The New York Herald Newspaper, August 18, 1870, Page 4

| ; 4 MORM Dr. Newman’s Great Sermon in Salt Lake City. DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY ? Religious, Moral, Political and Social Aspects. of the Quostion. Plurality of Wives as Practised by the Prophets. ‘whe Great Polygamic Sinners and the Roll of Honor. Sart Lage Oiry, August 8, 1870, ‘The visit of the Rev. Dr, Newman to Salt Lake Uity has created much excitement here among both “saints” and “‘smners.”” For several weeks his ar- rival was looked forward to with unusual Interest, Representing, as ne does, the moral and religious sentiments of the nation upon the barbarous insti- tution of polygamy, his presence here has been im- tently awaited by those who were anxious to hear im assail the most peculiar and repugnant system of the saints. The occasion of his coming here 1s this:—On the 3d of March last, when the Cullom dill to abolish polygamy in Utah was being discussed in Congress, Mr. Hooper, the Mormon Delegate, delivered an elaborate argument in the House of Representatives against the legislation which the Oullom bill pcoposed. By far the greater portion of his speech was devoted to a defence of polygamy on Bible grounds. Dr. New- man being chaplain of the Senate, men high in Buthorit y often asked him, “Does the Bible sanction polygamy?’ In view of the reilgious character of ‘the question, and of the proposed legislation by Con- gress concerning aftatrs in Utah, Dr. Newman deter- mined to answer the question from the pulpit. Ac- cordingly on Sunday, April 24, he preached a sermon 4n his church in Washington condemning the system on the authority of the Scriptures, which was pub- lished in fail in the New Yorx Henaxp on the follow- ing morning. Elder Orson Pratt, one of the Twelve Apostles of the Mormon Church, prepared a reply, which was adopted by the Ohurch in conference, and printed in the HERALD on the 30th of May. De. Newman wrote a rejoinder to Pratt's reply, and the rejoinder appeared in the HERALD on the 8d of July. Meanwhile the Salt Lake Daily Telegraph, com- menting on the Doctor’s sermon, said:—The ser- mon should have been delivered in the New Taber. nacle in this city, with 10,000 Mormons to listen to it, and then Elder Pratt or somo other prominent Mormon should have had a hearing on the other side, and the peopie been allowed to decide.” This, together with the remarks which followed, being regarded as a_ challenge to him to come to Utah and discuss the question of polygamy from a@ Scriptural stand- point, he did not feel at liberty to decline it. He announced his intention of coming here in August to preach a series of sermons or debate the question with Brigham Young. Afver his departure from Washington on his journey hither the Deseret Ecen- {ng News, which is the official organ of the Mormon Churoh, in a leading article on the Doctor's ap- proaching visit, expressed its ignorance of any spe- cific chailenge for a discussion, and suggested that if Dr. Newman should come here he might have the use of the Tabernacle to preach in if he would reciprocate the favor by allowing a Mormon elder to preach from his puipit in his metropolitan church in Washington, Two days thereafter the Salt Lake Herald, which arose out of the ruins of the Telegraph, undertook to solve the disputed question of the challenge by referring to the article which had been published in the Tele- graph, The Heratd did not consider it an authori- tative challenge. It would seem that when it was known that Dr. Newman was really coming to as- sail polygamy in its own dominions, the Mormon Jeaders, deeming ‘discretion ‘the better part of valor,” concluded to deciine the contest. Hence, on his arrival here last Friday, the *preaiding priest- hooa” and certain elders and apostles knew nothing of any proposed discussion. But many of the Mor- mons and all of the Gentiles took it for granted that there would be a public debate In the Taberna- cle after tLe arrival of Dr. Newman. On the morn- ing after his arrival he wrote Brigham Young a note informing him that he was in Salt Lake City and prepared to discuss the question. Brigham Young replied that Dr. Newman, in coming here in answer to what he haa construed to be a challenge from him, was laboring under a misapprehension. Dr. Newman expressed his surpriseat Brigham Young’s interpretation, and went on to show how the article in question, from which he quoted in his letter, was considered by himself and friends to be an autbor- izea challenge from the Chureh. This correspond- ence took place on Saturday. Wnen Dr. Newman found that Brigham Young disclaimed tne challenge and declined discussion he accepted an invitation to preach on Sunday afternoon in the hall in which the Methodists hold their religious services. After these arrangements were completed, on Saturday afternoon Young invited Newman to preach on Sunday in the Tabernacle, but Newman, having made the other engagement to preach on Sundey afternoon, was compelled to decline the in- Vilation. This correspondence was telegraphed in full on Sunday to the Heraup. It has since been continued, and other letters, containing some spicy personalities, and which are appended, passed be- tween the champion of monogamy and the poly- gamic prophet. Meanwhile, however, Dr. Newman delivered his great discourse against polygamy, in the Methodist mecting-bouse, as stated. The hall was crowded to its utmost capacity, many people being unabie to find standiog room in it; and the audience listenea with rapt attention for three hours and a half to his eloquent and able argument. The reverend gentleman took for his text part of the fourth verse of the nineteenth chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew:— Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female. Ihave, he said, a threefold object in speaking to you to-day. The first istodo good. Yet my hopes are not extravagant, for I remember that St. Paul, whose intellect was imperial, whose eloquence ‘was matchless, after he had delivered his great ser- mon on Mar’s Hill, could count only Dionysius and Damaris and one or two others as the frut of his eermon in that 1dola- trous city. I know too much of early education, too much of religious prejudice, to suppose that the effects of the former or the power of the latter.are to be obliterated in a day. The second object 1s to announce a great gospel truth in this city, where itis denicd to argue a question which, in ita essential nature, is disputed, and in that denial the Hély Bible 1s claimed as authority. In other words, I stand here in the stropghold of polygamy,,where the great advocates of polygamy are; where they can have the opportunity to refute what I affirm if they can, and where, on my part, I display what J trust is commendable Ciristian cour- age in’ preaching my gospel to those who do not believe it, The third object 1s, that 1 desire to present to the Church and the nation a clear exposition of the doctrine of monogamy, as taught in the Bible, and as it stands in sublime contradiction to the doctrine of polygamy, which is in this city clatmed to be a Bible doctrine. The text contains the truth 1 propose to advocate, the question I design to discuss; and if for your conventence I sum up the question and the doctrine’as taught im the text in a logical proposi- tion or qnestion, it is this— DOES THE BIBLB SANCTION POLYGAMY? Here in this city this question ts affirmed, but here on this platform I deny it; and in support of my doctrine I propose to consider nine propositions, MARRIAGE DESIGNED TO BE MONOGAMOUS. ‘The first proposition is that marriage, established by the Almighty in the time of man’s tnno- cency, is monogamous—the union in wed- ONISM.