The New York Herald Newspaper, July 3, 1870, Page 8

. % THE MORMON QUESTION, Dr. Newman’s Rejoinder to Mr. Prati’s Reply. Polygamy Proved to be a Violation of the Divine Command. Mr. Pratt’s Arguments Vigor- ously Refuted. Explanations of Doubtful Parts of the Bible. Quotations to Prove the Criminal Char- acter of Polygamy. ‘The readers of the Nuw York HERALD will recall my sermon st Washington on polygawy, published April 25, and the appearance of Mr. Pratt’s reply thereto In your issue of May 80. Oficial duties at Weat Point as a member of the Board of Visitors sv fally occupied my time from the 1st to the 20th of June as to preclude an earlier reply to Mr. Pratv’s communication. It is my purpose to visit California m august, stopping en rouce at Salt Luke City, and while there ei(her preach a series of sermons on the question, “Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?” or debate the same with Mr. Brigham Young. But in- asmuch a8 Mr. Pratt seems “eager tor the fray,” I accept the earlier opportunity of discussing the same questiou in the columns of the HERALD, which will have the advantage of greater accuracy of stavemeut and a wider range of influence. Had it Pleased Mr. Pratt tv have uccepted the editorial sug- gestion of the HERALD to “iook at the question more exciusively from a New Testament standpoiut,” 1 would have agreed readily w the proposition ; but, having no such taiimation, I could not put myveif to the disadvautaye of taking the miuauve. I shall therefore “fight it out on this line.” THE POINT 1N DISCUSSION. It is of the utmost importance to define accurately ‘the point in discussion. The question is, “Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy 7” Al the very outset we meet and join issue. Mr. Pratt affirms, I deny. My former argument was Givideu into two branches—tbe law and the prac- tice. Conceding tiat in some instances in the Bivle polygamy was practised, yet I denied the ex- dstence of a law authorizing the practice and assumed ihat itis condemued by law. Up to this time not a solitary Scripture passage has Leen ad- duced in which the practice 18 either commanded or g@anciloned, aad i remalas for Mr, Pratt or any other polygamist to adduce such a passuge. The Most that can be claimed is that Moses enacted jaws for the regulation of ihe practice. And sup- posing 1 concede that Mo-es did so, thts would not be @ suction oi the practice. In Paris the “social evil” is reguluted by iaw. In this country there are “excise laws” designed to reguiate Intemperance. But no mau of sound mind would tiazaro his repu- tain for s.nily by allirming that such laws are an approval of the “social evi)” and of intemperance; ‘Dut, racher, they are a solemn legal conuemnation of the “twin evils.” So the coucession that Moses made iaws to regulate polygamy is an argument against the abettors of polygamy, while it is astrong presumptive argument in favor of those who advo- cate exclusive monogamy. if the acts of uthers are tw be te rule o: our lives what may we not prove as Tight irom the practice of Bibie times? POLYGAMY A VIOLATION OF THE DIVINE INTENTION. My rejeinder to Mr. Pratt's reply consists of two parts:—First, the purtion of my argument to which Mr. Pratt replied; secondly, the portion to which Mr. Prats did not reply. I deduced an argument against polygamy from the fact tuat in the begin- ning God created but one woman and one man, He attempts to force the conclusion that, inasmuch as the children of Adam and Eve married, therefore ali subsequent marriages should be coniined to bro- thers and visters. At tie lirst blush, as quoting a merely historical fact, his answer seems conclusive; but the statement is more than historical. The {act is the expression o! a law to continue in force during the cuntinuance of our race. For this same fact 1s repeated by Malachi, us expressive of the antention oi the Divine Creator, It ts reasserted of Jesus Christ and reeMrmed by St. Paul; whereas the marriage of brothers and sisters is not so repeated, and hence is not in like manner expressive of a law. So the creation of one woman and one man, when Marriage was instituted, is the expression of the Creator's intention, and comes to us with all the authority and sanctity of law; and Mr. Pratt does not deny the statement of the creation of but one Woman for Aaam, and in not denying it he admits tuat tne tirst marriage This ts one polit waned, His tie ages insuvversive of the a8 mstituted by God tn SOMIDY ald as expounded by Christ in Mattuew xix, God made Dut one man and one wouan, aud Christ says:— us cause siall @ man leave tas lather and ) Aud iho twain shail be ove flesh.” Ita mun, then, be un vea to more taan One Wouian there will be move tuan one flesh, wien Is directly contia- dictory of tue idea of warriage unt INTERMARRIAGE OF N Tt 19 also asserted that 10 the fact of the one womel and one man proves monogainy, then the fae. that the immediate suns Of Adam wlarried their sisters proves that marriage im ali subsequent Beueralious inust nov extena Leyoud brothers and sisters, but the commana ty “multiply”? was given to Adam’s descendants no less than \o Adain; there- fore, in the nature of ihe case, the marriage reiation Was & extend beyond brothers and sisters. But if it 1s aflirmed tat Unis eXtension o1 te marriage reia- tion beyond brothers und sisters favors polygamy or @ plurality of wives, so it also favors po\yanury or the piurality of husbands, “fhe ancient Medes Compelicd the citizens of one province to take seven women, Wille In anotnel therefore, proves tou much for Mr. Pratt’s conc.u- sion, But if he isists that the argument drawn from the creation o! one woman and ove man proves incest tne rep.y 18 as simple as it is direct. Some acts are wroug In themselves; other acts are wrong in virtue of 4 violut.on of law. Murder is wrong rT se, while the act of Adam eating the “forbidden ‘uit?’ derived its ginfulness from the Divine prohibi- tion. Murder derived {ts criminal cnacacter from the constitution of things, and just so witn suicide; in both the end of man’s creation i+ defeated, as is also the intention of the Divine Creator. In after ears i becauie uecessary to express the cousttu- ion of things in a positive law, Nence the command “Thou shail not kili.’? But, on the contrary, the mar- Plage of Adam’s sons and daughters was not only in compliance with the Divine command to “mulu- piy,” but was 1a accordance with the intenuion of the Creator until otherwise ordered. It 13 au old paylig, “Where there is no law there is no sin.” “Sin is the transgression of the law.”” Law may be expressed in tue order of nature or in a positive e actmeut. Tne marriage of Adam’s sons aud daugi- ters was not sin in itself, and the crime of incest was unknown to the worid til) 2,500 years alter the crea- tion, when for the first time the law of consan- unity was piven by Moses. (See Lev. 16.) Now, jowever, Such & marriage 18 a sin and a crime, But why should Mr. rratt deplore incest? It is practised by the Mormons of Utah. It is notoriously true that some Mormons have married a mother and her daugiters had by a previous husband. In one household may be seen the spectacie o: three women {daugh er, mother and grandmother) wives of the saine man. Mr. Yourg added to his harm a be: ficul young Scotch giri, Whom he afterwards divorced, and Who married hor hat-brother, by whom she Lad inree cilidren. Hepworth Dixon, author of “New America,” inquired vf Mr. Young “wheiher, with bis mew lights on the virtue of breeding in wend in, he saw avy objections tothe marriage of brother and wster?”’ His reply was as frank a3 it -was vile:— “Speaking for myself, not for the Church, I sec none all.”? (see Dixon’s “New America” and Beadie’s “Life in Utah.”) ELDER PRATI'S BIBLE KNOWLEDGE AT FAULT. To every candid mind Eider Pratt’s accouut of our Lovu's disconrse to the Pharisees, to say the least, is “nttie mixed.” * It is true that Christ is condemn- Ing ine sysvem of divorce which prevailed at that tiie among the Jews, the elder draws the con- cinsion that tue Saviour merely condemns the put- ting uway of a wile, aud not the muiuplying of wives; but the sin of adnitery does not cousict in putting gway, but in marrying anotuer. Husband and wile may Separate and nov be guilty oi the great traus- fry. bntif they marry others they commit adul- . ‘The sm consists in addition, and not in sepa- . “And Ieay unto you, whosoever shall put away his wile, except it be for fornication, ant shall marry anotner, committeth aduitery.”