The New York Herald Newspaper, August 21, 1870, Page 4

MORMONISE The Great Discussion on Poty- gamy. of tabs ba jnatitution that had a prior existe sce. I wit refer, Dr. Newman and Orson Champions of Monogamy and of Polygamy. Opening of the Discussion in the New Tabernacle at Salt Lake City. bere ceolurtes before the days of Mos Ths Wes @ Momogemic family so far ae we are in Bitée 8 converaed. We come to Jacod. Great Crowd of Male Saints, Female Sain’ and Gentiles of Bach Sex. The Ors. born of this puiygamue tamily was Ruben, Arguments Theological, Rhetorical | #4 hy would hove retained te birthright bad he BOL Lranegressed (he law of Beaven, Because of that and Profound. transgreauon be lost that privuege, It was taken from him apd was given to Joseph, or rather to the two sons of Joseph, a+ you wilh find re- Sart Lake Crry, Angust 12, 187, corded in the Gh chapter Of the Pirst Chronicles, ‘yhe great debate on the question ‘Does the Bible | Here, then, the righ of the Smt born were Sanction Polygamy!’ has commenced at last. The | acknowledged im beth polygamic and monogatnlo circumstances which led to this discussion aré as | families before the law under consideration was follows:—Mr. Hooper, the Mormon Delegate to Con- | given. The house of Israel was not only founded in gress, made a speech tn the House of Represen- | polygamy, but the two wives of Jacoh ana the two tatives against the passage of the Cullom bill, and tn | handmwaids whe were else called his Wives mm some defence of polygamy as practised by the Mormons | places, were the Women with whom he begat the on the authority of the Holy Scriptures, The Rev. | twelve sons from whom the ewelve tribes or lerae! Dr. J. P. Newman, pastor of the Methodist Metro. | sprang. Polygamy, therefore, having existed, and politan church in Washington and chaplain of the | originated os it were, with lerael or Jacob in that Senate, preached @ sermon in Mis church in the } pation, was continued among them from generation presence of President Grant and many other dis- | to generation down wut) the time of the coming of tinguished individuals, showing that the Bible nov | Christ; and these laws, therefore, were Intended to only did not sancuou but that it condemned | regulate an institution already m existence. If the polygamy. Professor Orson Pratt, one of | law hy one te Dam Monogamic {emMiites i LJ » ‘Twel stles reunain for m, oppowent Lo bri ev the ‘Twelve Aposties among the Mormons, anes 0 ion this ng wrote a reply to Wr. Newman’s sermon, We will next refer Wo a whiten will be and undertook to prove that not only had God given oun in Exodus, xxi, 10. Nt uamy be weil r=) . 4 em 88 ne the three preceding Verses, commencing his solemn sanction to the institution of polygamy, | the tree B! rr ie = A, as practised by Une patriarchs, but that He had dis- tinctly commanded that tt should be practised. Dr. be @ Maldservant she shail not go oul as the men servants do. If she please not her master who hath a rejoind Pratt's re betrothed her to himself then shall he let her be re- Newman wrote a re,oinder to Mr. Pratt's reply, and deemed: to sell her unto a sirange nation he shall have presented cumulative evidence from the design of | no power, seeing he hath deal. deceitiuliy Witu her, the Creator, the nature of humanity and from rl pod maen di ge ber ra ap e « © support the p . . | deal with her after the mauoer vers. Sacred history to support the position he nad as- | Yh. Yaxe him another wie, ber food. ber ralmeut sumed in his sermon in favor of monogamy. Mean- } and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish.” while some comments on that sermon in a Salt Lake Ana also the following, the eleventn veveo: and as ara ennai oe i ne do not these tarve unto her then we gO Gatly journal were considered by Dr. Newman and | out tree without money.” 1 think, from the matuce his [ricnds to be au authorized challenge for him to come ere aud debate with some champion of the of this passage, that it certainly does have reference vo the logal, lawful wives; at least they are thas de nominated. It maybe that objection will be takeu church on the subject of polygamy. Dr. Newman | 14 tye word “wife’—“another wife'—from the tact accepted it, and publicly signified his intention | that it is in italios, and was substituted oy the trans- of visiting this cit in August for that | laters of King James, accor to the best judd % ment they could form, taking inte comsidgeratien | purp on his way to California. He | the context. 1 40° not intend at prescus urrived last Friday, and on Saturday wrote to | to dwell at any great lengih upon these passages, merely declaring or stating thas this does sancuion polygamy, So far as my jucgment and opinion goes and, #0 far as ine wording of the Scriptures go, i does seem to sanction the taking of Whue the frstis stil ving. If this should be trausiated “woman,” and merely a trothed Woman, that, perhaps, Might aiver Le case provided that 1¢ can be proved. it may be that the original Will be referred to Gu tke subye and nt nay not, as we have the Li! , Lbehkeve, of taking Brigham Young saying he was bh nd was ready. Brigham Young denied ever having sent any chal- Jenge to the Doctor, and disclaimed the journal as om} church authority. A voluminous corres- pendence followed, which is already familiar to the readers of the HpRaLp, At length Dr, Newmon challenged Brigham Young, as the head of the church, (o taeet him in debate, and show that the | the gBibie according to King Janies’ wansavoa, or Bible, which the Mormons profess to follow more | referrmg to the orginal; providing w can | atrictiy than any other sect in Christendom, sanc- | ud any original. But so far as we original 1s concerned, froin Which (is Bile 19 translated, 4 1s