev. Dr. Newman’s Discourse Reviewed in Utah—Powerful Argument by Elder Orson Pratt—The Bible as a Basis of Both Sides of the Controversy—Ancient and Modern Social Laws Com- pared—Facts from the Cen- sus—What Will Con- gress Dot Hy The subjoined able review of a discourse preactied recently at Washington, D. C., by Key. Dr. Newman, and which appeared on the succeeding day in the columns of the HERALD, will, doubtiess, command profound attention, emon iting, as it does, from one of the most earnest and authoritative thinkers and leaders of the Mermon Church ta Utah. The (lis- couse of Dr. Newman attracted great notice from the fact that he is pastor of the congre; which President Grant is a member and trfistee, and the views enunctated by the reverend gentleman were by many accept @ reflection of the op! ions entertained by the executive heal of tae gov- ermment on this important question. It wili also be remembered that the Prestdent, with several mem- bers of the Cabinet, were present at the church on the occasion Of the delivery of the discourse, and this was also accepted as One of dep sige nificance, Whether Elder Pratt's reply may be considered as acompiete defence of polygamy, or all that may be sail in jusUfcation of the system, is a question which carnot, perhaps, be determined without due and care‘ul reflection, The followlug is lls reply m €LLENSO:— LAKE Cry, Utah, }» 1870, err, Esq., Evrror New York { Jaares is now before Congress in which it 1s pro- poved to abolisi the divine Institution of polygamy as taught In the Bible, and as some writers and cele- brated divines are using all their powers of eloquence to urge on this unconstitutional measure, I, there- fore, as dn humble believer mm God’s word, wish to call your attention to some of the Scriptural evi- dences in favor of plural marriage, andl to briefly reply to the most important objections urged against it. In the HRXALD of tn ‘h ult, 1 find an elaborate DISCOURSE BY REY. DR. NEWMAN on the subject of polygamy, delivered in Washing- ton, D. C., on the 24th of April, “at the Metropolitan Methodist church, of which President Grant 13 a trustee and member, The Congregation was large and highly fashionable. Aimong (hose present were the President and Mrs, Grant, Vice Presideit Coliax, Chief Justice Chase, aes Blaine and numerous other high officials.” The reverend gentleman chose for his text the following words:— Have ye not rend, that He whic made them at the begin- ning made them male and female?—Muttuew, xix., 4. ‘The learned doctor infortas his illustrious congre- Peas that his text “contains the intention of the divine Creator, and is here referred to in condemna- tion of polygamy and in approval of monogamy.” He jurther states that Jesus delivered ‘a discourse on marriage, in which He aiirmed three proposl- tions: t marriage tx a divine irstitution. vond—That marriage 16 monogamous, as indicated by the at in the beginning God created but one man and one woman; that in the marriage union the man and the womal became one person; that the man isto leave his father and his mother and cleave to hia wife, Third--That marriage ia indissoluble, except for one cause. That Jesus “aifirmed” the first and third of the above propositions is most certainly true; "but that He “aftirmed” or even ‘indicated’ “that marriage is monogamous" only is not susceptible of proof, either directly or indirectly, from the Divine Record. That God “atthe beginning made them male and female,” and that He “created but one man and one Woman” is no evidence either for or against polyga- Tay existing among the descendants of the first pair. But it ts argued by THR OPPONENTS -OF POLYGAMY that the Creator could easily have formed several Wives for Adam; but, inasmuch as He only made one, He showes' a preference for monogamy. As Well might they argne that as the great Creator did not make any provisions to prevent the first genera- tion of the children of Adain from marrying their own brothers and sisters, therefore all future gene- rations must be limited in marriage to their own brothers and sisters. Gould not the Creator have vented intermarriages among blood relations by Toraning several pair as ouce aud compauding the His grace The hand reacied out to save and to deliver is a cracttied humaa aud, The preacher sald the highest testimonies that we have goto show that gainist, who hon- sept maintained tiem, and did not put them Prin though he added other wives to his peace:ul family le, Was approbated of God and free from the sin of adultery, and bis children Were not bastards, but legitimate and blessed of God, as ia abundantly proved in the divine oracles, ‘After having made several unproved assumptions in the form of aenunciation against polygamy, the reverend doctor says:— I shall now proceed to prove that God's law condemns the lunion In marriage of more than two persons Which are the laws that soem to sanction polygamy! The vooates of nis Marriages quote Wwithmuch cont nce Bxodus, xxI.,7 to 11—-“And if » man sell his daughter to be a maid servant, she shall not go out as the men servants do. If she please not her master, who bath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a range nation he shall have no power, be hath dealt ‘ully with her. a manner of daughters. If gon hall dea! with ber after the he take Lim auother wife, ber f her raiment ant of marriage, he shall not diminish, And if ne do no ‘three unto her, then shall she go free without money.” Having quoted the passage this reverend divine supposes the purchased lady to stand in the relation of one betrothed and not yet married, and that the mau Is still an unmarcied person, How far this sup- position is founded on truth will appear from tle passage ltself—If he take him another wife, her food, be Feige and her duty of marriage, he shall not minish, lvis evident that the words “another wife” do acknowledge the first lady as not only betrothed, but as actually a lawful wife, and her “duty