? (Matt, 1%.) But Supposing he doés not puv her away and yet adds another, he 1s then guilty, for the law marriage j4, one woman for one man, and that yw has never been changed. And thin pertion of Obrivt not only ‘PHO! ais0 the polygamy p.acused in thatage, And tt 4 be edivying to the elder to have me reyall } \ NEW YORK HERALD, SUNDAY, JULY 3, 1870.—TRIPLE SHEET. . some of the more noted polygamistat of that day. There was Herod, sumetines calied the *grect,”? Who had ten wives, who murdered all che little “children of Bethiehem, from two years old and un- der;” who put to death Marianne, his second wife; ‘Who ordered the execution of his eldest son, Antl- Pater, Whom he had by tus frat wile, Doris, and who execuied bis two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, the children of Mariamne, ‘Then there was Herod Antipas, who married his brother Philiy’s wile, While Philip was still living, aud who to pease Sa.ome, the dancer, put Jonn tae Baptist to deat. And there was Josephus “who was suspected as & trditor both by Jews and Romanus.” EXPLAINING THE SCRIPTURES, * i my former argument I quoted Wxodus xXi., And ifaman sell his daughter to be a mafd servant, she abail not go out as the men servants do. Lf she please not her taster, who hath betrothed her to himself, chen aball be let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shal! have no power, seeing be uath dealt deceitfully with her, Aud if be have’ beiothed her unto Lis son, be shall deal with her avter the manner of daug! If he take bis another wile, her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage shall he aot diainish. "And if he do not these three unto Ler, then shalt she go ou: free without money. ‘This 18 one of the strong proof-texts of the Mor- mons, but I showed that neither tie father nor vie sou had married the apprenticed giri but simply be- trothed her and then refused to macry her, Mr Pratt finds an answer in the words, “If he take hin avother wie her food, her ratinent and her duty of marriage be shall not diminish,’ and rests tis con- clusion on the phrase “anotuer wile.” But unfortu- nately the word “wife” 1s neither ta the Hebrew nor Grek text, stuply “another,” io which the Englisa iransiators erroucousiy auded “wie.” Hence, the pian meaning of tue passage is, “li he take or be- trova another woman;” therefore, ali that is sald about “both ladies having the honored title of wives bestuwed upon thea by the great Divine Law.iver Aunself” omounts to noihing. Aud ia this texi God indicates how strongiy He has guarded tie sanctity of a inarringe engagement by demauding of hia who breaks that cugagement to give lo the \vouwan Lins wronged “her food, her ra:ment aud her duty of marriage.” “Her duty of marriage” means “her dwelling,” as is evident from Deuteronomy Xxxhl., 27; Psalins, ciy., 22; Jeremiah, Xxi., 13, and Amos, ti, 4. This pa: a taerefore, 1s wrested from the ELDER PRATT FAILS TO ANSWER. Mr. Pratt faiis to auawer successfully my arzument from Levit.cus xviii, 1s:—Neither siiait thou take & wife to her. sister vex fier,” the plain meaning of which is, “Neither shait thou taxe one wife to guother to vex her.’ Opinions will not answer fa a controversy so vital to the fomily, the Church and the State. Give us argu- ments, Mr. Pratt, and not opin.ous, Your opinious are forestalled and are not Worth a rash iu so grave @uatter, Mis not necessury fur ime Lo repeut my exposition of this passage. It is recorded in the HAYKALD Of April 25, and these remarks are peru- nent w my exegesis of Deuleronomy, XXi., 15-17, Wuich passage retates to second marriages or two Wives 1D succession, and the laterpretat on 18 sus- tained by the untied testimony of tie Scriptures. It 48 proper, however, to remara that the stress which Mr. Pratt iays on the words, “If a mau have two wives.” as implying that he hid thei at we same time, has uo importance whatever, as tis 13 @ Cour non mnude in Scripture to expre-s future and succes- sive events, As, lor lustance, in Leviticus Xili., 29, it is said, “If & man or Wo.nan have # plague apon cue head or Leard,” the meaning of which is, “if he or she shall have,” for in Verse second it is suid, * Wien @ mun shall have mm the skim of bis flesh a rising,” that is, at any future time he shail do as is ordained in the law on lepros;. And that law coniemplated tle reoccurrence of the disease, Whichf implies succession, One is surprised at Mr. Prate’s futhe remark.—'Phere 18 no reference to past une. 1 does nut «ay if a man has had two wives.” A schooiboy coud have taormed Kider Piatt that iaws cannot be retospective. A tithe at- tention to his Hebrew will convince him that tuc neuter verb in tie fu.ure tense is here emplo,ed, reading literally, “If there siail be toa inaa two wives’—Ltiat 18, 1n {ne course of his lietime. So these words have nothing watever to do with po- lygamy, but refer exclusively to the riguts of prio: bag ag o> ratt becomes zealous in his attempt to meet My inte: pretation of Veutcronomy xxv, 10:— If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, aud hi no child, the wile of tue wend sual ot marry Without uo suringer: her husband's brovher shall yo in unto her, and take her to him to wile, and perform the duty of « husband's brother unto ber. And’ it suail be that the orstvorn which ie beareth shail succeed 1p the name of his Lrother which it dead, tha: Dis ame Ve Hob pub out in Jeraei. And ii the man like not to take bis orother’s wife, then let his brother's wie go up to the gate, wito the civers, and say, My hus band’s crother recusech to raise up univ bis brother wu 4a laracl; he wil! not perform the duty of my huabs brotuer. ' ‘hen the elders of his city aball call hin and sp: if he siand to it, and say, 1 Mike mot to tak her, then shail his brotuer's wile come unto him in tue pre- sence of the e.cers, and Jouse bis shoe from off his toot, and spit tn his face, ahd shall answer and say, So suail it be doue unto that man that wil uot build up hts brother's house. And his name shail be called in lerael, The house of him tuat hath his shoe loosed, 1 asserted that the words “If brethren dwell to- gether” imply unmarried men exclusively; he ap- plies them to all men indiscriminately. He isiengthy in his de-cription of the Promised Land, into tribal and jamily possessions, aud therefrom concludes tuat the lawts applicable to ail kindred, whether married or unmarried. He has iorgotien that Joseph aud Mary lived in Nazareth, waive Bethlehem was their native tribal city to which they went to be “axed? So that “dwelling together”? must have some other meanicg than re-iding in the saine town, or on the same family inherijance, It must mean unmarried men, sons of tie same father, living at home. And this view is sustuued by every case of tne kind recorded fa the Bible. Josephus gives as a reason why @ certain “kiuswan” did pot marry Ruth, “He had a wife aud cilldren already.” (Anug,, B 9, C. 5, section 4.) And the fact tnat the law provided for a refusal indicates a design to re- tease married men from the obigations of tne iaw, ‘Their exemption was a3 legal as their refuse! was honorable. RENDERING THE WORD “WIVES” IN HEBREW. Tquvved God's words to David—"'l gave thee thy master’s house and thy master’s wives inio tay bosom,” and affirmed that “wives” in this passage means the women of the king’s household, and yave as 4 reason “that no where tn the Bible do we read that King Saul had more than one wife, whose name Was Aluuonam; that Rizpa was a second wile, or at most is concatine.”? To thy ud several passages of Script which coniirr our interpretation. Mr. Praic gives us the Hebrew word (or wives; but e.ther he 1s a littic rusty in bas Hebrew, or the ty, have made a imiswke. 