not inexistence, The lus! Inlormation We Dave concerning the original Miapuserpts irom whieh this Bible was transiated is (hat they were empoyed in the formation of Kites and used ior auosemens, instead of being preserved. With regard to a gress Many other manuscripts, 1 would siate that ley may, perhaps, agree with Lie original of Alng jaw translation, ney may not. We have lestunony aud evidence in tie Kucyclopedia Metropolitan: Bible, the griginal manusc: i number of readings that did another, We have the state the best informed men that in severa: ts has been stated that tere are 09,009 Ai tions their polygamic system. Brigham Young de- ciined for himself, but proposed that, as his substi- tute, Professor Orson Pratt, the great theologian and logician of the church, shouid discuss the question with Dr. Newman. The Doctor declined to meet Pro- fessor Pratt In the capacity of a substitute for Brig- ham, bat accepted him as an acknowledged principal in the question, Representatives of both parties met, aud after a great deal of discussion over de- tails, in which bbth sides did considerabie skirmish- ing and sharpshooting, articles of agreement for the . Bae r The salient point in the articles 1s that the Bible ts | scripts inio the English iaugawge. Bul © re tobe the only standard of authority in this discus. | 90 many different readings eu Tigi Ati ae sion. The articles as Mnally amended were adopted | 9 ginerence of opinion sul. ‘This, there by the respective representatives this morning, and | my judgment, another law pre | pe the discussion was announced to begin at two | 1 Will now refer to another jaw o'clock this afternoon tn the New Tabernacle. It is | POwgamy. tn tin twenty ti to continue three days, each of the three sessions to | “if brethren «well (ogetier.” Now, tlis well enough iast two hours, and each speaker to occupy one hour in reading this to refer to the margin, as we have the iberty, 1 believe, te dos, and you wil Bud each day. Theform of the question 13, “Does the | that. in the margin the word “breturen Bibie Sanction Polygamy? Professor Pratt takes | translated “near Kinsmen.” “If brethren the affirmative and Dr. Newman the negative, | other words, ‘near kinsmen,” “dwell togeiher, and — one of tuem die and have po child, the wife of the ‘Three umpires have been chosen to preside at the | qead snail not marry without unto a strang her discussion. Professor Pratt named Judge Z. Snow, | husband's brother shall go in wnto her, and take her Kewr chose Jud > * to him to Wile, and periorm the duty of @ Lusband’ Dr. Newman chose Judge ©. M. Hawley, and } irotner unto her. And it shail be that the urst vorn these two selected as the third Colonel M. T. Pa- { which she beareth shall succeed 1b the nary of his . tbe United States Marshal, The discussion is Cc universal interest in this city. A ge audience assembied in the Taberuacie this afternoon lo Witness the contest of the champions Israel. And if the man like not to take lis brotier s wife, then let His brother's wile go up to the gw unto the elders aod say, My husbaud’s brother faseth to raise up unto his brother a name iat of ; S ine he will not periorm the duty of iy husb, hans. em (of the platform | brother: Then tie elders of lis eity shail eail kim wis reserved for the (rien ewman and the | gna spe ke not to take her: ino him in the presence loose his st rom Oi lis fo0%, dud spit 1a 1S iae ald shall answer and say, So suall it be 1 map tial Will not build Up tin And is bame shall ve Called in israe: other of and also py for ‘the ae.’ Brigham Young and Mr. Hooper, were the platform. tne contest * and tke Poctor shook on Before the menced atter the manuer of physical han that nate tis shoe lo nds of spectators. The | tas this, says one, to do with p of women, and w is general. it 18 binding upou and upon ali near Kinsinen dweiling together wunarricd bretnren or unmarried Kivsm nd ihe unmarned. ‘The law 1s ¢ proved from The origin source Whabever that the is not general, then ¢ pout wii to be yielde tat ca be y ail during the iawiey called the up by John | inderiand, | offere: es, Dr. who is ti wman, now read | proved, here 18 the law, Walch not only sanctions the'a the debate | polyeaiy, but absoluvely’ cormmanus 1 "And if we : | even one Jaw Where the command ts woud | | bh, Of course, the principie of plurality o1 Pro | 1a be established Upon @ perinauent foot in te ! ing, and equal in authority, equal in legality, to tat 2 | o: Toueguiny. ‘This Jaw of God absoiniely does favorit } thas command all persons, whether married or un e in the follow UMENT OF P: fore this az sho difierence, “brethren dwelling unsmen dwelling together,” which , it is not unmarried persons together” or shows that, of ¢¢ a subject tinportaat to us, and no doubt Js | jiving in the same house thats meant, but persons at to country at large— | dweuing togetier in the same neighborhood, plurality of wires, or, asthe | 10 the saue country, in Israci—us it 1s hapragre: Paty Lipreih ges avait known that Israel, in anciene days, * Bible Sanction Polyea- | dia thus dwell together, andthe jaw was biadi { would state, by way of apotozy tole house, | upon em. ‘Tus Was calculuied to inake a I have ae 7 nv Ufe t 4 gumber of polygamis's among e@ House ol Beeunoee, warcevee! my ite to de + oti thatday down tothe coming of Uhris omething new tome, Ido not recol | giso the Christian religion must have admitted (hose ject having held but one or two deb: n | polygamists into the Chureh of God, wuse they | Sa taiiee of il fie lige, upon any suvject. 