of marriage” her husband had no right to diminish. If, then, God recognizes her a8 a married wife, and in His own language 8o Calls her, and if He a’so recognizes the second lady as “another wife” and bestows on her that titie Himselr, thea GOD GAVE LAWs ‘which not only sanction the taking of another wife White the first 1s yet living, but which also prescribe three duties which the husband must fullil to the tirst wife. In this passage neither the husband por his wives weré condemned as criminals and sib- jected to fines and penalties; but both ladies had the honored title of wives bestowed upon them by tie reat Divine Lawyiver Himself. This portion of od's word, therefore, instead of condemning polygamy, honors it equally with monogamy. ‘The next passage referred to by this celebrated divine against polygamy will be found in Leyiiicus, Xviil., 18. “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her cis- ter, to vex her, to uncover her nakeduess, besides the other in her jife time.” As this passage in its. present rendering does not, etther directly or indt- rectly, condemn polygainy, the learned doctor is obliged to seek in the margin for tne opinions of some learned commentators who, like himself, are opposed to polygamy. He finds that Dr, Edwards translates the words “a wife to her sister,” “one wife to another.” By this alteration he makes the passage read, “Thou shalt not take one wile to another.’ Any linpartial Hebrew scholar who has no peculiar dogma to sustain will decide at once that the passage as it now stands in Leviitcus ts the true rendering of the Hebrew, and that the sug- gested alterations in the margin are not only far- fetched, but are not true and are notin Keeping with the context ann vuncing the law of cousangaiaity. Polygamy, by this passage, is indirectly approbated; for, instead of denouncing it as @ crime, and cou manding them to refrain {rom it, the Lord merely prouibited the fusband from marrying his wife's si8- ver during her itfetume, but placed’ no restraint upon him in regard to PLURAL MARRIAGES WITH OTHER WOMEN, not prohibited in the law of consanguinity revealed in the preceding part of the chapter. The next law referred to by Mr. Newman 13 in Deuteronomy xxi., 15-17:—“If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him chiidren, both the beloved and the hated; and if the dirstborn son be hers that was hate’; then it shall be, whea he maketh has sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first- born: but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the fratborn, by given him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of Ins strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” The reverend doctor supposes that the two wives re- ferred vo in ths yams migitt have been successive wives, the hated one having been divorced or dead; and if such were the case ihe mun could not be a polygamist. But as plurality of wives had been een ed by them irom the days of Abraham, be- ween four and five hundred years, itis very evi- dent that the liw was given to reguiate THE NUMEROUS VAMILIES OF POLYGAMISTS then existing 1m Israel. Indeed, the language tiseif conveys the idea of the simultaneous existence of the two Wives: there Is no reference to past tune, It does not say, if a man has had two wives, that 1s, has nad them in succession; but 16 says, “Ifa man nave two wives,” ciearly referring to their cotem- porary existence with the husband, ‘This, then, 13 another additional evidence that God gave laws re- gulating the descent of property in polygamous families, God bestows the honored title of wives upon both women, and acknowledges their children as legitimate, and though the hated wife happened to be the second, and the firstborn happened to be her son, yet he was the legal heir to the double por- tion of all the property. God nowhere thus honors adulterous connections, but expe TMaces the brand of infamy upon bastards, declaring that “tiey should not come into the congregation of the Lord unto the teutn generation.” (Deut., xxiil.,"2.) ‘The next passage adduced by the reverend geatie- mands found in Deuteronomy, xxv. , 5—10. It brethren dwell together, and one of them die ,and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brotiver shall go in unto her, and take hier to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. And it sual be that the Grstborn whica she beareth shall sncceed fn the naine of nis brother which {s dead, that his name be not put out in Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wi: his brother's wife go up to the gate, unto the elders, and way, My husband's brother refuseth co raise up unto his brother a name fn Jarael; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother, ‘Then'the elders ot his city shall call him and speak unto him: an and say, I ifke not to take her, then ‘shall ive come Walo him ia the pre- sence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off hia foot, and spit in his face, and shail answer and suy, So shail it be done unto that man thet will not bulld up bis brother's } house. And his name shall be called in Isvaeiy The house of him that hath his shoe loosed Mr. New tvances the following supposition in re; ‘rhe object of this law was tue preservation of families aud family inheritance. But th.s law,” continues he, * not sanction or even conntve at polygamy, a3 will appear from the following reaso fhe ‘brethren dweil logether;’ thatis, they have not yet marited anit become heads of fami 3 Jach excludes all mavricd mea from the obligations of the law.’