| j question is, “What ts marriage?” Toe answer to this question {a fonnd in another question—“What was the marriage of Adam and Ever’ Their mar- Tlage betng the first recorded, and referred to by prophets, and Christ, and his Apoaties, itis but fair to conclude that that was the patiern marrlago for all subsequent generations. In other words, in that marriage was the great law of marriage to remain in force while time ehall last, and be binding upon all goneratious of men and all nations upon the face of the globe, In considering marriage we ought to glance at tts design, its nature, its obligations, its esseutiat elements, its rights and its muniments. The design of marriage 8 threefold—companton- sulp, procreation, prevention, Kre Eve had gazed upon the rosy skies of Paradise or breathed its baimy alr the Almignty Oreator haa said, ‘It 1s not Good that man should be alone; I wili make him a heip-meet for bim.”” Thus, companionship takes precedence; the soul is first, the body comes second. God locks-to the social relations of His creatures, to the union of spirits, to the beautiful companionship that should characterize marriage, which grows out of marriage, which 1s an essential of marriage, which 1s the crowning glory of marriage; and where there is no companionship there is no trae mar- riage, The second design ts procreation. It pleasea the almighty Creator to adopt the plan of peopling the earth by the offspring of one palr—one man and one woman, Hence the command, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” And this same purpose was again made manifest after the flood, by God saving in thegark eight persons—four men and four women—and unto whom He gave the game command that He had given to Adam and Eve, ‘Be frutifal and multiply and re- plenish the earth.” This, therefore, wasa@ physical necessity growing out of the constitution of nature. Companionship first and offsprmg second. It was the design of marriage to prevent the tudiscriminate or promiscuous intercourse of the sexes; to lift man above the brute, that men and women shouid not, like brates, Intermix with each other promiscuously, but that each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her owa husband, Such being the design, what ts the nature of mar- Mluget Marriago is an insiitution rather than a law, It is estate rather than an act—someibing that is formed, framed; sometuing that has had foundation, something that has been reared, something that has been crowned. It is more than an act—more than the act of capulation. It 1s a state to-continue during the existence of tho parties, uniess the tie of marriage 1s sundered by tho greal transgression mentioned m the Bible, In law it 1s called marriage, in domesitcity 1¢ 1s callod matrimony, in companionship it 1s called wediock— locked together, the union of man and woman. ‘hat are the obligations of marriage? First, duality—tue union of one man and one woman; or, in other words, the exclusion of the third party. Secondly, indissolublencas—the marriage bands not to be sundered except by death or iis equivalent, adultery. ‘Thirdly, reciprocity—the woman to re- ceive what she has givem apd the man to recelve what he has imparted. And what are tiie essential elements of marriage ? First, intention, There must be an tnteiligent, calm, fixed intention to enter into the state of wedlock, ‘This is tatellectual; and the inteliect should always predominate in tne inception and theconsummation ofmarnage. Man’s animal passions should be held in subordination to the Inieliec.ual and moral ele- ments of his nature. Second, choice. There must be achotce or preference, & wise and intelligent chotce on the part of the man of a wile, and on tho part of the woman of a hus band. ‘Thirdly, solemn accept- ance of each other and the divine sancuon either directly or indirectiy of tho holy covenant. God brought Eve to Adam and he accepted her and she accepted him in the solemn presence of Jehovah, and God satt, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the twain shall be one fiesh.” From time tm memorial marriage has been celebrated by imposing ceremonies, as, in early times, in the case of Isaac, of Jacob, and of Samson; and im later times in the case of the wedi at Canaan of Galilee, where the Lord Jesus Christ Himself attended, and thus directly gave the Divine sanction to the union of one man to one Woman. It 1s said that marriage ceremonies are of no real value, that the Scere oA rite 1s a mere formality. lassert Viey are as valuable to society as the signing or sealing of bonds, wlils or deeds of conveyance are in the eyes of the law, by the general consent of mankind. ‘he fourth essential eement is mutual affection, recivrocity, the husband to love the wife and the wife to love the husband. This 13 a duty which springs not only out of the very nature sire lock, ut 18 upposed by Divine command. The filth 1s cohabitation abd sexual commerce. This is both a duty and a pleasure, enforced and protected by inspired authority, It 1s the means shoes b the Creator for peopling we earth, and in wedloc! is a holy pleasure. Lastly, these two persons—the husband and wile—become one flesh in domesiio fortunes, and in the production and training of children. Domestic life is @ mutual battle, and the husband and wife are to be one agatnst “the world, the flesh and the devil.” They are to share each other’s joys and sorrows to the very close of life, There are mutual relations and duties to be observed and performed on the part of husband and wife and on the part of parents and children. Authority aud obedience, protection and gratitude and mutual affection are the sum of domestic duties. 2 What are the rights of marriage? The husband hag the right of autnority. He is the head of the wife aud of the houschold. He is the priest of the family and tne appointed executive of God’s law. The wife has the right of protection. Just as the ivy entwines the sturdy ouk, “‘a thing of beauty,” and “a joy forever,’’ seeking protection of the grand old oak of a hundred years, so the woman cleaves to the man, for he is her legal protector, appointed by the Almighty and ceiecan by the civil law. Hes to provide for her ‘00d, raiment aud a dwell- ing,” and he who wiil not protect the woman whom he has swern at the bridal aitar to protect is un- worthy of his manhood, unworthy of the divine image in which he was created. ‘Lhese rights may be declined from choice of celibacy, but when once assumed they are perpetual and can cease only when deata ensues or adultery is committed. , But what are the munimenis of marriage? Tha is, what are the defences of this exnited condition? First, its inuocenoy, The union of aman or woman lu wedlock 1s easentulally holy, and when assumed according to law is as pure as Eden. second, its honorableness, ‘‘Marriage 13 honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and aduiter- ers God will judge.” ‘hen come the sanctions of law; first the Divine and then the human. around thls hallowed institution that has come down to us from the flowery groves of Eden God has thrown the awful sanctions of Mount Sinal; and Jesus, the Divine Teacuer, who spake a3 never man spake, re-established it in its purity, and threw around it tho solemn sanctions of Divine legisla- ton. Then, subordinate to, but in harmony with it, comes human law. In every ctvilized country on the face of the globe marriage 1s not only recognized, but 1s protected by law. Next comes the afinity of the sexes. God has ordatacd in the very coustitu- tion of humanity that maa and woman shall naturally aud mutually love and = desire each other. The desire 1s natural, mutual, Teciprocal; and these very adinities are expressive of a law unwritien, but as true as the law of gravitation, and as binding as the law given on Mount Sinal. ‘there are iew if any excep- Uons to that law. Lastly comes the providentiat numerical equality of the sexes, As if the Great Creator would protect this hallowed institution which He founded in Eden, He has ordered that there shall be an equal roportion of males and femaies in all-countries. t1¥a great mystery to us how this proportion of males and females is maintaincd. Physiologists bave never beea enabied to discover the law by which this equality las been preserved. Some re- fer ittoone thing and some to another. I care not what hypothesis any one may bave, it is & great fact which stands out 1u hold reilef, and has never been successfully contradicted and disproved, As no law has yet been discovered by which the effect is pro- duced, we ascribe it to the immediate operations of God and consider it one of His reserved rights. Such is a clear, unvarnished statement and ex; sition of the first marriage as istituted by God in Eden, embracing therein the design, the nature, the obligations, the essential elemenis, the