1tis not nansheen, as nashim, and this word appears ertner in the singu- lar or plural form to tue following passages:— Genesis, xxiv., 5, “And the servant said uulo peradventure Woman will not be will low me unto this lane Genes! she said to her father, I that L cannot rise up before tee; for the cusiom of women is upon me.” Job, x 16, “And in all tue laud were no women found so sair as the danght Job; amt thea father gave tiem 1anerita among their breitiren.”” Secon istrevsed for thee, my brotlu aut bast thou been ur muel 1., ¢ Jonath nto me; ¢ love a Word nushim be ren- men’ —the woinen of as8ayes Ca dered “wives,’? ut rather King Saul’s household, DAVLD'S CRIME NO PROOF. Mr. Pratt grows fervid in a bad cause when he $ Daviet’s crimes against Uriah to suatam poly- amy. He ts hard pushed for an argument when he 48 Compeiled to call @ Murderer aud an adullerer to Lis aid. But what ave ine facts’ To expose in stronger light the lheimousueas of wavid’s offence the Prophet recounts what God had done for him ‘inst, “L anoimted thee King over Israel.” Second, “I delivered thee out of tie hand of Saul, Third, “1 gave thee thy master’s house and tiy master’s wives imto thy bosom, and gave to thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if Wiat had been tog little 1 would joreover have at thee such and such things.” Now, what was avid'’s crime? “Thou hast kilied ih, the HHlvtive, with the sword, and hast takea his wile to be thy wile. Now, tuerefore, the sword shall not depart from thy house, because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah, the Litiite, to be thy wile.” That was his offence. To polygamy he had added murder aud adultery, There aro two points in the case of David on which Mr, Pravi dwelis with great fervor, and Which he regaras as unanswerubie, but which I regard as most damaging to polygamy. ‘to bring his crime fully before Davia the prophet deliv- ers @ parable, the significant point of wiich is that “a rich imam had exceeding many flocks and herds, bul & poor man had nothing save oue little ewe jamb, Which he had bought and nourished up,” Having tien described how the sich man came and took away the poor man’s lamb, and, having ob- tained irom tie indignaut King his condelapation of such au Offence, Lue prophet boldly Charges home the truth, “Thou art tae man.” Then follows there- , cital what God had done for David, whose ingrati- tude was only equalied by his crimes. The iirst polat which E.der Pratt Makes 1s that the prophet approvingiy represents David's Wives as many “Docks and herds’ and the wife of Urial as one “litle ewe lamb,”? who merits our pity because he had but one; whereas the prophet employs the figure to represent tie deep brutality and iascivious- hess of David, who, not sausied with his owa numerous wives, takes the only wife of a brave but absent soldier, aud then to cover his crime of adultery be deliberately plaus tie murder of Uriah and compels him to bear the letter to Joab which contains the murderous instructions, “Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle and retire ye trom him thay he may be smitten and die.’ Mr. Pratt's cousteuction of the prophet’s paravie in the interest of polygamy is the mosishameful perversion of Scripture Uiat can be found in the annais of biblical controversy. And no less shameful is his application of the words, “If that had been too hitie I would moreover have given thee such and such things.” And what is his application? It is this: havi and 1! him that he would have given him more.’ what? Mr. Pratt says, more * wives ;” but his pi ophet say more hovors, and whatever else would have added to the dignity and giory of David. That is the simple, touching meaning of God's ad- dress to the falicn king of Israel. [asserted that the Lord did not give the women of Saul’s nousehold to be the wives of David, but for protection, and asan evidence that God had trausferred the kimgdow trom Saul to David. But Mr. Pratt assumes that the ‘iving of these women js assigned a @ reason why Bavie should not have taken Uriah’s wife; but un- fortunately for his argument, Saul nad but one wife, or two at Inst, Whereas it 13 conceded that David had “eight wives;”” refore If the number of wives nad been the reison, then the prophet would have mentic: the greater mumber. The prophet Naiban cannot be charged with such weakness in Feproviug his royal muecter. It was not, therefore, the wives whlch David bay, but the great houors “God iven the wives of Saul into David's bosom, that bad been too little the Lord ‘aye ‘ore which God had conferred upon nim, which consti- tutes the reason why David shouid not have taken Uriah’s wiie. DAVID'S PENITENCE AND SOLOMON’S GREATNESS. But before dismissing the case of David let us give him tne benefit of two historical statements. 1. He confessed his sin when he said, “I nave sinned agalust tne Lord.” (LL Samuel, XiL, 13.) 2. When he was finally convinced of the slu and evil of poly- gamy he discontinued the practice thereof, It 13 said of nin, “When David came to his house in Jeru- salem the King wok the ten women—his copci- bines—whom he had left to Keep his house, and pat th em in ward aud fed them, but went not in mito day of wb a oe them. So they were shut up unto th death, living fn widowhood,” (LI, Samuel, x ‘Phat he veiained Batusheda in lis harem atic div/ne reproor us wn additional evidence that he @ fulen man, it Solomon Was loved and hunored of the Lord 1s less an approval of polygamy than ait expression 0; Gou’s infiuite pity for oue born of such parents, Solomon was not vo blame for the churac- ter of nla Lirui, and rose to distinction, as did Wilham the Couqueror and some citizens of ourown country, Who caine into the world under like c1- cumstances, But Mr. Pratt draws an argument from the great. ness of Solomon, and assunes that the same was predicted of lim bofore his birth. This, however, uo more jurtiles polygamy than Mt does the adultery aud murder, by the comission of which Bathsheba became David's wife and Solomon's mother. ‘The greatness of Christ was foretold of old, yet vis did not justify the mas" sacre by Herod, (hé betrayal by Judas, the eruci- Nxion by the Jews, Christ would *haye been great had not these sins been couuuitted, and solomon would have been great Bad he been bo:a ia mono- gainous marriage. Itis also said that “his name Ball be called Sulomen,” I, Chronicles, Xxi!., 9; butin this Dayid was mistaken, for wien the tue Lo name the child had come, “fhe Lord sent by the oand of Nathan the prophet, and be caided his neine Jededian”—II. Samucl, Xi, 25, Either God had Chanxzed His mind, or Vavid oad misapplied the origi Ral prophecy, in If. Samuel, viL, 12, which slinply foretold that’ the “seed” of David should reign La his stead, Whether the ofspring Was of Bathsheba orsoue other of David's wives, ‘fo every candid mad one fact wil be apparent—the glory of solo- tuon was not ip honor of Ue adulterous, murderous, polygainvus inanner of his birth, but’ was placed solely upon his persoval behavior. “He shall build @ house for iny Name, aud | will establish the throne of tits Kingdom lorever, I wiil be his lather and he shali be my gon, if be Cominit totguity I will chas- ten init wath the rod of men and with the strlpes of the Chil ivea of wen,” (LL, Samuel, vii., 13, 14), and 60 10ug 48 SO0}om0n Was faithful w the Lord God aonored him, but When he followed the oxampie of his fainer David, Gou forsook hit, and 18 subsequent le is & terrible comiment upon the doctrine of personal re- sponsipility. ‘TH LORD DID NOT FAVOR POLYGAMISTS. It is assuica by Elder Pratt that when the Lord had any great work to do in israel he called poiysza- mists tu doit, In this he etiher displays his 1gu0- runce of Binlical history or inteutionaily missiates historical fucis, luis an undeutabie iact that wien Jehvvan calied the eminent men of the Bibie to their great work tuey wore not then polygamists, ‘This Istrue of Aur hain, Isaac, Jacov, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Josiua, samuel, David, Solou lijah—ol uli tae prophets and athe aposties, Some of the above dezeuerated and were panished. But I have #iven the rulc, aud tf there were winor exceptions tuey confirm the rule. And