? From the simp e Set that the gether? Mr. Newman has dy “prethren dwell to- | chasion tai ‘they were all uum cd hat | the law was not obugatory upon any others. it isa | | fact which no one Wiil call ti question that one of ' \ THE PROULEARIT was to “awell togethe of their Divine i. celve thelr sepa ances and dw instowd of avenating their in up and losing ali disiinctt were again subdivided into sin Jainittes, eacit consisting of ha sands, and in 3 (See Numbers, 2 miah and many that these famil 3 OF lndeed, if “command that each tribe should of tribes. er divisions called ved3 and of thous stances of teas of thousands, les, Kizra, Neli ») IL was necessary eval custom, should dwell together thatthe geuealogies migh! not be lost. Again, tliese large faintly subdivisions were still further divided into numerous branches dweil- ; statistical ing togesiver ii the same region. And each branch Were again divided into households consisting of nearer biood re.ations, such as grandfatiers, fathers, children, ‘These most generally had their inheri- tances side by side in the same neighborhood. Such Were the ones whom the God of Israel aldressed as “brethren dwelling tog rr.’ They were mea, and not chiidren—men capable of performing tmhe duties of marriage to the widows of their de- ceused brethren, that the fist born of the remarried widow might succeed to the inheritance, and thas ' prevent the estate from being alienated to strangers in other great families in Israel of a more distant kin. It mattered not how lange a fam'ly of mar- ried brothers there might be dwelling together in the same neighborhood, if they ail but one dicd ciiidicss the surviving brother would be obliged by this law to Marry all the widows, for the purpose of building up i naar OF hig brothers, that thelr names might not become extinct in Israel and their inheritances go to strangers. And so strict was THIS LAW ENFORCING POLYGAMY that the Lord God affixed to it a penaity of the most degrading character, commanding (he widows of his deceased brothers to loose his shoe and spit upon him in the presence oi all tle eiders, and com- mandlng all Israei to stigmatize him with a name of everlasting (usgrace. With scorn and derision-his house was to be “called in Isracl the house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” This was the degrad- ing, humiliating penalty pronounced by the God of Tsrael upon tite low, mean, selfish wretch who should refuse to enter into polygamy to preserve lis brothers’ names from becoming extinct In Israel. ‘That all might fear the terrible conse- quences of disobedience to this law, or any other, Hlowing heart-thrilling denunciation was —"Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to de them: and all the people shail say, Amen.’ (Deuteronomy, XXvil., 26.) What man of Wr ios or of any feeling of respect for him- self or lis house would dare brave these divine penalties and die under THR WITHERING CURSE OF JEHOVAH and all his people? None but the most abandoned and reckiess coull refuse to become polygamists under such circumstances. Ne Another passage referred to by Dy. Newman reads as foliows (II. Samuel, Xil., 8):— ‘And I gave thee thy master’s house and thy rfinster's wives unto thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of 10 thee aut suc The doctor says the term “wives” Way be under: | stood women; for we nowhere read that Saul had more than one wife, whose name was Ahlnoam. Rispah was a second wife, or, at most, his concu- bine, The women of his court are therefore meant. To give these unto David's bosom Stroply impling proteciion. Abraham's bosom, to which Lazurus was ¢ d, was a place of protection figurative); expressed, It does not mean that they became hi wives. The Hebrew word Cay translated “wives” in numerous places the Satipe (See Genesis, iv., 19 and 23; also Deut., xxi, 15). 'Y SHOULD MR, NEWMAN OBJECT wa to the usual rendering in the above passage? Did not the inspired judges and leaders of Israel gene- rally have many wives? Was it not vhis class of men whom the Lord generally chose when He je t work to in Israel? Why shi ul, tn the estimation of Mr, Newman, be an excep- tion? David certainly was worthy of Saul'’s wives, as @ gift from the hands of God, tuto his own 3 rsecutor, and havit 13 own heart, felt wi to give the wives of Saul 1uto his bosom, and, if taat had been too little, the Lord informs him that He would have given more. Tudeed, Nathan the prophet represents wives of David by “ on flocks and herds” (verse 2), aud the one wife of Ut by @ ‘little ewe lamb.” words of Nathen were confirmed by “the Lord God of Is- racl,"’ who testified that He self gave these wives to him, and anaes this as @ reason. he should not have taken the ‘one little ewe lamb’’ belo is to his neighbor, If the Lord God had merely given Saul’s wives into David’s bosom for protection, He never would have bm or this as @ reason why David should not have taken that which did not be- long to him, and which the Lord had not given him. othwithstanding the great anxiety of this learned doctor to do away With the force of this passage it stands out in bold relief, like many other passages already quoted, as an everlasting testimony that ‘GOD IS THE GREAT AUTHOR a of both polygamy and monogamous marriages; that he not only commanded, under certain circum- stances, 4 plurality of wives, but dcuomnates them as a gift (rom his own hands, Mr. Newman further states that “In Deuteronomy xvit., 17, polygauy 13 positively forbidden by Moses:—‘Neither shall he (the king) multiply wives to iimself, that his heart ‘turn not away.’ ?” This is supposed by Mr. Newman to limit the future king of Israel to one wife. If he had read the pre Ing verse he would have found another command of a very similar nature, or, at leash in language very similar.’ Tie Lord ‘said, “The king shail not multiply horses to himself.” Does this me.n that the must not have more than one horse? Does it mean that @ plurality of horses, like @ plurality of wives, would be wicked and a violation of the law of Godt 1s Mr. Newman prepared to assert and maintain that the king 1s limited by this aw to one horsey Is it not A MORE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION to say that the king must not multiply horses and wives by himself in exe but be satisfied with the number which the Lord should give him and not covet his neighbor's horses or wives? Man does not multiply to himself horses and wives when the Lord gives tem. And as Mr, Newman admits marriage to be a divine instivution neither a king nor any of his sub,ects could take a wife or wives legally unless they were given to them bythe Lord. Therefore when David or Solomon multiplied wives wato him. self from among nations which the Lord had cursed and among whom Israel were forbidden to inter- marry he transgressed the Jaw of God, Such mar- riages were not legal nor divine, But when God ave him wives he wag nota transgressor of the aw. MR. NEWMAN BRJECTS THR OBVIOUS MRANING of Paul that a bishop must be the husband of one wife—that 18, he must be a married man—and takes the ground that polygamists must not be selected for church officials. But why should Paul mention these disqualifications for oMiee if there were no polyga- mous families in the Christian Chursh? If plarality of wives Were not permitted in the Christian Church to give such @ caution tn the selection of officers from among the members would be not only absurd but positively ridiculous, What would the good Methodists of Massachusetts think if Mr. Newman should write to them an epistie to be careful in their selection of bishops and deacons not to appoint any church member to that office who was a polygamist? They would indeed think that the reverend gentieman hai become deranged. They would say, “Why this caution? There are no poly- gamist members permitted in our Church; conse- quently it is ambos for us to select any such for the ‘ne argument of Mr. Newman proves more than he intended: it proves most indisputably that a plurality of wives did exist in the Christian Church in the first century, Mr. Newman next ap- peals to THE CENSUS OF THE WORLD as to the relative proportion of males and females that are born, which he believes to be condemnatory of polygamy. He clearly proves that in the United States tuere is an excess of males born; that in Great Britain there is an excess of 700,000 females; that ia France, Austria, Spatn, Italy and Prussia there is an excess of 1,074,000 femaies, but thinks that when the soldiers—who are not numbered in the ctvil list in the last flve European nations~are added it willim @ measure equalize the two sexes, From these statistical facis he draws the following conclusion:— Thus nature provides for the nght of each man to one wife, But polygamy violates this right; for if one man takes twelve wives iuen eleven men are cheated out of thelr natural rights. ‘This conciusion, at first sight and without reflec. tion, seems a very plausible one. Bat we mu-t member that the equality of males and females which are born is oue thing, and tie equality of males and females when they arrive at a marriagze- abie age 1s another. From the ages of fiiteen to tuirty Yeats May be considered as tae most general and usual Pree of marriage. .Now, what are the facts as der:ved irom the census during this Fe awit i period? Let the census of 1860 speak:— Pitt will be interesting to observe how uniformly the males exceed the females in iafancy and up to the age of ubout fifteen years. After passing this ‘age the order is reversed; the females become the more numerous class, and increasingly so, till at the oldestages—from ninety upwards—the females ex- ceed the males in the ratio of tiree to two.” Page 48 United States Census for 1860.) In the United States and Territories in 1869 the excess of marriageable females between the ages of fifieen and twenty over ihe males was 50,044; in Upper and Lower Canada, 3,087. In Great Britain the excess of females between fifteen and thirty over the males yes, 297,70}. In ¥ simon they were nearly equal, fn Massachusetts thé marriageable femaies were greatly in excess, i over 26,000, In Pennsylvanis they were over 23,000 in excess, In New York Staie they \, ere over 61,009 in excess, Ir should be remembered that these statistics were taken before the war, In the wer a million or up: wards of brave men in the very prime of life were swept away, leaving an additional million of surpius marriageable females to swe! the ranks of those al- ready in excess. These are stittstical iacts which none can disprove. What conciusion should be drawa from these data? The very opposite of those stated vy Mr. Newman. TBE 1. and of the Siate AWS OF THE NATION and Territories should be so framed as to give these million ladies a possibility of obtaining husbands. As itis the monogauile laws of every State have taken away te naturai rights of women. These cruel laws mM crushing tones of thander to # million wroken, despairing Temates, saying, “You shail have no husbands cheer aid couulort you through iife’s rugged journey. You shali be punished wit thies and imprisonment if 2 united in Wodio YOu yiust f He au mMaAy state; however conlivion and the aws, you have ny hope, ion’of Bibie polygamy fs ea of (ie nation.” “No prov isto ’ these sorro Under the crael, Ws Of our Oiberwise you may deplore yx injustice of your country’s for the civtie instit out trom the couss: made m our free ¢ outcasts from 1 unjust, aud mnconsticutional Ta happy couatry THERE 18 NO HOPE OF MARRIAGE ‘eds of thousands of the fairer sox, uniess ke ihe'r country and hunt for husbands in nland where males happen to be in or else seck sole distant corner of the ear cre the rights of Semales are respected and Bible polygamy novignorel, What honest, uprizht, vir- tuous females, who understand the Bible institu’ of marriaye, wou'!d not inilnitely prefer plural m: Tiage with one good man and become the mothers of happy children than tolive the wretched lives of old maids or weller inthe fiitn of prostitution? Supposing there was an equality of marriazeabie males and females in oar nation, i8 it not a well at- tesied fact that hundreds of tiousands of males will not inarry, many of whom prefer to gratily ther lusts In prostitution? Ougit our laws, tiereiore, to ve £0 un) ustly framed as to r HW THE SURPLUS