1 | Wowd have been condonined if they had not Ah shader ve Sng 4 observed this law, ‘There was a penalty attacked to think that the last one was some (ulrty years ago, M | the iaw, and they could not be justified and refuse the city of Eaimburg. But! icel great Pleasure this | 10 obey It was not an honoravie pops og) anu th afternoon in appearing before this audience tor the | 22much as there must have been bun ree spas | haps thousands, of polygamists among | day that Jesns came, who were living in obedience to this law and who would have been condemned if they had disobeyed the law, when the Gospel was reached to them if they could bot be admitied y lwo the Christian Church Without divorcing their which will be found in be wives the case must have been hard i Sg erence hiins ihat they, through their obedience to God's law, Ifa mau have two wives, one beloved and another | mpl Po ~ hated, and they ha¥e borne hii children, both the be- | COE eee ers meatier tae Joved'and the hated; and 1f the first born son be hers ‘ Ye sependhnns : . ake 2 obedient, does not look consistent tome. But that was hated: (neu it shall be when be maketh bis | g2“l.cre is no law, either in the Old or New Pesta- son to inberit that which he hath that be may not | nent, against polygamy, and as we have this com son of the hated, which ts indeed the first born: but | ‘aud for polygamy we must, of course, come! he shall aeknowledge the son of the hated for the | COpciusion that itis a legal : ; firet born by giving him 2 double portion of all that | C@™Mot cone to any other conclusion then thet 1 eaunini fon re ia thie be Me eee din tke | Stands on @ par with monogamy, the other form of Eaten the frat born is siege grratiiee whey marriage, Consequently, wherever we find eliher righs of the first born is his, righteous men or wicked men, Whatever may be Here is a law in the words of the great law-giver practices In the course of their lives, It does bunself, the Lord, who spoke to Moses, It certaluly i marriage so far as one Wife 1s com For instance, We might refer y purpose of examining the question under discussion. Ishall simply read what is stated in the Bible and | | | make such remarks as | may consider proper upon | tue occasion. I wili call your « or so far as two, you tw Cai, who had but one wife. So far’ a given to regulate the imberttance es of that | we e informed “he was 4& monogamist; Geseripiion, as well as ia famil in the first | he was also a very wicked man, having ¥ . kilied mis own _ brother, We find — that have been «divorced or may be dead; he was driven out into the land of Nod. Of course, as the Lord had net created any fetnaies off tn the lund of Nod Cain must have taken bis wife with bh And they there was born a son upto him in t are contemporary and wives that are It reiers to both classe: And inmas- | s plurality ef wives is nowhere condemned , nd. Now, shall we condemn monogamy, the | in the law of God we have @ rigit to believe from | one wile system, and say it was siniul by thia uraliry of wives 1s just as legaland | Wasa murderer’ Oh, no, that will never do. ne no peers 2 rian : cafe | could brlag no arguments’ of that kind to destroy lew that of the marriage of a single wife. | j)onozamy, ov the one wife system, aad make It grounds wilicl we are authorized to We coure down aiter that to the days of an fin ome , some evidence, fe wasanotier murderer. He b i ad: Sa ace Iyqamist, but he did not commu his’ mur- ony to the ‘contr: ortega in connection with polygamy. Polygamy had as wives in this” pas at | ng te do with the murder, 80 far as (he Sertp- i as nave. two wives.” 1 | ture gives us any information oa the subject. T : minis ve ; ce . n between polygamy and i wn that tha house of | committed in slaying ® young at that time practiced both monogamy that crime jidate tie lawl marriage ales ‘ney ware Hopes ve! snogain | of two perse iy Not ip the least, It eee eet WOrh irom | siands on just as good ground as that of monogamy neither were they exclusively polygamists. There | in the casé of Cala who was also a murderer. Were some mony; ist faimtiles existing im Israel | dam Was & monogamist, so far we have any | wang heretote, the Lor giving ount ur iMormation on the subject. But was | > Pagani therefore, the Lord, In giving | Tiere any Jaw given to Adam preventing him from tois law, r red certuuly’ Rol only to suc taking @ Second wife and becoming one fosh also wives, where the man warried without te d Witli her? Lf there Was any such law ii does not hap- pea to be founda recorded ia King James’ transla- von. If there is such @ law, perhaps it may be in some of the originals, (hat differ so much one with tue oor, Bul i may be wrgued iu relawon to tue Srst, or after the ur Tegal Cause, bub mast Mave irom tue y be divorced for some erred to wives that act vg there were we couiemporary. ; here were necessary, to the existence of this principle recognizing the rig! + of the Oret born 1m inonogamic and polygamic fan. ies prick to the date ‘Tits seems to be given to regulate an before | pass from this passage te another, tothe monogenic famuly of Isaac, wherein we have the declaration (ha! Lan and Jaco, being twins, bad a >, Caspute, or at least there was an i feeling on the Pratt the part of Bxeu because Jaco at © certain time had S perchased Gh Might ef the Ort berh—Chat tm, his | posterity cuitivaring two gardens? The Gre bora, though they were twins © momeoty butervening be- the MPa of the 878 ead the birum of the sec. rbot & short perbod of time, yet he had rights and Loose rights were respected and heaered many formed: for tf Ivaae bad tore wives than one we | i are net taformed upon that subject #e fer as the He was a | orOtatts. polygamitt, and the first born soa pertained to the | will any one father and not vo the mother, There were aot four ber wile wold Syne | brother which is dead, that his name be not putoutot | g of nis world | De | * He ght {0 orente one, or he tie nas eas ao pro We b ‘ana tat they were