rights and the muniments of marriage. And of such wedlock, and of such only, can it be said of the persons therein united, “What, therefore, God hath joined together let no man put asunder.” And this is tue only law of marriage given in the Bile.” t against this view of mareiage the Mormons bring two objections:—First, if monogamy, or the union of one Man and one woman in wedlock, is to be inferred from the creation of Adam and Eve, therefore it is fair to infer that all subsequent hus- bands are to be created out of the dust of the earth because Adam was so creuted, and all subsequent wives are to be formed out of a rib because Eve was so formed; thas because they were at first naked and afterwards clothed with skins, therefore we are either to gonaked or be ciothed with skine; that because they were put into a garden and driven out of a garden, therefore we mast be treated in the game way. Uur answer to tils ovjection is that theae facts are the accidents of the creation and the fall, and are neither tue accidents nor the essentials of the first marriage; and it 13 assumed that monogamy can no more be inferred from the creation of Adam and Eve than the monogamy of brates can be inferred from the fact that God created “animals in pairs.” Buc animals are not social beings. That which is easential to marriage cannot be predicated of them. I lave no objection to an animal rising up to me, Dut | have a serious objection to my going down to ananimal. The maies of the brutes neg- lect their young; therelore—now mark the logic— therefore Shall fathers follow their example and neglect thelr children? The bull does not stick to one cow—mark the logtc—therefore aman should not stick to one woman. Therefore, 1 say—mark the logic—the bulls are all polygamists. (Laughter and applause.) Such 13 the logical conclusion from tne creation of animats in pairs. The other objec tion Js that the expression ‘And they shall be one flesh,’ does not imply monogamy, for it is gen- erally true of the uniou a man may have with seve- ral women. My answer to this en a that wherever this expression ,ocours in the ple it always meaus wedlock and tie union of but one man aud ove woman in such wedlock. As a preliminary, one fact should be stated—namely, that in the Vulgate Latin, tn the Septuagint, in tae Syriac, in the Arabic and in the Samaritan the word Jack of one mau and one woman. The material I “two'"is used. No lev us take te Seripture vas ae oan in which these celebrated words occur, Gen esis, II., 24—“And they shail bo one tlesh.” Matthew, xix., 5—'The twain shall be one flesh,” Mark, x., 8—“And Ps, twain shall be one flesh.’ By tans, B1—' they tivo shall be one dean.” 1. Coriu- 8, vi, 16—For two, saith Ho, shall be one fiesh.”” A reference to each of these’ texts wilt sus- tain the assertion that in each instance the expres- sion i expressive of wedlock. No amount of skill or dexterity of “play on words” will be suilicient to Gestroy the force of the word “twain,” or “two,” as used by the Holy Ghost. To say that after marriage the two persons are two persons 1s like saying that twice one make two, Itis not said they two shall boone person,” but “one flesh”—exclusively ex- ressive of the common fortunes Incident to wed- lock und the act of copulation in the procreation of children. Butit ts objected—now mark you-—that if ‘one wedlock then St. foan” if exclusively ex) ve — affirms that sexual commerce with a harlot is ar riage, For argument. accept the conclusion, and atlirm that the apostie.so states. The passage in question 18 tn I. Corinthians, vi., 16, 17—“Whatl know he not that he which 13 joined to a harlot is One body;for two, saith He, shati be one flesh, But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.’ Now what are the facta? The apostie is here showing the true relation of the believer to Christ. And this re- lation 18 lilustrated under the figure of marriage. The of this figure is to show that the believer becomes one with Christ, or, as is expressed in the context, ‘‘a member of Christ's body.” Now, the ob- Ject of Paul is to demonstrate to. the Corinthian ‘Obristians that Neen fornicatera and adulterers cannot be members of Christ’s body; and in proof of this the apostic asseris “The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the n” “Know ye not,” he asked, “that your boales are the members of Christ ?’? And to enforce this idea if possible still more strongly he ghanges ‘the form of expression and says “ife that ts joined unto the Lord 1s one spirit.” And now, to dissuade the Corinthian believers from association with forntcators, adulterers: and idolaters, he re- minds them that by such associations the: me one with them, and tuis dissuasion is enforced by the consideration that aman who marries a hariot becomes identical with her, or, a3 the “one flesh.” And that the expression predicated of marriage ts clear from the fact that tho term used to indicate the bellever’s spiritual re- lution to Christ, elsewhere called marriage, is the exact terin used to express the relation to & harlot of @ wan Who marries a havi POLYGAMY A VIOLATION OF MARRIAGE. Now we are prepared for our second proposition— namely, that polygamy is @ violation of the tustitue tion of marriage as originally established by tue ay at the time of man’s innocency, and subse- quently defined in His word in tie following particulars:—First. It violates the design of mar- Tiage by modifying the natural measure of capa- city for companionship and procreation between the parties, Tho patural measure of capacity 13 that which suvsists petween one pair only—one male and one female. Tis ts disturbed and dis- ordered by polygamy. Mankind are not mere ani- mals; they are likewisé sociai, rational, immortal beings, Marriage 1s not the mere gratification of @uimai propensities. Men are nob to treat women as bulls ant the flock, This ia _prostituuon, aud polygamy is or- nized whoredom, baptized into the name of re- igion. Polygamy Violates a physiological law. Where it prevails there 13 a preponderance of one sex over other. Some authorities say males, other authorities say females, I¢ matters not, the fact 18 admpied; therefore, polygamy tends to the Gestruction of the race. econd, Polygamy 13 an institution of man, substituted for law- ful wedlock upon the . pretext of its bein; aremiedy for “the social evil.” It 1s itself cid social evil” under another name. God never estab- lished it. It is the criminal device of a corrupt and fallen nature, one of the bitter fruits of human apos acy, and to be classed with slavery and idolatry as H highly dishonoring toward God and deepiy ta- eames to man. In its ver: nature it @ state of marital defllement and conjugal concupiscence. In other words, li isa cun- dition of promiscuous bestiality on the part of the man and of shameiul degradation on the part of the woman. And so it 1s essentially a vioiation of the lawful institution and natural state of matri- y. In all polygamic countries divorce is fre- Polygainy and divorce go hand in hand; they are twin daughters of the evilone, Third, It is clearly violative uh pe obligations of marriage when once assumed. itis treason to the marriage bed. When @ manand woman become by marriage “one flesh” they have cach a right to claim the other in the marriage bed to the exclusion of any third party. A man found in the of any second Woman during the lifetime of his only lawful wedded wwe is av aduiterer or fornicator. No pretence of Marriage can be an excuse, for marriage in its mgatfui sense is impossible under such circum. stances. Fourth. It is equally violative of the essen- tals of marriage. It is divisive of the intuition and choice necessary ; 1t destroys the integrity of mutual aficction necessary and disregards the exclusive re- quirement of one man for one woman, and vice versa, 1tisa breach of the marriage covenant; it 18 a mockery of the form and wanting wholly in the substance and spirit of the Divine sanction, It is entirely of human devisement and a palpable usur- pation, Asie ake lawful that wich God has not established, and which 13 in direct opposition to that watch He has estapilaned, thus encroach ing on the Divine jprerogsl ivé ahd impatring the welfare of human society. In goimg beyond thi natural and proper limitation of one man for ong Woman it impairs the powers of cohabitation a sexual commerce, confuses the mutual and respec- tive duties and relations of husband and wile, and defeats the highest tdeal of matrimony and the family in the education of children and tn the en- counter of life's vicissitudes, Fiith. It violates the rights of mesage by unduly increasing the right of authority in the husband, and in the same pro- portion tmpairing or denying the rights of provec- tion in the wife, Sixth. 