FEMALES arising from this wicked cause with Nedecs celi- bacy? Stil further, are there not hundreds of thou. sans of Males Who oiler themselves in marriage so debauched and diseased by their former degrading hab.ts tht they become obnoxious and loathsome Must the innocent, th mbed by our laws as irrectatm ns for hun they for: Fe erefore, be e old maids cond because they will not marry these loathsome mon- asters? Why not make provisions for such to be hoporabd.y married to men of respectability’ For the sake of civilization, for the sake of the ladies of our country, REPEAL THE MONOGAMIC LAWS palmed upon uspby our forefathers, who derived thei from the barbaric nations of Gre-ce and Rome, Such relics of barbarism never ought to disgrace the soll of our free and enlightened republic. We have stretched out ovr arms and rescued the groaning slave from the whip and lash of his cruel taskmas- ter; We have restored him to Itveriy and to all the Inahenable rights of man. Shall we not also remem- ber that there are others sti in boudage? That the fair daughters of American citizens are crushed down by hundreds of thonsands into the, degrading condition of old maids, deprived of rights dearer to them than life iteeify Would it not be more nobie, more manlike, more Godlike and more in aceord- ance with the progressive eniiritenment of the age for the great men of our nation and our Jearned divines to sympathize with the oppressed ladies of our country—to break the yoke from otf their necks and lavite them into the faimiy circle, and take them by the hand ad bid them welcome to the dignitied and HOLY POSITION OF WIVES AND JOYFUL MOTHERS? Let them do tits, and the biessings of milllons of happy wives and children will be poured out, like the dews of heaven, upon their heads and upon their generations after them. Next in order Mr, Newman refers to the ancient practice of polygamy. He ae the firat instance of polgamy recorded in the Bible is in connection with Lamech. And who was Lamech? A descendant of Cain, and hiwself 4 wurderer, And the murder was to | fat | gener tn defence of polygamy. Genesis iv., And Lainech took unto him two wives. * * * And Lamech said unto bis wires, A: and Zillab, hear. votee ; ye wives of oh, unto speech; for have # man to my wounding, and a yo! man to my ‘The reverena Aoctor continues:—‘This ts the only tustance of potyiainy recorded tn the Scriptures during the first two thousand years after the institu- tian of marriage; and we judge from the record that both Lamech and those around him considered tt a crime;"or;-but"ait he muster 1ndatenco of poly r; bu e a rs re fo; there te uot the leat intimation to that ONE OF THE FALSE CHARGES of this reverend divine to embitter the minds of the public against a Bible institution. Does Mr. Newman ‘wish to assert that because murder was @ crime therefore polygamy must be a crime? Let us carry out this gentieman’s logic a little further. Cain ®@ murderer, and he but ene wife; therefore erpceney. ‘wasacrime. Such would be the result of reasoning. Another specimen of his logic is tuat there is no record rs any other polygamous, family, tor At arriages, only in three cases, frot Ad Newman suppose that this stlence of history in regard to the marriage in- stitution condemns either the monogamic or poly- gamic form of marriage? Abraham is next referred toi “Ido not hesitate to say,” declares Mr. Newman, ‘that braham was {a no sense gamlat, What are the facts? acre, wate Aivalseas and promised him & nt iad Yhat abe miu lp ri usband v pon. thee, judge it ye and thee.’ (Gi a at ‘thd ae Eek recognise hi vl, ara gi ot rasoiae the wilderness called him ‘the lad;' and yours after, when God ‘commandea Abraham to offer, Isaac on Mount Moriah, whom shou love, aad ao ny tons ‘the land of Moria! Gent xxil., 2. nd w! nger endurable, and Sarah Hagar should be janded that sent away, thon for the first time the Lord spoke to Abrabam ‘on thia matter, and commanded him to put d ead unto a Walt, Orae' Abrahams oniy offence of the meus xvil., 1.) ‘Ta! Kind? and of which he and Sarah repeated.” Ihave given this lengthy quotation tn order more fully to point out the MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE REVEREND DIVINE in regard to Abraham and his two wives. He has unblushingly declared “that Abraham was in no sense a polygamist,’ and has pretended to prove his assertions by the most gross perversions of the his- tortcat facts, saying that Sarat realized her sin, und that both she and Abraham repented. Hvery reader of the Bible knows that there are no intimations of od book, Itis true that Sarah gave her bondmatd to Abraham as his second wife (Genesis xvi., a And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived; and when she sw that she had ‘conovived her mistress was despised in her eyes. What injustice and ingratitude onthe part of a bondwoman or slave! What a sin she committed in despising her good mistress, who had generously consented for her hushand to take her as a wife! When Sarah saw that she was unjustiy and wickedly despised she compirsined to Abraham aud said:— “My wrong be upon thee; I have given my maid intd thy bosom, and when she saw that she had con- ceived I was despised in her eyes. The Lord judge between me and thee.” But Abram said unto Satal, “Behold thy maid 1s in thy hand; do to her as it leaseth thee.” And when Sarai dealt hardly with ex she fled from her face. (Verses 4 and 6.) In all these afflictions and the great wrong which Hagar heaped upon her mustress there was not the least intimation, either from Sarai or Abram, that they had done wrong in going into polygamy. | Ab- Tam was appealed to a8 the supreme ruler of the household, tv correct the wrong and mete out jus- tice in behaif of Sarah, the aggrieved party, which he promptly dia, by delivering over the offender to her mistress, ‘nis difticuity Was no greater than | what often happens 1n monogamous families, and had nothing to do in regard to the divinity