to ve limit ope wile because the Lord did not, hap- , | pen to create but one would be a very curious Idea indeed—a very strange idea, Why, there are a Many historical {ucts recorded in the days of Wiis posterity jow strtetiy, Adain, for instance, was commanded wilivale the garden of Lden, That is one garden, Is that historical lack against Ue idea of some of hts Is any one to draw # Conciusion because God gave a commundinent | to Adam in (he beginning shat he should cultivate the garden of Kaen, dress it and keep it and go sorta, (mat all bis lature postertty down to the last days of ‘ume should have one garden each and no more? You will see that there is 10 expression of a law in tere matiers, They are sunply bist rical facts, Again, Adam Was commanded, or rather God gave to hin cOrtaun tings. He gave to bim clothing on a Y | certam cocasion, God tymself bemg the talior, mak- citing and giving It to lam to cover his nakedness, ant also to Eve, bis wife, He hap- 1 © make their clothing out of the skins fhia 18 the hustorical fact. Now resuine tO say that all the future ertty ol A must Comply with this historical ; that that Was au expression of the law and that hey musi not deviate from it’ by no means. If the posterity of Adam saw proper to manulacture clotamg out of wool, or out of fax, or out of couva, or out of aay other tateriai Waatsoever, Would any ome argue in thus day vhat they were acting ta viola- Hon of the Irst t Jaw and intention on the part of the divine Creator, a iaw that was expressiy coramanued arly di: the early + Why, no. We should thimk tata man had certainly lost all power of 4d understanding who should argue thus. a argue iu Tegard to Adam's “taking ,"* #8 ut ts Expressed in the able speec. delegaie—taking all ihe women that were in vid OF that were Made for hia? If there had more he might have taken more; there 13 n0- the law to preventii, Why argue from that tact ali future should be limited according to that fact’ I would like to awell upon this longer, to which | wish to reler. next passage to which | will refer will be i Nuwbers XXXL, 17 and 18, was considerable movement in by some persons changing their ves us a history of the race of people, polyga- At a certain w battie againsta nation of havi note all the men they took Gi the Women prisoners, as you will find in the much verse of this chapter:—And tue children of Israel took atl the women of Midian captive and tneir little ones, and Wook Lhe spoil of ali their cat- te apd ali (heif focks and ali their goods; and they burned all the cities wherein tuey dweit and all en castles with fire,” and so on. ‘the tiiteenth verse, Moses said unto them, you saved al ihe wome: aliver Behold, these caused (he children of Israel to sin." You recollect the Case of some of tue Midianitish women being Now, in ‘Have God, Rot vette transgressed (ie law of neaven, aud au aWiul plague into their mi jor this great Waasgression, Now, then, here ts a da number of Women Raved to Moses, and Moses duding that they were brought imo cam, says, “these Caused tie children of Israel to stu, aod be gives & commandment to them—*" Now, Uerefore, kul every male among the litte ones, and killevery Women ‘nat uath kuown mau by lying with her, But ali the wouen and children ‘that hath not known @ maaby lying with lim | auve for yourselves. | Now bow many w: ‘that they kep | tolog | oma w tvemseiv them iecaliy. 1b the capacity of servants merely, but not as Wives. | Ti may be Lae Case that some o. them were mtenaed | 10 be and Were proouniy kept in servitude with ever beimg marry st would there not be a dav: wer where ther thousands of Vaal Women 40 Would there Bui De a dange suing again, as these were | ‘he same G@aenphoa of women that brought so | | rea: a crime iuto tee camp? It is very evident from | | the conmand He gives that they were totenied for | Wives, How many of them Were taerer Thirty. | | two thousand, ut You wnt fod im another y | (tis same eMap And these were youw a , «| the Lord sent to plague them © there of this great company themselves’ There ts some eel te Ctnus, Fon Yspare ‘sem or Way Keep them alive for Woy, weorder that they might have saci in taking captive Wwo- | wher passage of Serip- commencing at ihe te 1 t orth to War against Ubin Lora (hy God hath delive them see (hoa bast tak®n them cap ives a beauittul wo- thon wouldst | ber hon eal aud ment of Ait romata in cin house and bewsll he fateer and mother a fut | mons; and aitor Ueat thon sual; g) fn wate ber wad ; be her husband ava she shall be tay wyle, And it | shad vet deught ta her, thea thou | | shalt let ne: er she Will; but thoa shalt not | set ner wt a for money; UAL shal | daadive of her because thou fast ow this law Was given t+ & nation, as | have al | ready said, that p ised polygamy MOHuTNIUY 2 beaailind Woe } gamis'!, or if an t woman anon the } they had a rig ne general, bats will enudre Metal © take Hem as w y the Lord told t yuMaDd of TH explain (he reason w Lora to save thirty-iwe & going vir OL Mow was vighty toubi miauy buwazed +} Males were destroyed and the f | alive, wecessartly making a > Israck, Suli the Lord saw 6 | bat seeing that they had a + provision thitt shou wouen and keep them oppouent Who Shall fo) idence f ite under to prove that is la ‘ linaited unmarried men, ait we | yield the pom Hf there can ‘ | brought fort to that ¢ 4; bi ite | general. “When Ghoti goest forth wo War | Seext a bemutival wom: Not you anes hat gu forth to war. ne EXE passage 1 Will refor you to where God plutely pManded pol, ariy WQS, XXUL, AG, ATs “And | that is not betrothed, and lve with | eudow her to be ii | fuses to give her w cording To ime dowry alone, but T terly re- mouvy ai ws the | | of Bxodus. Now it us nto the law o. Douler | onomy, xxil., ve, 29, on the