1i casts down all the munt- ments of marriage. For Innocence, 1t gives defile- ment; for lionor, 1t gives degradation. {t robs the marriage state of all protection of law, human and Givine; or, rather, by corrupting and destroying the marriage slate, leaves such parties as may be guilty Lit not oly without the protection but exposed to the penalty of every Just law, both or God and man, ‘With respect to it. It 1s a denial of the inspired doc- trlue of marriage, an abuse of the allinity of the sexes, and an outrage on their approximate nume- rial equality. It is, therefore, in every point of view, evil and only evil, and that contunually, Thus we unhesitatingly declare that the institution of po- lygamy 13 violative of the institution of marriage as establisued by the Almigity in the times of man’s ‘nnocency, and handed down to us by the prophets, by Jesus Onrist, and by the holy apostles, Now we ate prepared for our third proposition, which is that = __ POLYGAMY I8 ADULTERY. What 1s adultery? As adultery is distinguished in Scripture from whoredom and fornication, it ts proper to ascertain the exact meaning of these words as used by the sacred writers, The word translated whoredom is from the Hebrew root zanak and the Greek posneia, and means poliution, defllement, lewneas, prostitution, and in common pariance Whoredom 15 the prostitution of the person for gain. The word translated fornication 1s from the same Hebrew root zanak, and in general sigui- les crimimal sexual intercourse without the formalities of marriage. In Scripture it is taken for—first, the sin of impurity com- mitted between Gnmarried persons. I. Corimthians, Vil. “Neverthe to avoid fornication, let every man have Mis own wile, and let every woman have her own husband.” Exodus, xxil.,16, “If aman entice @ maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he ahali surely endow her to be his wife.” Second— Itis taken for the sin of adultery when one or both Of the persons are married. Mutthew, v., 82.“ But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wile saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that ia divorced committeth adultery.” Third— ‘Tne sin of meest. 1, Corinthians, v., 1. “It is.com- monly reported that there 1s fornication among you, and such foralcation as is not so much as named among the Gentiles that one should have his father’s wife.” “Adultery” 1s a translation of the Hebrew word naaph and the Greek moicheia, and is the criminal intercourse of a married woman with any other man than her hiisband, or of a married man with any other woman than his wife, This 1s indicated by the philologica: significance of the term adulterate, which 1s compounded of two words ad, to, and alter, another—meaning to another; as the mix- ture of pure and impure Uquors, or of an alloy with pure metal. Lev., Xx., 10, “And the man that com- mitteth adultery with another man’s wile, even he that committetn adultery with bis neighbor's wife, the adalterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death,” Prov., vi, 82 “ut whoso comumitteth adultery with a woman, lacketh understanding; he ‘that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.” Adulterer isfrom the Hebrew naaph, and from the Greek moichos, which mean as above. The material ques- tlon to be settled is, ‘Is the Hebrew word naaph, and the Greek word motchos or moicheta confined in significance to criminal sexual intercourse between @ man married or unmarricd with a married ‘This 1s the theory of the Mormon polygamists, but 1 join issue with them and assert that tho Scriptures teach that adultery 43 committed by a married man who has sexual imtercourse with @ woman other than his wife, whether the said woman is married or unmarried. It 18 conceded that he is an adulterer who has car- rams gud he-goats treat the herd or |» NEW YORK AERALD, THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1870.+TRIPLE SHEET, ie ie Ra WBN CN Ai ec ip TSO those which had sinned, The womb shall forget him, the worms shall feed arouy on him; he shali be no more remembered,and wickedness shall be broken as a tree, He ovil entreateth the barren that beareth not, and doth not e the widow.” Almanah, widow. And in ih, Ivil., 8, it is taught the adulterer commits his sin with the whore Jizueh, “But draw near hither ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the aduiterer and the whore.’ ‘Therefore I conciude that {rom the seventh commandment, {rom the common meat of adnitery and fornication a3 given by Christ, and from Job and Isaiah, that the married man who copulates with an unmarried ig anadulterer. For if the married man who. cohavits with a single woman is only a forni- cator, and a slogle man who cohabits with a mar- ried woman is an adulterer, then this is a distinction without @ diderence, and it ts without sanction either in reagon or Scripture, But it may be asked, “If this ta 60, why then does the Mosaic law mention the married woman and‘not the unmarried woman? We deny that. euch a dis Unction is made. We do admit, however, that special penalties were “denounced against such @ connection with @ married woman, ‘ho design was {9° presorve ths. Renealogy,, pare aren age Forgan or Christ from interruptton ‘ada ‘cone fuston which was in imminent danger when tnter- course with® married woman was had bya man other than her husband, but no such danger could arise from the intercourse of @ married man with an | unmarried woman. The latter act was a sin against the Divine law; the former act was a sin inst the Divine law and a civil temorary law. ‘Tis tempo. rary civil law was to prevent the contingency of pol- luting ® descent, of turning aside an inheritance and of im) upon &® mana child which did not belongto him. Tuis form of adultery was considored @ great soolal wrong eyo which gociety protected iwelf by aeverer penalties than from an unchase act not involving the same contin; But now the ‘object of those special civil laws having ceased, Christ having como, they ate no longer of binding force, and now both the man and the woman guilt) of adultery are amenable to the Divine law, and bot! are equaily condemned by Christ. Bui tf 9 married man’s copulating with an unmar- ried woman 1s adultery then all.the patriarchs were adulterers, because they were polyggmists—not all of them, for all of them were no: P gammisis, and those who were and were thus gulity repented and forsook their sin years before their death, Abraham dismissed Hagar, Jacob had childrer of only one Wwlfe—Rachel—alter is conversion. Jacob lived 147 years, all told—eighty-five of whict. -he lived before e became @ polygamist; twenty-two of which he lived tn polygamy; forty of which he lived alter he abandoned polygamy; so that oat of the 147 years of his life there were 123 years uring which he was not a polygamist. David put away all his wives eight ears before his death. These men were not exposed io temporal death because they took unmarried womeu, and all but Solomon abandoned polygamy, and, in the opinion of Adam Clark, he was probably lost, Itis true Guleon is mentioned by St. Paul in Hebrew, XL, az among those who died in the faith; but the case of Gideon proves too much, as he was an idolator, If the Scriptures. are silent as to his hav- ing abandoned polygamy go they are silentas to his having abandoned iuolatry. Therefore the case of Gideon proves nothing for the cause of the poly- gamists. The inevitable conciusion from all these philological, historical and legal facts ts that poly- gamy is adultery. THH SCRIPTURES DO NOT APPROVE POLYGAMY. Now we pass to our fourth argument or propo- sition—namely, that there is no passage of Seripture correclly interpreted which sactions polygamy, What are the passages which are usually quoted? “And if aman shall sell his daughter to be a maid