it were not duticuit to prove that We persons coustituung the exceptions were also guuty of otver olleuces, yzt 20 one but Mr. Praib will have tue edroutery Lo assume that the act of caliiug thei, Was the Divine approval of their oife.ces. As an exampie, he extols (adeon—Judges vi, He is in error when he mukes the angei say, “Thou inighty man of God;” ratuer, “thou miguty mun of yaor.” itisivue Gideon was a polygauist, and he was also an idolaicr, and was not re- proved for eitier sia, Is uits stlende tho Divine ap- provai of Lis idolatry? Bui the most flagrant mis- applicatton of Scripture 13 his quotation of Isaiau ay., And it Unat day sali seven women take hoid of one mau.” ‘This Bad event was to take pace ailer the siaughver of God's euemies, und 13 repre- senied us a calamity to be deplored ratier than an event to be praized. (See Cla’k un this verse.) And aller Uus slaugucer there Was 10 Lollow the reign of Jesus Christ, WHO restored marriage to its orignal purity, and wherever His kingdom has been estav- lished he lias smitten polygamy withthe besom of destruction and commanied and eXalted mono- gamy, A QUESTION OF BASTARDY. Impressed witu the glory ol Solomon and of the reauess of viters, voru of polycamic mo ners, Mr. ratt considers this Incunststent with the law wuich “oraaded with lalamy to tie teuth generation” ail eliidven born out of wediock. But it ts plain that he has misuuderstood the law respectlag bistards, as cou/alged In veuteronomy Xxul, 2, At is evie dent irom history that the term has not always s.gnified the same thing, With us @ bastard is one born out of wedlock—that is, monogamous matrimony, At Athens, in the days Peri- cles, in the fifth century before Christ, all were declared bastaris by law who were not children of native Athenians. Among the Jews, in the time 0: Moses, a bastard was one of tncestuous or spurious origin. Tne root of the word signifies to separate from or to cut off, taken ina broad sense; hence an alien, a foreigner, a stianger, The prohivition would tien le inst one vorn of parents within the forbiiden degrees of Kinsiip, or born of a woman in whose p:omis- cuous coLnection with other men the paterulty would be unknown, or born of connections formed with strange and idolatrous nations, inarrtage with whom God und plainly forbiddeo. But though one might be the child of a prostitute and have no fam- lly iMheritance, yet, if his father was known, he was eligibie to the highest office of the Stat: and ex- ercised all his prerogatives therein, Jephthai is an inustration of this expo-ittion:—“Now Jephtnah the Glicadite was # migity man of valor, and he was tho sou of a harlot.” And because of his birth, his brethren, the sons of Gilead’s wife, thrust him ‘out, saylog, * yu shalt not inherit to our father’s house.” But when the “children of Ammon made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went and Jetched Jeputhan out of the land of Tob,” And they suid unto Jepithah, Come, ana be our captain, w oxpel me out of my father’ are ye come Uoto me How when ye are in distresa’ And the c: ers of Gilead said unto Jephthah, Therefore we turn again tu thee now, that thou mayest go with us, aud geinst the childrén of Ammon, and ve our head over all the inhabitan's of wilead, And Jephtiah said uato the elders of Gilead, If ye bring me howe aguin 19 tight against the children of Ammon, and d deiiver tiem before me, shail 1 be your head? c to Jephihah, The Lord ba ‘And the elu witness betyeen us, If we do aol i hinah went with the ead and capte is bevore ine L ple uite ”? (Judges, e Many Who were born out of inono- aot Dastards in contemplation of the aithough they were not at the same e of lawitl wedlock. This exposiiivun i mupiy © bo reheve Solomon, wad all of sim. lar bie tines, from Uh tou in ‘rnd object, ure, of Deutero, the Jewish nation from con- until the coming of the Mes- God would not exclude au anfortanately t gation wil Lae it Was in no 8 tow’? for that for ¥ Yesponsibic, (See Smiih's Bible,” page 244; Adam Clark on Joshua, i, 1, and Judges, 1 P'S PURPOSE AS REGARDS THE SAVIOUR, Butivissald “we must admit ihe legittinacy of such men as Judah aud Nathan and Soloinen, other- v we can trace no lawful descent of the Mes and We must, theretore, look for ner Chirist, Wi ts to come.” The to whica is, that God's promise of @ Divine Saviour does not embrace legiti- macy im hereditary descent, It could net from the fact of His Own Mmitracuioas conception and incar- nation, All that is piedged is that His human na- ture as weilas His repnted genealogy should descend through Avratim and hts posterity, which pleage was strictly iulfiiled. Such a resort as this shows how sorely pres-ed mus: be the advgvaies of poly- gaumy to bolster up their cause, Mr. Pratt thinks that tie prohibition, “Neither shall the king multiply wives unto himself,” 1s fairly met by the other command, ‘The king shall not multiply horses unto himself. His answer Would be available were there no law in the case. But the creation of one woman for one man in the beginning fixes the limit to one wile, If this 18 not the law of llinitation then who shall decide as to the nuinber of wives? Solomon had a thousand. Would Elder Pratt be satisfied with two thousand? The law of limitation 18 as truly a law of the universe as the law of gravitation, and 1s as applicable to morals as it 1s to phy: What shal! be the num- bei, Mr. Pratt? God aays one, and all good men are content. And this content is increased by the equal proportion of the sexes throughout the world—one woman for one man. 8T. PAUL FORBIDS POLYGAMY. Mr. Pratt concedes the force of my argument, drawn from the words of St. Paul:—“A bishop, ihe! must be blameless, the husband of ove wile. dL Timothy, iit, 2.) But, he attempts to break t force of the argument by assertung that the pro- hibition supposes the existence of polygamy in the Cristian Church, and then asks what would the good Methodists of AMassachu- setts think if Mr. Newman should write to them an epistie to be careful in their selections of bishops aud deacons, and not to appoint any church member to that oilice who Was a polyga- mist”? And ne furtier states that the cattion ‘*proves lost hidisputably that a plurality of wives did exist in the Christian Ciurch in tie frst cen- tury.’? But this plausible lilustration receives a fatal blow from another passage lo St. Paui’s writings, which positively jorbids poiygamy in the Christian Church. St. Paul not only demands that the bishops shall have but one wife, but also requires the laity to follow the example of their bishops. In I. Cortn- thians, vil, 2, he commands:—"Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.’ ‘These two tajunctions prove conclu. sively that neither the clergy nor the laity were al- lowed a plurality of wives, We have tbe united tesitmony of ihe Aposties and of the early fathers that no polygamist was received into the commu. mioa of the Christian Church, And to make the inore definite the Apostie defines the mutual an clusive control given to the husband aud wife over each other:—"The wife hath not power of her body, but the husbaud; and likewise, also, the hus- baad hath not power of his own body, but the wife.’ Impressed with the directness’ and power these and other injunctions, the learaed Kstone asserted that * polygamy 1s condemned . ¥ of the New Testament.’”? The logical cou. clusion, therefore, 18, that w! pologamy prevailed In soclety to ome extent, In the days of Christ and Js aportes, yet no polygamist was admuited to Membership m the early Curisaan Church MR, PLATS MISSTATEMENTS OF THE CENSUS. The correctiess of my statement of the ceusus as to the equal proportion of the sexes ta conceded by Mr. Pratt; bue he assumes that the marriageab.e females are in excess of the martiageble males. In this he makes a good point, if 1t were only trae; but in this he is mistaken tn tolo, Elther he or the ix have made anotler biunder, but us time, 1 think, the elder 1s inerror, He refers me to “page 46, United States Census for 1860; but there Is no such statement on that page, erther in the compen- digm or larger edition, Supposing he may have meant fe 46 of the Introduction; but on tur to that Tilnd it treats of “mutes aud idiots.’ Per- aps he quoted from some alinanac; at all events, is quotation ts not where he said it was, But this error 1s of litthe moment, had Mr, Prate given us the correct figures. Figures are a game at which two can play, Pity that he did not give the whole truth. Now let me quote from the same census, and, he Shall “look here upon this picture, and on this. Mr. Pratt 1s wrong in ilxing the marriageable age of American ladies between fitteea val bweaty. This may be true of warm climates, but itis nob true of our latitude, The marriageable age of our ladies is from twenty to thirty. Aud now, if the elder will Larn to page 502 of the large eiition of tae ceusus for 4860, he will nd that there is an excess of 91,115 males, between the ages of fitteen and thirty, And for arguinent 1 will concede am excess of 50,044 females between the ages o1 fifceen and twenty, and With this large concession I will prove his numerical argument is without foundation. For, if we take the retative proportions of males and females in the United States and ‘Territories in 1360, between the ages of fifteen and thirty, there will still be an ex- cess of 41,071 marriageble males. He refers me to Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York, where there is an excoss of females; but | re- fer him to Ajavaina, Arkansas, Caltiornia, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Lilinois, Indiana, lowa, Kansas, Kentu Louislana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missis- sippl, ssourl, O} D, nnessee, Wisconsin, Tex: braska aud Nevada, and to the Territories New Mexico, Coiorado, Dacotat aud Washingion, in all of which there ts an excess of mar- riageable males. And the census gives us Uns fact aiso, that more fema‘es die between the ages of Afteen and thirty than males. I fear Mr. Pratt is not good in arlihmetic, fur he has made mistakes as to VUanada and England. Instead of a surplus of 3,687 marriageabie iemaies in Upper and Lower Canada, there is an excess of 2.365 males between fifteen and thirty; and instead of a surplus of 297,701 females ion England, there ts less than 160,000, and even these figures disappear when the 196,900 soldiers in the British army are inciuded in the probiein. (See page 47 Introduction of U, 5. Census for 1360.) Suppose there are in the Un.t-d States 50,000 more mar. lageable females than males to a population of 40,000,000, that Were a mere bagatelle, not cnougn to go around once, even among Mr. Prait’s “good men.” Were we all Mormon elders, sume poor fel- low would pe doomed, by the svanty provision of nature, to one wife. Suppose there are 10,000,000 inarriageable men in the United States and 10,000,000 mnarr able Woulen, and a surplus of 5,000 of the latter, this would give but one wife to each may and tue two aundredth part of another wile to tae same man; and granting his Ngures of a bed of 50,000 females between fifteen and twenty, this would ine dicate a Wise provision of nature, by which society could be supplied with domestica, nurses and school teachers, THE CHIEF END OF MARRIAGE. According to Mr. Prati’3 iheory the chief end of marr.age is offspring; but the Creator declared that companionship takes the precedence. Beiors He gave the command to “‘maltiply” He said, ‘It is not good tidt man sould be aioue; [ wili make bina helpmeet”’—Geuests, ti., 18 Inthe marrige union there must be love and conflience aod the higuer communion of immortal souls, Elder Pratt places the beautiful women of Amer.ca on the foottag wit cows and other female brates, and deciarcs (he chief end of woman is to bear children, and when they cease to bear, like cows, they must be led tw tae siaugiter. Polygamy is Q str ctive of all the dner, novier féelings of womanhood. God made her t social equal Of man, and such she is ia tue eyes of ali rigit-minded men, For argument, grant cho chie! end of marriage is offapriug—tuis ead 1s ce- feated by polygamic marriages, Iwill take my Tron Mormoulsin itself and prove Mr. Pratt s tl a failure. Mr. Brigham Young has twenty-five Wives, only ten of whom are mothers, ditee who. fail in thetr great iife mission, He is be the fyther of but flity children by th wives—eq'ial to the average in other The Mormon Bishop of Provo has and no children, Jt 1s a historical faci that monogainous nations increase wore rap- idly than polygamous. Compare tie Greeks and Romans with tie Egyptians and Persians; compre the Germans, Irish, English and Americans with the ‘Turks, and all must admit that monogamous nations have risen to superior glory in art and science; in law and government; in philanthropy and Chris- tianity. And it ts remarkable that a gentleman ap- Parenily so totelligent as 1s Mr. Pratt should be Chargeable with the anachronism, that “our fore- fathers derived their mon tc laws from the bar- varic nations of Greece and Rome.’ This certainly 18 news to.the Christian world. We all admit that God established monogainy in Eden, but we did not know that Adam and ive Were Greeks and Romans, POLYGAMY CONDUCIVE OF STERILITY—A WORD ¥OR OLD MaIps. Mr. Pratt mvites the “old maids” of America to Utah to become happy mothers; but there is alarger percentage of sterility among the Mormon women than those who live bisewhere in the sanctity of monogamous marrage. Here 1s a fact:—Mrs. Cobb, formerly of Boston, who had three chilirea by her Jawiul husband, but who went to Utah ahd married Mr. Young, nas had none since her marriage with the great poly, ist. But why does Mr. Pratt hoid up to pubilc ridicule this portion of American 1s- dies’ They are the angels of our households, moving softly around the couch of sickness, keep- tug holy vigils in the last moments of some dear one waiting for the coming of the angels. They are not single because good men are scarce. Nine-tenths of them could marrv before the clock strack high noon, But it ts didicult for them to choose froin tue large number of those who seek their hand, veiy nature of the case, [rom taste, from domestic circumstances, from disease, from the ctivice of some high and holy caliing, there will always be a large number of ladies who wil decline marriage, and 1p this they are justified both by God and man, Jt1s a deep and odious insult which the Mormon elder offers to our American Jadies when he invites them to the lascivious embraces of Utah polyga- masts. He pathetically deplores the evils of prosti- tution, but what is his remedy? li ts worse than the disease. To save the degraled few ail woman- hvod must he degraded, ‘The evil is partiai, the remedy 18 uudversal, ‘Yo’ rescue a few from ruin all must be sacrificed. MOSOGAMY AND POLYGAMY AS AVFECTED BY MUR- DER. The elder comes to the deience of Lamech, the first polygamist and the first marierer on record, He makes the point that af the murder commiued by Lamech 1s an argument against polygamy, then the murder cominitied by Cain 1s an argument against monogamy. 1t 1s a good point, It was the best the Elder could make, buf untortunately there ure two historical facts against his potnt:—First, we have no tnfurina- tion that, ac tue time Cain Killed Ab Dain was & married ‘nan; second, the murder witch Cain com- mitted did not grow out of monogamy. butrather out of his envy of his brother because God had accepied Abel's sucrifice and rejected Cam’s oLermg. But it Js @ fact that the murder which Lamech committed did grow out oi a plurality of w , 48 his speech to them cieary mdicat ‘Therefore the Elder's reply has in it neither relevancy nor force, and ihe fact ré- mains not disproved that the fst polygamist wen- tioned in the Bible duriag the first two thousand years of our race was a murderer, and his crime grew out of his polygamic marriages. THE CASE OF ABRAMAN, In my first argument | asserted that Abraham was in no sense a polygemist; that wh lied to Ms great life mission lie h f23 Unat his con- which came veCCa, Si sed that g 5 3 jloyed to aid the Lord to keep ts promise that Abraham shonid have & numerous posterity; that she repented the act, saying “My wrong be upon tiee’—that is, the wrong which I have: done, 1 did for tny sake, and now that the evil is come upon us, thou must bear the blame—‘The Lord judge between me and thee.’