samme subject: “Il a w | find a’ damsel ‘tha: a virgen wach & ne } tnrothed, aad ia) jou her and Me with her, and they be Touad, th } give unto the dams | and she shail be His wile her, he may NOt pul be i uis mean an» | given toa nation & aw was warriage | Was recoguised im singh ented Wt tt does wmarned meh aloue Ww would like (0 hear ty The jaw i« general Whether married of namarried, wheiher & } catnist or a polygamist, Whe communi tis | he find & maid gad commit the crime of sedue Which is ere specified, there is the law: be #hali marry ber; he sfall bot ouly marry ber, bat be shail | pay a fine of Gity snekeis faut besides tae duty of morte war penalty. pt that thes were justified im the act ho means. ii Maiterct Bot eo tar as Chat Was com corned; it mattered no! be Was # pelyge mist, of a mORogaulst twarried Mean, me inust comply with ux ky. Toet was | abvther command ty | amy—sancuoning tt | this law could bave | mes, an " r o vast au the earth, | navions of mode great nation. whe sb and sanction polyg me command. Now, if a pat in force m modern Christian wo hee ded tn among al the evil w prover | proverbial that there b cout of promtutu- | Hon, houses of Mi-tame of varus | forms. Now tf thus jaw wi vt gave to bara had Leen re-enacted | tures und parliaments Various matte a crs, tne legesia- ©. among these ve been the conre- queuce? Wa ory short “ime Where Would Bot have been such a thaw « of Mfame in existence. Why? use all those women would have been marnet their seed for who dues not >» ~ thes | thing would rather be mertiod selves a8 they do at the presen’ would lie in Walt is order that ¢ means entr, ors oF patrons: un for > married to get | out Of those brotaets. the law te general, U the same law had beew pasted iu oor day it Would hove y broken up those places. Houses of prostitucion cowd not have been establishes migit hav on some secret Mistresses, a genera ig & would have done away W! #ockal eve : mark, if | hay er | want’ of time, (Mr. Pratt had « | more to speak) to Minstrate ty at present; perliaps { will avail mys tunity to do so here | aud f wil wow an oppor < these points, ier sume other passage I will refer ¢ < 15,16. First take the t Jehouida took for him we Wives; & and daughters.” According to the gramists, now King Jeboaita m wieus « ot have beea a very mone Wicked man to have lakeu those two wives for Joash, and Joash inust have been a beastly polygar mist to have accepted those two Wives. let us look at the characters of those \Wwo men—ihe man Wio gave the Wives and (ye wan who received dam that Were pot to be examples to nd that that posterity were not to fol- brought into (he camp of israel contrary to the law of | Ves Of Israel, thatthey sinned and | eep | caused Israci | Perhaps some will say to have them | 1 | ofertug, | some ve asta our ows | had | reoeived there two wives from the T, that wi upon the rotare Sight of the Lord ali ved | What? Did he do right wheu he wives that Jehotada gave him? Yes. So says t Word of God, the Bible; and we know the question 43, “Does the Bible sanction polygamy?’ “And Joash did that which was right tn the ht of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest.’’ He was a very good man all those Or ogee very good ian when he took two wives, what a wicked, abominable priest Jehoiada must have been accord- ing to the ideas of monogamists, But, let us see what kind of a Character he bears in this same chapter. Ip the fifteenth and sixteenth verses it is said, “But Jehoiada waxed old, and was full of days when he died; & bhuadred and tbirty years old was he when be died. And they buried him tn the city of David among the kings, because he hai done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house.” Buried hia among the kings—honored him im that manner! And the reason why they did bestow this great honor upon him was because he had done good. In tne trst place, he had done good by giving the Lwo wives to Joash, He acted accordlug to the will of God, for he was the highest authority God had on earth at tue time, and the Lord sanctioned this act, sanctioned polygamy, by lengthening out the life of this old man to 130 years, Which was an uncommon age in those days. But 1 must ten on, There are many p: hd which I have not tume in this opening speech to bring forward. The next passage I will refer to will be found in Hosea, 2, 3:—“The beginning of the Word of the Lord by Hosea.” This was the tntro- duction of Hosea as a prophet imto the world, doubt he brought the evidence of being a very good man. Of course, in the ineingot the Word of God vo the World, or at least in the Inning of the Word of God by Hosea to the world, he must have come with great proof. The first thing the Lord said to Uus righteous and holy pronuss was this:—And the Lord said unto Hosea, Wo, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms,” and so on; and in the third verse it is said, “so he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Dibiaim, which conceived and bare him a son." Now, if such a thing had occurred in our day—ifa man had come forward professing to be @ prophet, and the rst in- troduction of his prophetic oltice wus to tell the world that God had just revealed to him that he should go and take a wife of this awful character that is here described, what would you think of that prophet? Yet God did this thing. Hosea was a true prophet. God was the author of it. But was this the only wife that God commauded Hosea to take or not? Go to the third chapter, and in the first verse you will find Hosea says: ‘hen said the Lord unto ine, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend yet an adulteress,”” What! go and love a woman, an adulteress, when he had already got a wife, and she @ very bad character, and add another wife