servant she shall not go out as the man servants do, if sue please not her master, who hath betrothed her to ntmself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing that he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And ithe have betrothed her unto his son he shall deal witn her after the manner of daughters, And if he take him another wile her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage shall ho not diminish. it he do not these three unto her then suall she go out free without money.” Tho significant points 10 this passage are that a Jewish father 1a destitute circumstances was permitted to apprentice his daughter for a given term of yeara and for a pecuniary consideration; but around these privileges extended to the father were certain legal uards:—That he could not Spores his daugitter eyond a term of six years; that she should be free at the expiration of that term, or sooner tf her master nal connection with a woman marricd or betrothed. Thus far we agree. Now can ii be proved that the sin of adultery is commitved by a married man having carnal connection with a woman who ig neither married nor betrothed? This is the point, ‘To prove this point are offered tne following 34 ments:—First, the Hebrew word nagph, translated in the seventh commandment adultery, does include all criminal sexual intercourse, It isa generic term, atid the whole includes the parts. It 1s like the word “qail,""in the sixth commandment, which includes all those passions and. emotions of ‘the human soul which lead to murder, such as jealousy, envy, malice, hatred, revenge. So this word naaph includes whoredom, fornication, adultery, and éven salactal lust, Matt., v, 27-20, ‘Second, the terms adultery and fornication are used interchangeably by our Lord, and mean the same thing. A married woman's be with @ man other than her husband 13 admitted to be adultery, but Christ calls the act fornication. Matthew, y., 82; Romans, vil, 23; I, Corinthians, vii, 1-4. Third, the carnal connection of &@man with an unmarried woman 13s positively declared adultery. In Job, xxiv., 15-21, itis expressiy sald that tne aduiterer commits his ‘ime with the barren and the widow. “The eye also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, say- tng, no eye shall see me; and disguiseth his face. In the dark they dig through houses which they had marked for themselves in tno day time; they know not the light, for the morning {3 to them even ag the shadow of death; if one knew them they aro in the terrors of the shadow of death. He is swift as the waters; tholr portion tg cursed tn the earth; he be- holdeth not the way of the vineyards, Drought and heat cousume the snow waters. 69 doth the grave, dled, or if the year of jubilee had come. The man to whom she was apprenticed was to marry her or his sou was to take her to wife. These are the facts. What is the use made of this passage by the polyga- mists? The emphatic word, in theif estimation, is “If he take him another wife.” But the term “wife” ig neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek. ‘The expression 1s stmply this, “if he take another,” or ‘if he betroth another;” for not a word ts here said about marriage. “Betrothal with the Jews means what ‘“engagemont’” docs with us. A mar- riage has not been consummated. The young man is engaged to the young lady and the young lady to the young man; but before the consummation, uf the young man changes his mind and prefers “an- other’’—not another “wife,” but another ‘“betroth- ed,"’—then shall he do certain things,namely he shall secure to the girl he has thus wroaged her food, her raiment and her dwelling. That is God’s opmion of the meanness of & man who wiil break his marriage vows. Again, it 1s supposed that Exodus xxil., 16, 17— “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. if her father utterly refuse to give her unto him he iron it money according to the dowry of virgins.”’ And Deuteronomy xxii., 28, 22—“Ifa man find a dams») that 1s 9 virgin which is not betrothed and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be iound, then the man that lay with her shall give ‘unto the damsei’s father fifty shekels of silver and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her he may not put her away ail bis days.” It 1s sup- posed that these passages support polygamy by sup- posing that the seducer was @ married man. But the supposition 13 not well founded, These laws are either subordinate to the first law of marriage or they are not. That they do not supersede that law is evident from the fact that both Christ and St. Paul appeal to that law as atill binding upon mankind. If, then, they are subordinate then they are temporary enactments, ‘and hence no longer in force. It is a sound maxim in jurisprudence that special laws shoula be inter- preted by general laws, Laws must harmonize one with another. So it could be proved that these two laws lucluded married men, but being incon- sistent with the origival marriage they have passed away with the other temporary laws of the Jews. But the practice of the modern Jews is to the point as iilustrative of the true intent of these enactments, ‘The Jews of our day oblige a single man, if he vio- lates. a virgin, to marry her; but ifa married man, to maintain her. These laws, therefore, refer to single men in thelr obligation to marry and to mar- ried men in thelr obligations to pay the forfeiture in money. It isa tremendous fact that the father of the debauched damsel could refuse to give his daughter in marriage to her seducer, If, therefore, sexual intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman is marriage, the father had the legal right to annul God’s law of marriage, Po- Jygawy 13 or is not commanded pe Moses. If it 1s, then the modern Jew (as above) disobeys Moses. If tila a, then polygamy is not bindipgon Jew or entile. The polygamists also quote Deuteronomy xxv., 6-10—“if brethren dwell together, and one of them Gie, and have no clilld, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto @ stranger; her husband’s brottier shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. And it i be that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name shall not be put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the ciders and s: ‘My husband’s brother ro- fuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of iny husband’s brother.” Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak unto him, and ifhe stand to it, and say ‘1 like not to take her,’ then shall his brother’s wife come ‘unto him tn the presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, ‘so shall it done unto that man that will not build up his brotner’s house.’ And his name shall be called in Israel the house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” ‘This 1s regarded as @ strong proof-text by the po- lygamists. The object of this law isto secure the rights of primogeniture; in other words, to perpetu- ate ancestral names and ancestral inheritances, Now, we affirm that this law Was not binding upon @ married mau, and there is no instance in the Bible where such a marriage was pecan by @ married man. For instance, take the case of Tamar, The sons of Judah were not married because of their youth; Gar were too young to have been married. So also take the casé of Ruth, Ruth, you know, lost her husband, and she claimed Boaz, being a kinsman of her dead husband, to be her husband, He consents upon one condition—namely, that a sull nearer kinsman declines to marry her. Boaz ‘was a little shrewd, and simply asked if he would redeem the inheritance of Mahlon, Ruth’s former husband. He proposes to do it, and he goes to the nearer kinsman and says, “But you must also take Ruth, the widow, to be your wile.” The kinsman replies, “I cannot redeem {t lest I mar mine own inheritance.’ The simple truth is that one wife and one inheritance is sufficient for one man. That this is the true interpretation is clear, from the tact that Josephus says that he, the kins- man, had a wife and children already, and he as- signs this asthe reason why he did not marry tho beautifal Ruth. The next passage to which I will call your atten- tion is in Deut, xxi., 15-17:—“Ifa man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, ana they have borne him children, both the oeloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated; then it shall be when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born, But he shall ac- knowledge the son of the hated for the first-born by for he e inning o! $ the first-born is his.” Now what does this suppose—if a man have two wives?” It ts asserted that this implies that he has them sMmulta- neously. Iafirm tiatit does not imply this, but that he might have had them in succession, and the law applies as logically and as truly. For in- stance, a man is married, his wite dies, le marries again; the second wife he loves better than the first—andI believe that 1s the general rule here. more love for the last wife. (Laughter and applause.) He has children by both, and @ shrewd woman hav- ing children, being a step-mother and a natural mother, would vory naturally use her influence to induce her husband to confer special property favors upon her children in preference to the children of we former wife. Now Moses says 7g shall not do that. If a man has married two Wives and has children by both, be alall Mot Dut p/side the rights of inheritance whtch belong to the rytcge Now the | samo is true of suicide, question 1s (and It Comes to us in the form of an odjection) that the term ig not “if he has had,” but “if he naa.” Tafirm that the future tense isintended. For isi in je XM, 29, 16 } is said:—“If a man or womn have a plague upon the head or beard,” the meaning of which i uf he or ghe “shall have,” for in-verso 2 it ta said “when a man shall have in tbe skin of his flesh a ” that 1s at any future time, he shail do as ls ordain: the law of leprosy, and that law impiles the recur- rence of the disease, which tmpiles succession. But suppose the meaning of this passage is twu wives at the same time, this cannot be construed by any a0- cepted rules of interpretation into a sancuon of l= amy, for it ia Co it ; o8es Lotro rt a Sys ot prevalence of polygamy, & Jew and trausgress God's law monogamy 88 to take two wives at the same time, therefore this shall not Work the abrogation of the law of primogeniture, the first born son shall not thereby be cheated out of his rights." In Ex. xxh, 1, itis gaid:—“If a man shall sveal an ox, or a sheep, and Kili it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen foram ox, and four sheep for a sheep.’’ But no man in his senses will claim this is ® perinission and 8 sanction for sheep stealing, jut the famous ‘adduced in savor of poly- roy is Isatah tL, 25, 26, ana iy,,1:—Thy men shail fall by the a and thy mighty in the war. And her ay lament and mourn,and re being desolate shail ait een. the ground.”” “And tn that day seven women shall take of oné man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.” Now what-are the facts ? This passage is quoted time and time again by the Mormons, a8 descriptive of the millenial—that grand ‘good time coming”’—when a man can haye women he wants, because a great many. men hi been slaughtered.. When L was going Sinai Taskea my Arab cook to give me & description of his paradise. He told me of {is golden streets, its rivers Of milk and honey and wine, and closed by saying, “Ah, Effendi, I shail have 75,000 wives when get there.” (Laughter,) But what are the facts? The prophet here describes the slaughter of God’s ene- Intes, those apostate Jews, who had so far forgotten God as to go after other. is; and God slew them; 80 it indicates the utter ighter of those tdolater: He indicates that so great would be the slaught that there would be seven women to every man. Do you think that this. mere statoment, that ‘seven ‘women shail lay hold of one man,” 1s a sanction of polygamy ? If you do, thenI see Fo to Islaiah » 10:—"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes, thelr houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.” Now take these two ropbecies. One is a peceepe of the overthrow of ’s enemies; the other 1s a prediction of the over- tbrow of Babylon. God Almighty, in His infinite love, can never sanction the dashing to pieces of children and the ravishing of wives; but, looking inio the future, the prophet predicts that, im the overthrow of Babyion, such shall be the fury of the foo that the children shall be dashed to piecesand the evil mentioned shall fall upon the women. A great slaughter is to come upon the men, and tho number of mien 1s to be diminished, and, conse- quently, the relative number of women 1s to be in- creased. But, now, mark the cause of this tremendous overthrow of God’s foes. Then comes the establish- ment of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in the world. And wherever Christianity bas. gone there monogamy has prevailed, It has smitten the idol, pologamr, ‘upon the feet, and the idol has top- pled to the fall} and to-day, where Onristlauity is qacind and Vien in 18 purity, there marriage in monogamy is regarded as the most blessed, most felicitous form of marriage under the heavens, So much for this passage. It may be known to you that the division of the Bible into chapters and verses is @ human device. Frequently the man who thus divided the Bible took the last verse of the preced- ing chapter and with that commenced the following chapter. This is the case in the present instance, as aillrmed by the best Biblical scholars, I submit this statement to the best critic in the world, whether he be minister, lawyer, priest or prophet. This verse then belongs to the preceding chapt and then comes a new chapter and a new subjec namely, the establishment of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. But with greater triumph the abettors of polyga- my quote Leviticus xvill, 18:—‘Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime.” It 1s an accepted canon of interpretation that the scope of the law must be considered in determining the sense of any portion of the law; and it is equally binding upon us to ascertain the mind of the te; lator from the preface of the law, when such preface isgiven. The first tive verses of this chapter are prefatory, and in the third verse it is stated—“‘After The doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwell, ye shail not do; and after the doings of tle land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in thelr ordinances.” What were their ordinances?’ Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites practised incest, adultery, sodomy, Idvula- wy and polygamy. From verse slx to vereé soven- teen inclusive the law of consanguinity is laid down and the blood relationships are defined, within the limits of which persons are forbidden to marry. But in verse eighteen the law against poly- pony, is _glven:—‘Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister; or as the marginal reading Is, “Thou shalt not take 4 OBS, wife (o another.’* And this ren- dering is distained by Cookson, Bishop Jewel, Dr. Bawards and Dr. Dwight. According to Dr. Edwards the words which we translate ‘‘a wife to her sister” are found in the Hebrew but eight times. In each pas- sage they refer to inanimate objects, such as the ange of the cherubim, tenons, mortices, &c., and signify coupling together one to another, They denotathe exact Itkeness of one thing to another, ané h for- bid, as the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife to another during her lifetime, And tie reason assigned for this prohibition of s plurality of wives is natural, logical and merciful—because it wouid “vex her”’—prove the cause of innumerable jealousics and contention. ‘The history of polygamous marri ts the history of ily brotls and domestic calamities. From Lameéch te Jacob, from Jacob to David, from David to Solomon, and in subsequent times, the vio- lation of this divine law has been attended by such evils. Butit 1s sald thatif this passage does not prohibit @ man marrying two alsters at the same time, then such @ marriage 1s nowhere else in the Bible pronounced incestuous. To which I reply that such & marriage is forbidden by consequence and renin As for example:—Where !t 18 prohibited that the son shall not marry his mother (Leviticus Xvili., 7), 1t follows that the daughter shall not Marry her father. Yet {ts not so especially stated. itis forbiddenin verse 14d—“Though shalt not un- cover the nakedness of thy father’s brother.’’ So I infer @ mother’s brother, though it is not so stated. Now in verse 16 it 18 said:—‘Thon shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife.” So 1 infer that @ man shall not uncover the nakedness of his wife's sister—that is, If two brothers shall not,take the same woman thén two women shall not take the sameman. For between one maa and two sisters and one woman and two brothers is the same de- gree of proximity, and therefore both are forbidden by the law of God. Furthermore, if the marriage of @ man and two alsters 1s here forbidden, which is In- dtsputable, then verse 18, according to Mormon. in- terpretation, is a mere repetition of the law, More than this. If, for argument, we concede it means two literal sisters, yet that prohibition is not a permission for @ man to take two wives who are not sisters; for all sound jurists will agree that a.-prohibition is one thing and a permission is another.. Nay more, the Mormons do or do not re- ceive the law of Moses as pinding, ‘That they do not ds clear from thelr own pea For instance, in Lev. xx., 14, 1 is said, “Ifa man take a wife and her mother it 18 wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire both he and they." Yet Mr. John Hyde, Jr., in, bis work called ‘Mormonism,’ page 56, states that a Mr. EB. Bolton married a woman and her daughter, and a Captain Brown married a woman and her two daughters. And there are other cases inthe Territory of the same kind. More than this : the Mormons say that Lev. xvili., 18, prohibits a man from marrying two sisters. Yet Mr. Hyde tn- forms us that a Mr. Davis married three sisters, that a Mr, Sharkey married the same number, and that Mr, Brigham Young advises that a man intend- ing to marry two sisters should marry them on the game day, ‘for that will prevent quarrelling about who is trator second.’’ (Page 55.) Now, do the Mormons obey or disobey the law of Moses} ifthey do not, asis clear from the above cited facts, what confidence can we have in their claim that because Moses sanctions their system of polygamy, therefore they practice it? More than his, If it here means two literal sisters, and whereas Jacob married two sisters, and whereas, according to Mormon doctrine, God worked a miracle on Leah and Rachel that they might have children, and whereas you say that sald miracle was an bg bbe) of polygamy, ‘80 also was {tan approval of incest. If the Mormons say God did not ress disapproval of Jacob’s having two wives, neither did He express disapproval of his marrying two sisters, therefore the Divine stlence in ‘the one Case is the offset to the Divine silence in the other case, gne’ we come to the fifth proposition—namely, THE SORIPTURES POSITIVELY CONDEMN POLYGAMY, Our first argument 1s drawn from the first mar- riage. ‘Therefore shall a man leave bis father and his mother and shatl cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” What are the objections to this passage? First, 1t 18 asserted that if we are to infer monogamy from the creation of one man and one woman so are we to infer that all subsequent Marriages are to bo between brothers and sisters, because the immediate children of Adam and Eve married. is argument would have some force were it not forone sublime fact—namely, that in the frst marriage was God’s law of mat- riage, and that law is referred to by Malachi and by Christ and oy the Apostle Paul; but nowhere do you find an allusion obligatory that all subse- queat marriaged are to be confined to brothers and sisters. More than this. It 1s asserted that if the fact of the creation of one man and ono woman roves monogamy, then the fact that the mediate sons of Adam married their sisters. proves that marriage in ail subsequent generations must not extend beyond brothers aud sisters. Well, T accept the objection for argument’ssake. But tf it 1s affirmed that the extension of the marriage rela- In both the end of man’s creation ts defeated, a3 1s also the inteation of tie Divine Creator. in after years tt becuiao nocessary to express the constituuon of things in a postive Jaw, and hence the command ‘Thou shalt not kill” But, on the contrary, the marriage of Adam's sons and dgughters was not only in compliance with the Diving command to muluiply, bit was in accordance With the intention of the Creator unttl otherwise ordered. It ts an old saying, “Where there 18 no law there is no transgression,” “Sin is the trans~ reasion of the law.’” Law may be expressed ta ‘he order of nature, or in a positive enactment. The marriage of Adam's sous and daughters Was not sin in itself, and the crime of incest Was ugknown to the world till 2,600 years after the creation when, for the first time, the Jaw of consan- gulurey was given by Moses, But why should they ring Up this objection of incest—of brother and si8- ter marrying? Are there no such cases at tle pres- ent time; no such oases in this our modern day? Is there not sophistry in the objection faith in those who urge that “objection ras ‘omy for the want of sound and Bla i ‘Then th 18 repeated by il, 14, 16:—“‘Yet ye say, wherefore? Beca Loi use th hath been witness between thee and the wi youn, against whom thou hast dealt tresthersaay, bat she thy companion and the wife of, th: ant. And did he not make one? Yet had 18 residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he iu geek B godly seed. ‘Iherefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth,’ Now, what is the Mormon interpretation of thist It iahere said, “And did he not make one?” Tne, interpret it ‘And did not one make?” that “Da not one make?” We gay, “Did he make one?” that 1s, “one flesh.” But the polygamists say. ‘Did not oneGod make?’ Very well, we ac- cept it, “And wherefore one?" that is, to the Mormon interpretation, “Why did not two or three gods maker” You see the absurdity, whiie your good sense will not permit you to fasten on either the original Hebrew or our transiation. ‘Then. Malachi takes up tho translation of Moses and hands it down, the law of monogamy as indicated in Eden. Moses opens oe Old testament with mono- gamy, and Malachi oloses it with the same, and thus the last accents of prophecy ascended to mingle With the songs of angels. More than tils. Jesus Christ, m - Matthew x1x., 6, 6, quotes these same words, ‘Kor this cause shall @ man leave father and mother and shall cleave unto hia wife, and they twain shall be one tlesh. Wherefore fier Be no more twain, but one flesh, What there- fore God hath joined together ley no man put asun- dor.”” First Moses, then Malachi, thea Jesus Christ takes up the same subject—tne declaration of mono- gamy asa law. Then we pass on to the Apostle Paul, Eph, v., 23-31:—“So ought men to love their Wives ax thetr own bodies, Me that lovetn his wife loveth himself.” “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, aud shall be joiaed unio his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.’? Now, let Us sum up this argument. Here Moses Stands amid the thunders of Mount Sinai and an- nounces to us the law of monogamy in the deciara- tion of marriage in the innovency of man; then Malaciil, the last of the prophets, re- peats it; then Jesus Christ comes, and “He who spake aé never man spake’ reafirms what Moses and chi bad said; then St. Paul, the greatest of the Apostles, who was caught up into the third heavens, reiterates what had been declared by Moses and Malachi and Jesus Christ—namely, that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, to the exciusion of the third party. Our next argument is drawn from Deuteronomy xvil., 17, alluding to the king—-‘Neither shall bo multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.” The Mormons say that this is amswered by the fact that it 13 aiso said in anotuer place, “He shall not multiply horses to himself.” ‘fhey say, “Can he not have two or more horses?” The auswor to this 1s that there is no law Umiting the number of horses, but there is a law limiting the number of wives, The original law, coming down through alt the ages of tbe past, fs one wife. Wen they quote Leviticus xxi., 18, ‘‘And he shall take a wile in her virginity.” I think it 1s conceded on,all hands that the Jewish high priest, that is the great high priest, who wore the Urim and Thummim, Who entered the holy of holies, was to have but one wife, ‘That is the law of Moses. 