of either form of marriage. Because the angel, on a certain occasion, called Hagar's son “ihe lad” Mr, Newman supposes that the Lord did not recognize Ishmael as Abram’s son, But this supposition 1s not true. Hear what the Soripturea say:—‘And God satd unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not cail her name Sarai, but Sarat shall her name be; and I will bless her, aud give thee a son also of her”— (Gen. xvil, 15,16.) The words, “a son aiso” show show most conclusively that God recognized Ishmael as Abraliain’s son. The expression “the lad” is applied to Isaac as weil as Ishmael—(Gen. xxil, 5.) And are, therefore, of no force in support of Mr. Newman’s argument, It is true that the Lord calls Isaac “the only son of Abraham, at the time he was required to offer him up. But as fshmael is often calied in Genests the son of Abraham, the expression “thine only son,” as applied to Isaac, must mean that he was the only son'by promse—the only son through whose seed the nations of the earth should be blessed,— the only son through whose lineage the promised Messiah should come,—the only son whose seed shouid be the legal lawful inheritors of the promised land. Several years after the birth of Ishmael he became very rude, and MOCKED HIS MOTHER'S MISTRESS, The great wickeine-s of Hagar, in desplsing 80 good @ woman, and in suffering her son todo the same, atly displeased the Lord, and he com- manded Abraham to hearken to the voice of Sarah aud send her away. This was not because the Lord had any fault to find with polygamy, but because he considered Hagar unworthy to retain the honorable position to which she had been raised as a polyga- tnous wile. She was unworthy to enjoy the home and society of that most noble and godiike family. Mr. Newman acknowleijges Jacob to be a polyga- mist, but thinks that he went into it unrighteousiy; that he had not previously been converied; that the land where he dwelt. in his youth was a land where monogamy was the only cusiom ; that the country to which he fled was a polygamic country ; that Le was deceived into polygamy, &c. That Jacob was converted before he arrived in the country of Lavan 18 evident from what 1s recorded in the 28th chapter of Genesis, 12th verse: And he (Jacob) dreamed, and behold a ladder set. up on the earth, and the top of ft reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And beliold, the Lord stood above it and said, I am the Lord God of Abra ham, thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land wherein thou'liest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed; and thy sved whall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in thee and in thy sced shall ail the families of the earth be blessed. And beboia I am with thee and will k all places whither thou goest and will bring the this land, for 1 will not leave thee uni I hav which I nave spoken to thee of. * After seeing angels and the Lord God and obtain- ing {rom His own inouth such precious promises he exclatins, ‘Surely the Lord is in this placa, * * # ‘This 13 none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.’”’ Jacob made a most solemn vow unto the Lord in that plac if Jacob was not a converted man then there never’ was one. His Tubure life was that of a man of God, - Up to that time he was raised in A COUNTRY WHERE POLYGAMY WAS PRACTISED, His. grandiather Abraham and Abimeicch, King of Gerar, both practised polygainy, the latter being arighteous maa whom the Lord visited and with Whuin He prsod. Tne Lord tforms this good King that b heart was ff inuoceucy © Sup. posed to ter, in addition to the Wives he already had. Instead of condemn ng the lyyamy of tae King and denowxemg Mm as a nal, He approve! of his integrity. The place y vefore, Was a country of igh Jacob was dex any such thing in that and in marrying Bila That these two women W have sald, merely rae reveroud doc. | tor, nding remarks, refers to Uie wicked | | acts of sume ANCIENT PROPHETS AND KINGS, espccially those of David and Solomon, and on these ands wibeMpes tO The same argoment would ab Many good men, proper one Whe, occasionally their adultery and iti criminal form of marriay ogamy of Lota crime, because of his incest with lis two daughters? If Mr. Newman's argument proves anything it proves too mucel If the adul- tery of David and the Neentloueness of Soomon, in taking strauge women from’ among the accursed nations whose daugiiters they were vorbidden by the Jaw of God to mal v' polygamy to be a crime, thea the adultery and Ot ancient monogamisis prove the one Wiie sytem to be crimiual. But aduliery aud incest are crimes coniemned by the law of God, wale monogamy and polygamy are PURE, HOLY, DIVINE INSTITUTIONS of the great Jehovah, It is an casy matter for rev- erend geniiemen to cail good evil and to place tne insiitutions of heaven inthe same catalogue wiih ‘the crimes of heii, and to denounce m unmeasured ne eee nt ne {a represente! in the New Testament as oveing @ Worthy, goduke woman, a8 being @ lovely model after who ail Chrisiia@n Women should ‘patierts Rachel and Lah were also xan piie of righteous ness, Women Oiled with taith, holding communion with God, and enjoying the spirit of revelation and prophecy. In those days barrenuess was Considered a great reproach, and was often in@tcted upon wo- men asa chastisement from the Lord; but when they repented gud became obedient the aMict.on was taken away. Lean bore chiktren, Racuel was barren. She therefore said to Jacov:-~ Behold my maid Bilhah, go in ynto her; and he shall bear n my knees, that I ‘alao have children by her, And Piha ouceived ‘and bare Jacob w son, (Gcnesie xxx., ‘The Lord restrained Leah from bearing until sne Would follow the righteous example of her sister, “When Lean saw that she ha‘ left Ing she took Zilpah, ope maid, and gave Jacob to wife, And Zit- bah, Leafi’s matd, bare Jacob a son.” (Genesis Xxx., 9, 16.) Did God ‘bless ‘Rachel and Leah for these acts? Let the Scriptures answer:— God