? Mr. Pratt has not disproved this statement; it ro- mains in all its historical strength. But it is said tne Lord appeared unto Hagar in ile wilderness, so also He appeared unto Cain the murderer. ut it 1s said that the angel foretold that Hagar’s posterity shouid be numerous; so also he proalcied that Ish- mael should be a “wild man;” that his “hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him”—Genesis, Xvi, 12, These are merety historical statements of events which would occur, without God expressing therein epproval or disapproval of the same. No one will assume that God approved of Ishmael’s hand being agalnst every man and every man’s hand againsi him: 80 no one can suppose that the Lord approved of Ishinaei’s birth under such cir- camstances. But it is said the Lord ‘heard Hagar’s aMiction,” for the reason that she was one of his children, tiat she was not sv mucii to blame for her condition as the customs of the age and the mistaken conduct of her master and mistress. And the cnar- acter of Hagar’s posterity is a damaging commeniary upon polygamy. Whiie the descendants of isaac, Avra- ham’s lawful son, rose to distinciiou, the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's unlawful son, are and ever have been “thieves and robbers.” And the sequel of this bit of history is a triumphant vindication of my position. Abraham had no further connection with Hager. Hagarand her son were sent away from the family abode by a iivine conumand and the mutual consent of Abraham and Sarah. Then God sald unto Abraham, “Walk before Me and be thoa perfect.” (Gen. Xvi, 1.) But the case of Hagar roves too munch for Mr. Pratt. By this case it cao 2 04 clearly proved that a polygamist may dismiss his wife for any other cause than adultery; nay, more, that the first wife may dismiss a second wife. Is Mr. Pratt prepared for these conclusions of his logic? here reassert that nowhere 1m the Bible does God speak of Ishmael as Abraham’s sou. | The historians do, but not God in this connection. The Lord calis Isaac Abraham’s “only son.” Against this Mr. Pratt quotes Genesis xvil, 16;—"1 will bless Sarau and give thee @ son also by her,” and from the words “2 gon also by her”? he concludes @ divine recognition of his sonship. But if the elder wilt turn to his Hebrew Bible he will find the adyerd “also” gives 9 wrong meaning to the text in the English transiation, The in the original is, ‘*L Wii biess Sarah and will bless thee and give thee a son by her.’? JACOB'S CASE EXPLAINED, As to the case of Jacob but a word is necessary in reply. 1t is @ historical fact that Jacob was not con- verted till he wrestied with the angel at ine brouk Jabbock, Walch Was posterior to his polygamic mar riages; but Mr. Pratt assumes that Jacob was cor verted at Bethel, when he saw the reapiendant vision of the ladder. Very w or argument yeast it. Aud this agrees wih my loterpretation of Scriptural Jacts ; that when God called His eminent families, five wives some means, servants they were not ty of polygamy, but the days of degeneracy bit tuto the vile practice, But whoever wil compare Jacob's life after the fcene at Bethel and after the scene at the brook will feel convinced that he was much more of a saint after he had wrestled wit the ih gt than after he had seen the ladder. But it is satd that God did not remonstrate with Jacob against the piurality of wives. Neither dit He remonstrate against his lying to his old, bind father, Shall we, therefore, conclude that deception is right? Upon this ground all moral distinctions would be confounded. ‘The sucred writers record history as it is, and, of ae ethical character we are to judge | by Bnd great principles elsewhere lata down. or wil it do at this point to say that the same reasoning Wilt condemn monogamy, because those who practised it were guilty 0. sone grave offences; for we have other and expiic t provis of Its lawfulness, apd ave in no wise dependeut upon the exainpie of a few seecied individ or 18 vindl- Mr, Pratt inquires, “Was tue monogamy of Lot a crime because of bis incest with his daughters? It might be so regard-d had we only practice to support monogamy. But I have given precept and example in support of the Divine 1sti- tution of monogamic marnages, Whereas Lider Pratt has not adduced @ solliary passage of Serip- ture either irom tie Old Testament or the New com- meading and approving of poygaumy. POLYGAMY AND MIKACULOUS BIRTHS. Mr. Prait conceives that Be las found an unan- swerable argument for poiygamy in certain intiaca- lous births recorded in the Bibie, He ve crs to Leah and Rachel as examples, anu statea tharGo. W.ought amiacie that those women might bearcaiidren, «ad conc.udes that the iniracle was ‘he Divine approval of their polygamic iarriages. But his amgumeut proves too mucii. God performed a miracie to rescue Sarah from the hands of Abtuuelech, King of Gerar, when she fell into ius bands, Wiough Abra- ham’s prevarication in denying that she wasfuis wite; but the miracle was not ia Jus tilcauion of Abraham's prevarication, bui rather to accomplish @ great ulterior end. Christ turned waver into wine, but the miracle was not an approval of iuteii| Trance, but for a great morat puryoe. Grant tha’ miracle was wrougat on Leah and Rachel, it was not tue approval of their polygamic morriagee, 1b had been called vo ve the ancestor of a great OR, irom which the Messiah was to coie, and God hay- Ing once called bin He would not change His great purpose nor ihe means for its attainment, taoush Jacov should do wrong. The Lord wotld Lave given Jacob twelve sons by Leah had she been tis ouly wile, and He indicated His prefereuce vy choosing her son Judau to be in the Messimuic ie, ‘Twelve sons by one MAN and Cae Woman are not an uncommon dumber inour own day. Jacob tell into the sin of polygawy, which wrought sorrow .o dus housenoild, yet the Lord would ho. chauye His pucpose aud reject him. Mr. Pratt cialins tube an elder in the Moxmon church, yet Mr. rat: wili not deny that he is guilty of some morui lieguiariics, yet he claims that contuntes fin du ins alga Oilice, nolwithstundiug iis slus. Weve Gol to ae- muaud perfection of His peuple, and eunpioy Ouly the periect to do His will, He would ever ve Ciauging hands. ; Sut in his haste to prove a miracle Mr, Pratt has overlooked the story of the ‘inuudrakes,’”” wituse micuiclual properties were highiy esivemed by tne apcieut iadies who were alleced wilh steriliiy, due miracie was rather in Gie use of the “man- drakes’’ uaa in an extra exertion of Divine power, itis rue that Leah and Rachel used pious expres- s.0n3 Wien they Wiumpled 0. er e.cn oie in Gatha pearing, and these expressions are reevrded by te Sacred hislorian a8 Lhe current tradiuous of the tines. No one else claims tuat a miracle was wrought. Neliheor Moses nor Paul, nor any other Oi tie sacred writers, ailude to the facts a» urate. lous. ‘The expressions oi thuse Women are Just such expressi ns as would be employed vy @ aady slui- larly aiiected ta our own day. Sndeod, Utese ex- pressions prove (oo much, All Wii remeuber how Jacoy oulwilited his fatber-In-law Laban i che bar- @uiu ior tue “rhig-sureaked, spotted aud speckled” goats and sheep; that “whensvever the suvnger cattle did conceive tat Jacob iad tie rods Letore tie eyes of the catile 19 the gutters, bist Chey wight coaceive among the rods. But when Ue cate Ww Jeeble he pub Wem Bot 1a; 0 Lue ieevler Were L vau’s aud the stronger Were Jacov’s.” And then Jacob si uuto is wives Lean and Ka chel, “Thus God hath twken away tae of your father and given them It Was certainly «a very piow Dutisis not sudiciently poous to justly we means eiwployed, It was a way tuey had in tose days of ascriburg ali thei success vo the Lord, without gard to tue Meaus 2aopled te tasbend. Asa ral When @ IuacuoUs LILt Was Lo take place, eluer the Lord or iis angel appewied to announce We event, it Was so in tne case of Iswac, of Saiusun, of Juin the Bapust and o: Cb Bac wm the case of Leal and Kachel, neuer God humseif por tus ausel appe.red to the parents to announce ihe event. Yue siory of Ablmeiech 18 aiso recalled, But granting a iniracle was W ronan im nis beaals, yet it 1s cieauly Siuted chat he had but one wife. He ai- tempted to become a polygamisi, but God appeared to hin in a dream aud saia:—"Beuold, tou arta deau man for the woman which thou hast taseu, fur she is @ man’s wie. * * also withheld tuce from sinning against Me, thereiore suitercd 1 tiee not to touch uer.”’ Because vi iis attempt to do otherwise, Goa nad smitten Abliaciecn, his wife and his maid-servants with lucapucity, bul in con- sideraien of his giving Sarah up in her purity, “God healed Abimelech, hls wie aud bis maid-servants, and they bear chiluren.”” Gen, xX. He had but oue wie; his maid-servauts were the women of his so adduced. It is true his ‘This does not, however, fatner Was a bigainist. conciude against the mother, wiv, lor anytiug which appears im the record, Was the lirst and only lawfully wedded wile. It was not fer iauil, then, that sh@ was obliged to live with tiuse who were living together unlawfully. She had a right, ine: Tore, 0 ak God lor @ blessing on her in mother. hood, and God gave her that blessing; and 1 were not dificult to conceive of a like cuse la our owa day. The mfidelity o: a husband doves uot impair the virtue ofa wile. On the otuer hand, Eiswuah living with Hannah, hjs first anu ouiy lawfuuy wedded wile, fora loug time without children, at length takes to himseli another wouan, wito veurs childseu, aud then the old jaimily troables appear again. Haanau, the lawiul wile, 13 despised by che Antero} She wow carries her troubles to God, who hears and honors her, Are we iu tiis case to charge ihe iault of bigamy on Hanan and her son? Must we not rather lay it upon ikanat aud his second wife ? Mr. Pratt sa) pected that so great a theoloian a3 tie Rey. Dr. Newman would in his profound researches be abie al least tu And some divine law—some item from the divine oractes—to ve plurality of wives a crime, bui he has uiterly ailed.” In the part of the el letier wuere he deplores the 8ad condition of wamerried women grows eloquent on their beaalf and draws au as: tration irom the recent emaacipation o: our shaves, xelalming, “We have strete.cd out our arins a rescued the groaning slave from tue Why and josh ©. the cruel task-master.” Can Mr. Pratc fud some Jivine law” to prove slay: a@cikme? He cau oniy prove it such by miereuce, by tie spirit aad ienor of ihe divine law. is siavery thereiore righty 1b us ac- cording to lis logic, bub not according to his rheto- ric, But to iniereace, to the spirit aud tenor of the iaw, to the pracice of nearty all the emineut wea of ‘tne Bivie I can add positive law, “i ye not read that He wileh mode them at the begining Mace them male and femaie,’? and sald, “For ils © shail a man leave father and motuer and shell eave to hts wile, aud the twain shail be one fesa.’? (slatihew xix., 4, 6.) ‘Whou shalt not commit aual- tery.” (2Xodus ¥X., 14.) “Bot whosodver siya put away lis wife * * * and shad marry anots commitieth aiultery.” (Mattuew xix. Tue Klag shail not raultiply wives unto himself.’ (Denieron- owy Xvii, 17.) What's good for the King 1s gout tor the subject. “The bishop then must be vb ane- less, the uusband of one wife.” (1. Tim., iit, 2.) Like priest, like peopie. ‘“Letevery Man have his own wile, and let every woman have her own husband.’ (1. Cor., L, 2.) While, on the other hand, nota solltary Scripture passage has been, or can be, adduced com- manding or wpproving, directly or indirectly, post- tively or tacitly, a plurality of wives, one unvroxen, proiound, sigaificant silence holds reign from adam to Moses, from Moses to Clirist, from Curist to Johu, who conciuded the holy vo.ume, and ia so doin, wrote:—*If any man shall add unto these things, Go stall add unto him the plagues that are writven in tls book.”? And this is remarkable. Some of the sacred writers Were polygamists, a3 David and Solomon, yet not a Ine can be quoted from them approving their prac- tice, It i uot in the Psalms; itis notin Proverbs; tt is not in Ecclesiastes; 151s notin the Canticles —Solo- mon’s loye song—just ine place where oue would expect to find it, Meanywhile it ts true that mono- gammy is prominently ‘ought forward by them in the pictures of domestic biiss poricuyed In their poetical writing David sings ‘uy wile shall be as a fruitful vine by tho sides of nine house; thy children like olive plants round about thy table.” (Ps, cxxvill, 3.) “Whoso findeth a wife tindeth @ good thing and obtainein ‘favor of the Lord.” “House and riches are the mniecit- ance of fathers; and a prudent w.fe is from the Lord.” ‘Who can find @ virtuous woman? for her price 18 far avont rubies. ‘The heart of her husband doth safely trust im her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.” (Prov. ‘xviil., 22; X1Xx., 14; XXXL, 10-29.) “Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vamity which Ile bain u thee under the sun. * * * For that is thy is life.” (Eccle. ix., 9) Turn to the book of the Mohammedans, and i n, the sacred im you will find plurality of wives approved and commanded, but nowhere in the Bible. PRATY ATTACKED WITH HIS OWN WEAPON. Aad to all this Ladd a solemn prohibition of poly- gamy irom the Book of Mormon liself:—“Behold, avid and Solomon truly had mauy wives and con- cubines, which thing Was abomluable beiore me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, have led this people sorih out of tae lane of Jerusalem by the power of mine arm, that | might raise up unto me a righteous brauch from the iruits of the loins of Joseph; waerefore I, the Lord God, will not suder that this people shail do tike unto them of old. Wicrciore, my brethren, hear iue, aud hearken to the word of the Lord; for then sitll not any man among you have save it be one wile, for I, the Lord God, delighteth in the Drea! of women.’ ecor of Mormon, page 118.) “By thy words shit hot pe condemned.” (Matthew, Xi, 37.) gauy is Tighi, then the so. of Morimon is Wrong. Ji vue Book of Mormon is right, then polygamy is wrong. The two are a3 unlike as virtue and vice. Bat a subsequcut revelation from God is clatined by Mr. Young auchorizing polygamy, Very well. For argumentt accept tue statemeat. If a reveiation, siausi have Vecd a Decessity Jor sakt reveiatio: at the bible authorizes polygamy or it does nut authorize it. Lf the Libie authorizes polywamy were Wie Du necessity for a subsequent revelation; 1 the Bit: oes Hot authorize 1, thou the waole question ig conceded “that the Bible dues not sanction poly- If poty- gamy,” all subsequent revelations to the contrary Seowitnatanding. ‘The conc.us on 18 inevitable, POINTS TO WHICH PRATT HAS NOT REPLIED, Thave thus pati-ntiy, and I think fairly, reviewed Mr. Pratt's reply to my former argument, and it oy at 8 a me to coun the points to which he has failed to reply:— First—He has failed to respond to the important fact that the creation of one woman for one nan tn the beginning is announced by Moses, a8 God's law of marriage, rey~<ited by Malachi, reasserted by desns Christ and’reaimirmed by Si. Paul, Second—He has failed to reply to the historical statement that !n repeopling the earth after the flood God commenced the great work with four men and four women—Noah, fis sons and their wives, Whom the Lord had saved in tue ark and to whom He gave the command, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” Third— He has failed to answer my argument from St. Paul's Words:—-Let every man Lave his own wife and let every woman juve her own husband,’? Which is the law of marrage in wie New Testament, Fourth—He has faited to concrovert the great fact of the equal proporiton of the sexes, both in this and in other countries. Ffin—Ue has not dented, but silently admitted, that Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Jo-iiua, Job—all the Jewish prophets. and ail the holy apostles, Wio, though living in a polygamons ago, condemned the vile proctices of poiygamy and sanctioned monogamy by their godly lives and spolless es auples 0 But whether Biblicu vincing eifect npon tae yr. Tunent will have acon- oly gomusts of Utah or not, Tfeei sure that the i6 