and another of the characters that are so disgraceful in their nature? Yes. He had to do it. Why? Because God commanded it; and God having commanded him to do these things he must be as they dinal, and you bad upon the decalogue, and meaulog, aod saying to as is an adulterer Who marries x but he who looked With salacious Mist apoe « Woman. Such is toe commentary of Cie Lord Jesus iis Like book thal we are Lo Gincuss, ent aud tae New tion bas been made to the Latter Day maars; Gat bs ” DOi bo be brougat into this contre. ih & oot the question 14 dispute Whetior Jose -4 Saath of any other meu! the enarca ef Later Vay | trom Goa, Waet Abe ‘apoispiic rev va, Even that queai oye Saints has had a rey holy cauod Was CiOvea by & ants, mor Tevelatious Of W-day or pestorday but the grand question t ti land, read in Wales, read in telana, road ta Norway and Sweden, read wi the Load of Laverty, read at over the World, does that book seacton polygamy? Now We come to anor aad Lnporiaal word, | pamely, Does the Bible sauction—by ihe Worm sane. | Yon We Mean CoMUAGd—Lhe AULUOTLY OL Poslive written divine law, or Waatever be Feasoaavly held as the equivalent of such law? —Itfollows ter fore that Wieralion is Hot sauction; sullerance ix | Hot sanction; municipal legisiaion ws But sail tion; historical statements of prevatiing cus toms 13 not sanchon; the remission of penalties i epee sanctiol brovidentiat toons upon gener ir ioe ulterior purpose is not adnotio on ane quate idea of sanction 1s the divine and positive ap- probatiou platnly expressed eather in defitite stacute or by such forms of confirmation as constiiute a full equivalent. {t 1s in this sense tut We take the term sanction in the question before us. The t word in the question 18, “Voes the sibie sanction polyga- my?’ by Which We mean as It HOW suatds; Bol as At once was, but as it now is; that is, the Bible taken asa whole. The question ts not, “Did the Bibie lor- merly sanction polygauy ?’ put whether it does at the present day authorize and establish aud ap- prove polygamy? Just as We May say Of Lhe comsti- tution of the United Siates, not did it saacuon slavery, but does it now sanction slavery? For it is @ weil Known principle of Jurispradence that if l= thing bas been repealed in the supreme law of the land, Which that law once authorized, then It does no longer sancuon the matter in question, and 0 1 bs here precisely. For let us suppose for a moment chat the Bible once sanctioned polygamy in the sense accepted, and that this sanction has never beea Withdrawn; then we are bound to admit that the affirmative has been sustained. But suppoaag, on the other hand, we can prove that the Bible does not to-day, as lt is now, sanction polygamy, We have oe aa ade- obedient or suffer the penaity of @ violation of that command, Now, | do not justify any other pro- pnet. Jeremiah would not have been justified in taking two such lewd women. Why? Because God did not command him, His was a command given to Hosea, and so far as we have any descrip- on in the Bibie 1t was not given to any other man, it was not given a8 a pattern for you and all the people of this generation to observe; but it was woven in that solitary instance, ‘But,’ says one, i oes not the Lord require such charrcters as these to be put to death?’ Yes. That was the law of God, but tn this instance It seems that the Lord deviated trom the general law. lustead of putting them to | death He coimmanded the holy prophet to go and | marry those two women. This puts me in mind ofthe jaw given in Deuteronomy xxv., Where tho Lord commanded the law of consanguinity | to be broken. You recollect that in two ditferent hhapters the Lord pointed out the degrees of blood | relations wherein there should be no tatermarriages, whereia a brother should not marry bis brother's wile, mentioned im two different chapters; and in | Deateronom xxv, the Lord commanded | brethren that dwelt together, or near Kinsmen, to break that law. Here, then, ts a justifica- tion, in part, $0 iar as certain Classes were con- rned, i hot observing toe law of consanguinit, © Lord has # right to Command at one ume and ‘orevoke His command at another—to alter His | couuaands as He pieases. We might refer you } even to that of murder, Go back, tor instance, to tue day of Noah—“Whoso sheddeth man’s bluod by ‘1 bts blood be shed.” In the law against ihe penaily Was death; yet tie same God this laW against murder commanded Apraham—tu t good man who is up yonder im the krgdom of God, and, according to the New ‘ mimanded him to take tls son isaac and slay hum, «nd offer bim up as a burnt Now, bere is one Command right tu Oppo- sition to another. Consequently God does som limes give A command in opposition to another tn ; bat they are not exam: ow, unless God gives us ¢ card to this matter, Supposiug that we shoulda prove by tea thousd from the Bible that 18 practiss , Was Sanctioned by would that be any reason that you and | sii a practise ity By no mean We sust gel a& Commmacd indepeadent of that which r 4. God frequently repeats His com- Is, aod His servants are required to obey His is when they are given. ‘The Latter Day ais i0 this werritory practise polygamy not be- tie law of Moses commands 1, not because it cu x men we know Hible, the old patriarchs, Abra- others who are saved in the sustained the negative of the question, There is anotuer word, and one of importance— the term polygamy. There are three words in this | connection which should be reierred to, and the frst is “‘polygamy,”? which 18 from the Greek pois (many) and gamos (marriage), Meaning @ piurality | of wives or husbands at we sawe time. When a man has more wives than one or a woman more husbands thun one at the same time the ouender is punishable tor polygamy. Such