remembered Rachel, and God bearkened to her and opened her womb, And she conosived bareadson; and Secianme eatrohatincaal dr tras oes son, (Genesis mer ah ahah) " aed Seventeenth and elghicenth verses it And God bearkened unto Leab, pore dges the Sh oot hd tents nals aoe eke ieee mex ire, because I have given my maidea to my bus In a like manner God restrained Sarah from bear- ing until she ore Hagar to Abraham, after which gon each, He blessed both wives with Was 89 well pleased with their amy that he eronans these three specia! miracles in conformation of the divine iustitution:— 1¥ POLYGAMY WERE A CRIME how remarkably strange is te language, “God Ifath given me my hire, because I have eres, my maiden ‘to my husband.” Whey Hagar fled from the house of Abraham she was met by an angel, Who com. manded her to return to her home. This may secur very strange to the opposcrs of polygamy, that a lygamic woman should be visited by an angel and 2 commanded to return to her polygamic home, Instead of reproving her for entering into polygamy, and requiring her henceiorth to keep away irom il he sends her back to her polygamous husband an mistress, ig, “1 will multiply bg anges excoed- ingly, thai it shall not be numbered for multitude.’? On another occasion the 1 of the Lord told her that her son Ishmael should become ‘‘a great na- tton,” “God was with the lad,” and he bogot twelve princes. All these facts, aud many others too Dumerous to mention, show most conclusively that GOD WAS WELL PLEASED with the polygamic form of mai fe and with the offspring thos begotten. While adultery was pun- ished with death, aud children begotten out of wed- lock branded with infamy to the tenth generation, polygamists and their children were highiy honored of the Lord. The child of David begotten unlaw- Say Bs Uriah’s wife was smitten with death, ac- cording to the word of the Lord, through Nathan, the prophet, But after Uriah’s death, when David macried the same woman jartals, the word of the Lord came unto him saying, “Behold a son shall be born to thee who shall bea man of rest, and I wiil give him rest from ail his enemies round about; for his name shail be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. Ne shall build a house for my name, and he shall be my son, and £ will be his father; and f wili establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. (I Chronicles XxXil., 9, 10.) WHAT A DISTINCTION the Lord makes beiween @ bastard and a polygamist son—both born unto Dayid of the sume woman. One He smites with death, the other He appoints be- fore his birth to build tne Lord’s house and to be raised to the throne of Israel. “He shall be my sun and I will be his father.” the Lord appeared twice, and heard his prayer at the dedication of the holy temple, and sent down fire from heaven to consume the sacri ‘Thus did He honor this olveamnis king above all men. Among all Israel whom did the Lord select to re- deem these from the hand of the Midianites? Nota monogamist, but Gideon, a man of many Wives, who had no less than seventy-one sons. By iim He wrought stupendous miracles, and with only 300 men put to flight the numerous hosts of Midian. Me it was whom the angel saluted as “4 MIGHTY MAN OF GOD.’ When Israel through wickedness had been without @ revelator and without any open vision for mauy years, Whom djd the Lord send to 1ft them up, to be & great prophet among them? The litile child Samuel, the son of a polygamist woman, who ob- tained him in auswer to her prayers. In the latter days, When Christian women in Zion become more numerous than the maies, and have no chance of marriage in single pairs, what will they do to take away their reproach? seven women will beg and plead with one man to take them as wives, promis: ing to eat their own bread and wear their own ap- parel, 1€ he will only consent for them to be called by nismame, ‘In that day the branch of the Lord ‘will be beautiful and glorious” (Isaiah iv.), and every ‘Mount Zion be lighted up with the glory of God—*with a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night.” Then wiil be the time when polyganiy will be honored, as God honored it in times of old. ‘Tnen Wil be the time predicted by our Saviour, when many will come from the east, west, north and south to sit down with the poly- gamists Abralam, Isaxc and Jacob in the kingdom of God, while those who profess to be the children of the Kingdom, but despise polygamy, will be cast ont. In Abralam’s bosom they will have no pro- tection. Then in THE HWAVENLY JERUSALEM will bea polygainlst city, on whose gates of costiy pearls will be emblazoned 1 words of celestial lignt the names of the twelve sons of the polygamist Jacob, Such will be the civilization of the future, Our government was wisely instituted for the common protection of the people—to protect the weak agatnst the strong—to protect ail in the enjoy- ment of civil, polltical-and religious rights—to legis- late agatust crime and Pepe the same. If crime be embraced within the religious creed of uny sect it is just and right that such criminal practices should be punished, BUT IS IT RIGHT OR JUST, or in accordance with our free institutions, to pun- ish @ religious society for embracing in their reli- gious faith a holy and divine institution, believed in and practised by the most of men—by inspired prophets and revelators, wnose sacred writings are revered by,all Cnristian nations—an institution established In the divine oracles by divine com- mand, regilated by divine law, acknowledged by angels and confirmed by miracies? The Bible is the great ° STANDARD OF MORALS. In it the great crimes against God and against so- ciety are clearly named and denounced, it is the acknowledged foundation on which civilized nations have erected the grand superstructure of criminat law for the universal proiection of society. If heathenish religion shouid find its way into our land and shouid demand that a widow must be ourued on the funcrai pile of her lusband, our laws, supported by this divine standard, would speak im toucs of thunder against it, saying, “Zhou shait not kil”? “te that Kieth shall die”? If under the pretended garb of reiision marriage should be abolished and an indiscriminate intercourse of the sexes silouid be inculcated, the voice of legislation, sustained by the divine code, should speak La thrilling: toues of terror to such loathsome wretches, saying, hou siiait not comuit aduitery.’