1s this law kept here in Utah? And this doctrine 1s brought out equally distinctly in Timothy tL, 2—“A bishop, then, nust be blameless, the husband of one wie," “Ah! they say, *that refers to a bishop, and means that he must have one wile any low, «and a3 mauy more wives he can get.”” Tnatis their interpretation ofthe passage. Bui we aflirm that the distinction ts not belween the unmarried man and the married man, but between a man with one wife and a maa with many wives; for if the distinction 1s between @n unmarried man anda married man--that is, if a bishop must have one wife, noiens vo‘ens—then no, unmarried man can be an elder in the Oburcn of God; if @ minister loses his wife he must ceasé to be a minister until he gets another. But, according to this argument, what shall we do with Jonn the Baptisty ile was never married. What shall we do with St. Paul? If he bad been married he was a widower during most of his apoa- tolic life. What shall we say of Bishop Asbury, that old bachelor who used to scowl whenever a woman came into his presence? Aud what shail we say of John py ees who remained unmarried many years? And it had been better for him and the Chuich if he had never. married. Now, we assert that if this Goctrine be true no man can be anelderin the Church of God or an eiicient minister untti he bs married. This is an absurity; for ‘in heaven they neither marry or ave given iu marriage.’ Bur 10 is said that if polygamy did not theo prevail Paul could not have beea guilty of the absurdity of writ- ing that letter cauttoning the Church against having @ bishop with more thau one wife. Now, what are the facts touching this? The facts are simply these:—That while polygamy existed to a very limited extent at that tme, yet no polygamist was admitted into the Christian Church; and this is proved by the fact that in First Coriothians, vii., 2, it is said, ‘Let every man have his own wife, and Jet every woman have her own husband.” You ave that the first re- Terred to the bishop—to the ministry; but that this refers to the laity. Now, tf every man have his owa wife and every woman her own husband, then | ask you where does polygamy come inl it certainly does not come in here; for nothing can be more ex- phcit, nothing can be more simple, terms cannot be more emphatic than “Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1t was because of these assertions that Blackstone, that great jurist, asserted that “polygal demned by the law of the New Testament.’ And in this connection il 1s prover to state a pal- pabie contradiciton in the assertions of the Mormon olygamisis. ‘They assert that monogamy came om the Greeks and Romans; they also assert that iygamy was universal at the time of Curist and is uposues. This last assertion is made to prove that polygamists were admitted to the early Chris. tian Church, Now, if monogamy came from the Greeks and Romans, then polygamy could not have been universally prevalent; for 1t is admitted tuat at that tme the Romans held sway throughout the civilized world, and where they held sway their laws prevailed, But they say there were polygamists in that day. Very well. Let me tell you of a few. There was Herod, sometimes called the Great, who had tea wives, Who murdered all the little children of Beth- Iehem from two years old and under; who put to death ‘his second wife Marlamne; who ordered thé execution of his eldest son Antipator, whom = he al by hia first wile ry Doris, aud who executed nis two sons Alexander and. Aristobulos, the children of Mariamne. Then there was Herod Antipas, who married his brother Phillp’s wives while Pillip was still living, and who, to please Saiome the dancer, put Join the Baptist to death, And then there was Josephus, who was sus- pected as a traitor both by Jews and Komans. Such, mny frlenus, were the polygamists of those days. Now, we deduce an argument from the equaliza- tion of the sexes, or, in other words, the equal pro- portion of males and females. We assert that the great doctrine taught by Paul, “Let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband,” is founded upon an equally great physical law. ‘Take, for instance, the census of the United States for 1860. ‘Tne figures are as follows:— Excess of Fem: Males. | 16,035,600 | 15,5105 740,000 “i900 |" 17}200 ai Great Britrin has an excess of 700,000 females; but add the excess of eltner sex represeniing the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race—take our excess of males and England’s excess of te- males—and then you fortify the fact already stated— ‘viz., an equal proportion of males and females. Now take the flye great nations of Europe—France, Aus- tria, Spain, Italy and Prussia. In these five great ations there ts a total population of 133,000,000, and in these 133,000,000 there is an excess of only 1,074,000 females—one wife for each man and the 138th part of another wife for the same man. That is not enough to go arowid. Bub now add the standing armies of those-countries, on what is Known as a peace footing, and you get 1,135,675 more men, giving in those na- Uons an excess of 61,575 males. Buvit issaid “That 1 Not the point.” Doubtless it isnot for the other side, but it is for ours, But they say we musi consider the relative proportion of the sexes ata marriageable age. What isa marriagenble age? Why they dx it at from fifteen to twenty. That is not the mar- riageable age of American ladies. It may apply to the Hottentots or Egyptians, but, as a rule, Ameri- can ladies do not marry between those ages. The Marriageable age of American ladies can be fixed at between fifteen and thirty, or, more Property, between eighteen and thirty. Now it 1s assert that there {3 an excess of fifty thousand females between the ages of fifteen and twenty in the United States, and those who make that assertion enume. rate Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York. If they enumerate those 1ew States as having an excess of females, I am prepared to enumes rate Alabama, Arkansas, Caltfornia, Delaware, Flori- da, Georgia, tilinols, Tndial Towa, Kansas, Ken- tucky, Loujsiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Prien fn Missourl, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Texas, Ne- braska and Nevada, and the Territories of New Mexico, Colorado, Dacotah and Washington, in ali of tian beyond brothers and sisters favors polygeuiy or a pia ity of wives 8o it favors polyandry, or a plu- rality of husbands. 1 go in for equal rights, and ia man can have many wives @ woman can have husbands—(laught@t)—and if the law of God justl- les the former it justtes the fatter, (Applause.) Historians refer to the practice o poly ry. It ex- ists to-day in some portions of the earth. Isay if “polygamy, is right on the one hand then polyandry is ight om the other, But the polygamists say that if monogamy ts true, from the fact of the création of one man and one woman, tt also sanctions incest, because the immediate children of Adamand Lye marticd, What is the auswer ‘to this argu- ment? Some acts are wi themselves; other acts are wrong in virtue of a violation of law. Murder is wrong per se, while the act of Adam eating the forbidden fruit derived its sinfuliess from. the Divine prohibition, Murder derives its criminal character from the constitution Qs things. and tie Which there is an excess Of marniageable males. But I am. prepared to assert that between ‘Ue ages of ‘atveen and thirty there aro 91,000 more males than females in the United States. This being the fact the argument cannot hinge upon what ia called a riageable age. Rat we must take @ broader sweep and include humanity, and consider this great law touching the equalization of the sexes; and this will be substantiated by the facts of the census of ali civilized countries. Such, then, 1 the argument from the census. Suppose there are in the United Statcs 50,000 more marriageable femalee than maies and a population of 40,000,000, that were mere bagatelle, not enough to go around Se | Were we ail Mormon elders some poor fellows woul be doome: by the scanty proviston of nature to ont wif Suppose there are in the United bey 10,099,000 of marriageable men and 10,00! marflageavie wowen. and a surplas of 6.000 ¢ . is com |