is the fact a Chris- tian countries, But in KoOme Countries polygamy 1s allowed, as in Turkey. Now there is another word, called “polyandry,” from the Greek potus (many) and aner (a man), the practice of temaies having more husbands than one at the same time— urality of husbands, as Webster defines it. hen there is another word called —“poly- gyny,” irom the Greek polus (many) and gure (a woman or female)—the practice of uaving more Wives than one at uke same time. ‘The word, there- fore, to useisnot “polygamy,” but ‘polygamy,’ for “polygamy” signities aman with more wives than one or a Woman With more husbands than ove; and it Seems Lo me that it the man cau have more wives than oue the woman has the same right to have more husbauds than one; lor man and Woman are equal. (Loud applause, much laughter and some hilss: Judge SNow—I will remind you that there is to be nO applause, Dy. NewMan.—No, hold your applause, keep it in your heart. Then the true word is polyg)my; und hereaiter we will scout tue word polyguiny aid use ihe true word, polygymy. This questton tnvoives or supposes two sysieis of marriage: what is com- Tovuly called polygamy and what is Known as mono. Bamy; on the one hand & Man with more tan one Wie, and on the other hand @ man with only oue whe. You observe, therefore, thac there are wo systems essentially radically different, distinct one irom another, and especially so in this controversy. ‘The material question to be decided, therefore, 1s, wich ts the authorized sysiem of marriage, poly- gamy, a plurality of wives; or monogamy, wich 1s What is calied tue one wife system? Let us giauce for a moment ab some of the great features of monogamy, and we wii chereby 5 e distinciton between the two systeius of marriage. fake, lor instance, the design of marriage as origi- ally established by the Ahuignty m the Garden of den in the time of man’s Innoceucy. That design is three fold: companionship, procreation, prevention. Companionship 1s first; the soul is more than tue body; tue union of two loving hearts 13 more’ than the union of two bodies. re ive Way created, ere she beheld the ro: skies of Paradise, ere breaihed its baimy a mosphere, God had sald, “Ib 1s not good that man should be alone; | will make for lim a helpmeet,’? ‘fs his returning footsteps. He is coming to me, ‘m," “tw my embrace, to my home prepared tor bb Wite what pride and care the busy housewite are ranees for his revura, How neat and beautiful everything is. The bouquet of flowers is on the table, the best of the viands are spread upon the board, aad everything in the house is prepared Wit the Utmost care, But, oh! whatu gloom comes down upon that Woman's soul When she Knows thas he returns got to her, but to one, two, three, four, tweive, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty wives: oud “Feige Hawity “There nist be AWLRY—There on NO applause; on of tiie rutes Lorbida It. Ree Sar be. NewMas—Phen see how this system works againet the next design—namely, procreation, It ia 4 jaet that m polyguinic countries one sex or the or bas the preponderance in numbers, some good aulhoritics tne females prepouderate; others say the males. Ido notcare arash Which prepondce rate. Al that L say ts this, thal good and relabie aulhorives say that In polygatmic countries, mar you, Ueere i8 a preponderance of one or the other While is naonogamie nations the great law ot equatity is brought Out, So Whats the tendency of polyga- According to some authorities to make all males; acourdiuys to others to make ali females—and Meither follow, tien comes the destruction of the race, aod Win & hundred years the earth ts de- fF mam gh pow is a howung (gg Seeger 50) uence Y@aiy upon what may be prope 3 termed the ol marriage—aud those rights are two-fold: aul ‘ou the part of tue map and tection ou the part oi the woman; the mau is the head of the family; the man is the high priest of the jamuy, the rand the executive of the fami- ly, aia he ts lo have reverence from his wile; she ts to ober him. 1 mover perform tue marriage ceremo- ny without L inciade those words when Laddress the woman, “Wilt thou obey this man??? That i God autuority, and every trae aud loviag wife will obey her husvand in tne Lord accordimgly as she obeys the Lord Jesus Christ. But while maa is the segeslator and the executive, whue is endowed with authority as tus right, 80, on the oer hand, protection belongs as & natural, inalten- oman, See that ivy as it entwines the ‘That grand oid oak las sent down its roots to take hold on the very foundations of the earth, aud its branches tower up to the sky. See Unat ivy how it cntwimes liseif geutly, sweetly, beaue tiuiy arouud the old oak. “A thing of beauty is @ Joy forever.” So womun entwines herseif—tne ten- ‘driis of her affeetion—around man, and what must the depth of depravity to wiuch that man is falien Who ruthiessiy tears asunder these gentle tenufils of affection, hat the wan I man, sirength = and ivy 18 to the Oak Woman Is to ia fils pride and gtory in hws energy, has the strorg ara to protect, al, itis Woman's right to go to thas man tor protection, Kat how ts 1 possible under the system of polygamy that these great rights shall be preserved’ its true the man retains bis right or autoority—ay, this system augments and mulluplies his authority. ‘This system is a system Of usurpa- ton, extending a right over a lurger Dumber than is included in God's law. Bul, oa the other hand, where 15 the might of womaa to protection? A whole soul for @ Whole soul, a Whole body tor a whole body, a whole lite for a whole ite, Just like the sheis of tue bivalve, they respond with each other, Just like the two wings of the bird, male aud female. So precisely Unis great idea of recipro- «ity and mutual affection wud reciprocal