of Lite age Is opposed to the moral enorinity; tat ie public zentiment of our Christlin civillzacion will demand tue destruction of the monstrous iniquity; that tue legislation of this iy and free country, supported by the pulpit and 2 press and all olucr Lecessary power, Will con- sign the in‘amy to eternal rhame and preserve to us and to coming generations the fauly in its mono- gamous purity, the hope of the te and the glory of the Chureh, J. P. NEWMAN, WASHINGTON, June 30, 1870, MUSICAL AND THEATRICAL. The gloomy aspect of managers which for the past week or two has clouded tueir flexible visages, Was partly dispelled by the geutle breezes that re- cently bade visitors forth trom ice water and retresh- ing draughts, The het had app.rently spent itself, and on Friday night nearly all places of amusement had their wonted throng. Aithough several thea- tes have already closed ior the jon, few will bar their doors to the patriutic public to-morrow night, when it is anticipated not a seat will be leit unoccu- pled in any histrionte temple f the city. ‘The testimonial buneil to be tendered to Messra, Dan Symons, Sution aad Knapp, of the Olympte theatre, can hardly fail to be a cordial en- dorsement of merit, Apart trom the splen- did programmes arranged for the occasion,. both morning and evening, tie popularity of the first named gentieman would alone warrant success. Besides beiug a first class theatri- cal manager, courteous and genticmanly at that, Mr. Symous Is a very taleated actor, and has already figured prominently ou the stage. Alter some four years’ retirement irom his active professional career, during which time Mr. symons bas confined his labors to the business portion oi theatrical manage- ment, he will appear w-morrow might as Achille Talma Dufard, ta the humorous French comic drama of “fue First Night of My Daughier’s Débin” He will be supported by Miss Corvetia Jeiierson. After which Master Harry Jucksou wili recite “Shamus O'Brien.” The indelatigavie G. L. Fox, the friend of Siakspeare, wi!! weil susiain the role of Swig, in the comedietta of the “swiss Swans,” the part of Rosetta being periormed by M:s. James A, Oates. Harry Jackson will latroduce bis Living photographs in “rhe Day Alter the Fatr.” The day programme 18 also highly interesting, and altogetner Mr. Symons and iriends will have reason to be pleased at the substantial mauner in wii the memoravie Fourth Will be honored at the Oiympic, ‘The arrival of the Vienuo.se Ballet Troupe on Thursday last per steamer Aiicwanaia brings tempia- tion No. 18, which puts we other tweive out of joint, and 80, after a prosperous rua, the Grand Opera House will shorily be relieved of its present exhibition, as the great ballet troupe 1s announced to appear on the 11th inst. Marie Seebach, the Kistorl of Germany, will doubtiess be tue great histrionic sensation of the coming season. Although vut iittle known in America, it appears that she has iew equals on the stage, judgiug at least froin the copious extracts from the jeadtng Gerimau papers. She ts one of tnose great tragic lights gifled by nature, and, although perhaps educated to tie highest standard of excellence, her eeriy iasie Jor the boards was somewhat remarkable. Secbaci was born in Riga 1m 1836, She flyst appeared ai the Lubeck theatre in 1860, and subsequeatiy at Dantzic and Cas: Two years later she commenced playing leading characters. Her first substantial triumph was at Muaich, in 18 64, where, having been induced to compete in a grand test verfurmance, sie amazed the judges by her brillia nt interpretation of Margue- rite, in “Faust,” and victorivus'y carried of the honors. Her genius was soou estauished, aad be- fore ioug she Was Wuiversduy ackuowicdged as the greatest living German ucures'. Dae Lecume reader Ww tae King of Mauover, Withe av ut. Courts of St. Petersvurg, Prussia, Saxony, Vewmuld and tolland, she Was (ue recipient of cosily BuUVeulls 14 appreck ation of her merils. Pressiig iwVitations were sued to the great arust to per.orim in Paris, bub her Duue.ous chgageuents tirouguout Germuny com- Pellcd hi Ouccilne tue heavy inducements oered her to visit thai ci dur. J. Grau, in securing the services of iMe Celevrated tug Gicune ior al ex- tended American four, ues nor sogLeC poriwut feature—ine engase ¢ company, aug Which as dilic. Venera, light vu. the German stage. 1b lway ve i ih.b Mic. Vesuvall, Wot unkaowa im the: tals city, hud boca in negouation for tie purp ich as a Star alt Vesivali oered a large 4 Deiermiued, nowevel, thar tie company as Sirong as possid.e, Grau declincd wi udu Vencia will probably appear oa one of uc beebuch: “om mghts,” aad will sul quéntiy periorm 4u gone Junction. Grau uaquestiva bly iooKs forWard to another (ritmon like that Which Mas ind > dis pre- vents, and fu. ins realized, alice. & Frenok theatre in Sep:e.nver nex Acrobatle suicides are BOW Yogi sing public attention, Tue truva ts thie audiences woald to be spared tie pan of wituessiag aay per- neces Wiiere Ul Aud while it 18 perfectly jluin that atfords no gfathication Wa.ctever, people piagued by performances culireiy ioverzn ject for which people go to piaves of aiuusement, ‘Hvery week has ws record of liecK-Lreaking, and Wie soouer Legisiatures puc a stop ty it Lie verter. With the exception of her Majesty’s new theatre there ure Uurty-sev: theatres in Loudon, whose ‘united auditosiums will Contain 71,2.0 persons. The pateat tor a new. lyrical iheatre, to be built in Duovitn, has been granted. A locai journal states that this hag been long 2ud anxiousiy wished lor by the cauuzens, Sims Reeves and Jules Stockhausen are to give a concert in London nex! month, at which the whole of Schubert's tweuly songs, ealiied “Vie Schone Milleria,” will be introduced. Sins will, of course, be on hand, barring ‘tadisposition."” The Freuch wrestiers, Wie nian with the iron jaw and the female Sumson will inaae their appear- ance to-morrow at Wood's, Special raies are laid down for the wrestlers, and tucic style ts said to be totally different touny hitherto seen in the country. D'itaiie lifts heavy weignis wiih his teeth, whe Mule, angela, it appears, would nave made ac pital partner of Samson. Mr. Coivilie Intends exidbit- Img the great ploucer troupe m several cities tirough- out ine States. Miss C. Thompson, of the Becket Blonde troupe now verforming in San Frauciseo, was receady trown out of a carriage und broke her leg. ‘The buriesyue fever bids fair to reach a climax next winter, us nearly twenty ditferent organizations Wiil be m tue Heid. Otenbach’s opéra bouge “The Brigand,” together Wiih the “Princess of Trebizond,” will be g.vea in the German language early in September. ‘Tne Rand sisters have gone to Viovidence., “La Pie Voleuse” and “La Ciate Bianche will be among their novelties nex’ geasun. It requires some art as weil as talent to manage a theatrical company. Young Maurice Gri ephew of Mr. J. Grau, will not be wanting ta eliner, having had’ the degree of M. A. conferved Ou litin at the late commencement of the College of the Cliy of New York. Mr. Maurice Grau, by the Way, is an alumnt of the Institution, having graduaied with distinction three years ago. ‘the hall of the San Francisco Minscrelg will be opened for a summer season on Monuay, July 11, by Buckley’s Sercnaders, & well knowa organization that has not performed in thus city for a number of years. ! Letingwell commences an engagement at Mrs. Conway's Park theatre, Brooklyu, to-morrow. He will appear in t o3, Cuitled “Billiards” and “A Victlin of Circumstance.” Bryant’s hall, on Fourtecnth street, wilt be re- opened by Mr. Josh Hart Wie & sarcly company, he establishments will be paced under so and nowly redecorated, Mr, Hact saucd for iurope yes- xday to Make arrangemcuis. ne Wallace Sisiers’ Buriesgue and Comedy Com- paay, after a successful (our around ¢ under the managemeit of P.O, Dovso. entertaiumeut toa close to-morrow, aul again in the fall. A Philadelplila paper calls upon Congress to “utierly wipe out the pr.ze rag (0. dae beet of tie wh te couutry.”’ It would be iu ia more venetc ab to the whole country i the prize rlug Wud wicrly Wipe out Comgiess.— Selma ses