? Lf theft, or in- iticide or any Other crime denounced in the divine W were incorporated In a religious creed aud prac- tised under te sa-red name of religion the iaws of our country should be strictly enforced against them And the offenders be puuished, But because the people have wisely entrusted these great safe- guards of the peace and good order of society in the bands of ‘their representatives and legislators, ought they to betray that sacred trust? Ought they to legislate against any ious doctrine or institu. tion sanctioned by the Bible? If the sacred institu. t on of one torm of Bible marriage can, by legislative enactment, be denounced criminal and utterly abolisied what assurance haye we chat the other fori may Lot eveatualiy share the same fave? WHAT ASSURANCE HAVE WE that baptism, the Lord’s Supper or any other divine right wiil not be denounced by some future legisla- tion as criminal aud those wuo practice them be fed and imprisoned ior so dving? Our only satety is to legislaie within the limits of the constitatioa, and not disturd the religious yiews and practices of any people 80 jong as they do not violate any kuown jaw contained in the Divine oracles. Marriage 13 admitted by all Christian nations to be a divine institution, and, as such, all Christian and Jewish secis should have the privilege of pre- ser.bing its ceremonies and forms in accordang wiih their own religious views, To appoimt cr oilicers, Who may be infldeis, to adiuinister a divine ordinance to church members 13 not only ridiculous, but a gross violation of sacred religions rights. If such laws were to be enforced in Ulan it would be equvatent to the utter abolishment of marriage 80 far as the GREAT CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN OUR TERRITORY is concerned. Oar young gentlemen aud ladies conld not look upon marrtages celebrated by govern- ment oficials, who possibly might be atheists, as anything but adulterous unions; and rather than com- terms that whica God approbated and commanded in the Bible; but itis utterly beyond their power to prove their wicked denunciations, or even to. tind | one passage which in the least degree sustains their unwatrantable assertions. It, doubtless, was ex- Preheat that so great a theologian as the Rev. Dr. | Newman would ia lis pro.cund researches be abie, | at least, to fad some divine law, some item from the ae oracles, to prove plurality of wives a crime, tt HE WAS UTTERLY FAILED. ; Bible polygamy shines forth in ail its heavenly purity, Unshaken, wuscathed, untarnished, resting upon a foundation deep and broad—the foundation of the everia-ting word of Jehovah. Up to this pomt I have strictly limited myself to the Scriptures quoted and the arguments adduced by this celebrated theologian. I have purposely avolded launching forth ito the wide fiela of Scriptural testimony in favor of this great divine institution. Such — evidences and arguments have already: been adduced and extensively deveioped by many eminent Pro- testant divines and writers of the last three cen- turies, among which Irefer you tothe joint eptstie of Martin Luther and seven other prominent divines Ee the Paneeana One Pei teen “To a Moat rene Prince and Lord Pi ndgrave of Hesse (see “Variations of Protestant Churches,”’ vol. 1, pages 242 and 268, Also Rey. Martin Madan’s great ‘work in three volumes called “Thelyphthora,’”’ in support of polygamy, printed in the jast century. Also a late treatise by an eminent writer in Massa- | Meo “Polygamy and Monogamy.”) In ‘ply to MR. NEWMAN’S UNJUST ATTACK * upon Sarah in giving her bondmaid to her husband, I will refer to herspiety and the high esteem in witch | she was held by the Spostolic Christian Qiiurch, Sue ; mit so great a crime they would be compeiled by a just regard for their own honor to abstain from mar- raze altogether. Our faith, our respect for the word of God would not permit.us to receive these holy and divine ordinances from auy but those whom we be- love to be divinely appointed. By the census of 1860 our marriageable females ex- ceeded the maies by several hundreds. And we now believe, through facts gathered from our emigration. lists and other reliable sources, that the surplus female population of our Territory of a marriagea- ble age excecds that of the males by many thou- sands, THESE SURPLUS FEMALES have emigrated here because of thelr peculiar reli- gious views. They are unwilling to leave the Terri- tory toseek husbands eisewhere. No earthly con- sideration could persuade them to marry outside of the Church of which they are members, Such mar- riages, they consider, would be equivaient toa de- nial of their faith, and, they believe, would greatly endanger their salvation. Have not these women the natural instincts of their sex? Do they not de- sire to become honorabie wives and joyfal mothers of children? Would they not intinitely prefer a plural forin of marriage than to have no husbands atall? Why, tien, shouid special legislation be ex- tended over Utah to prevent thousands of ladies from participating in the enjoyment of Scriptural matrimony, to deprive them of the family circles and homes of their choice? 1 CANNOT, I WILL NOT BELIEVE, until I am compelled so to do, tuat the great and Hiustrions statesmen of our renowned republic wilt be 80 ungenerous, SO Un<ympathizing to American jadies as to deny them their natural, ctvil and re- ligions rghit, and condemn them to perpetual celt- Dacy. Ours, Most respectfully, OBSON PRATT, Sa To this same Solomon *