love 1s de- Veiuped in tus Kea of MoLogamons Inarriage. But it seems =o” ome, strikes down woman, other words, it e provecting: power of man m= proportion to ihe number of wives that he pose sessed, Aud it secrns to une that, im view of the dis- proportion of worldly goods it this life, a man can support and protect bub one lanily. Kings, who can tax @ Whole peopie, kings Who can valld pal- aces audrear pyramids, kings who cau marshal their armies upon the banks of (he Rbine aud come to war, they may have their army and their plurality of wives; bul te poor man, doomed to toil, With the sweat of labor on his brow, how 1s it possible for him to provide fer more than oue family? Yetil the king 1 his glory has a rigat lo ave a pluratity of wives, 80 also has your poor man whois doomed to toil the same right. Yet God Almighty in making this law—if he as made it, wiuca, of course, 1 ques- tion—has not made provision tor the execution of that jaw; in other words, for its immuni- ties to be enjoyed by the common people. Ti is a law exclusively for nabobs, ior kings ard high pricsis, for men ta power and weatsh, out not for you as a poor (aborer. Th raighiy ts a just God. He iooks down with compassion, and the King before Him is no more than a peasant. The meanest of ‘His creatures, a3 Well as ihe highest, are all alike to Him; and J ask you to-day, would he enact a law sanctioning, commanding a plurality of wives with- out making provision that old De in such financial circumsianc plorality of wives and to enjoy them? therefore, how these iwo systems of mi: pare wniagonistic, aud iv is for you lo infer, aiter hearing Unis exposition of the » the rights and the munis iments ri ii a8 for you to imier whch is m that God ordained in the beginning. My = distinguished friend hastily reviewed many passages of Seripture, all of la | Kingdom of | vee | : “had now expired. Judge HAWLBY—i have (he pleasure of tntroduc- | ing to you the Rev. Dr. Newman. Ot. NEWMAN tien came forward and took the rm. As he rose there Was a Hutter of interest 4 Lhrough the assembly to see the man Who had pmore Uta two thousand miles to meet the n this question. Tae Doctor at jon, He spoke as We have no right to praciise 10 ARGUMENT OF DR. NEWMAN, Honotasie Users JADIES AND GENTLEMBN— e@ question for our consideration 1s, “Does the sinetion polygamy? Ibis of the utmost tin- We pro atonce, in the discussion | ) and, time, we propose to esired nine hours to » bub by mutual consent M1 to tures, In view of this ynoe, therefore, to the considera- c estlon “Does the Bibl fen Polygam word js empiatic. God's word—whetier in the original (oF 10 the translation, t which Is accepted by Cort-ehdom as ine revealed will of God; tts old souk fat has come down from the hoary past; this iy an unfoluing of its elemen any ook, written by diferent. men, tinder different anastan et for one great and grand object; Book, that stous Under the authority of & wry Lispiration ’ No mater what has become " lost in th food or wether 23 Uuat burned the doomed 41 his been their destiny, v, the Septuagint nent tu the orguul, whieh have the most egunent biblical point te gentieman makes cuinusertpts are osi 1s & bagatelle, ay as useless as a rush. Would he have tse Some Of the manuscripts re that book 14 not the anthen- “i and the revealed will of high or him to assume that 1s to assume rigid » New Te k is not Goa’s will. Supposing that the iyinal revelation, the pretended revelation that i here told to practise polygamy, was burned by the wife of 3 hh smith, does that invalidace thi presery Mr. Joseph Smith had secreted ta his tainly m Therefore that old yus with aut » Aud whe yer has he » wanuseripts out of which it has been formed it bas bee banded down to us and ts our etaudard. Pp oour of (is remarks Dr. Newman to address those sitting op the & Speak wo tie people in front, if you re Co speak to the people. speas awa, NewMan—tI arm hi A Voicr—That's rig Judge HawLey (one of ibe umpires)—Keep silence, if you please Dr. Newaay—Ob, that old man has a kind heart! i ad it. He bae two cars, and [ ain going to | make his ears bear. (Laughier,) But let us look at that Kt ts @ book of history, bipgraphy, | Prophecy, of laws and precepts, of promises and toreatenings, of poetry and narrative, It is tw be Judged by Ue established rules of grammar, and rhetore and jogic., Its written in human language, There i a language spoken by the persons in the adoratie Godtead, but had God revealed himself in | Chat language w wuid not have understood the | terms. There is @ language spoken by the angeis ‘tual Sieee before the throwe. Had God spoken to us ia angelic language We could not have under- stood (he terms, fut taking human language, with i! i poverty and all it imperfection, and with all } ts exceliences, He has spoken to us in terme by which we understand His | pleasure concerming us. it is a great | Tact, my friends, feat all (hatis written in the Bible tou approved by Use Almigntiy nor written | for our tmvtation, Acban stole a Babylonist garment Bod & wedge of g God did Hot approve tie thelt, nor t* that theft recorded for our imitation. We are t read Bible history as we read Xenophon, Herodo- ta or Taeltus, or im modern times, Hum Nbbon or Bancroft, with this distinction, that when we take down Xenophon or Herodotus or Tacitus or the others that | have mentioned we are not always eure that what We read is truth. We are sure of the fact that, What is recorded in that book is | ch, Whether i be prophetic truth, or | mandatory wets, or historic trath. We should | make proper distaction mm the kinds of composition | that We are reading, as in history, waking the dis- tunetion between What is simply recorded as part and parce! Of the record of a great nation or part and parcel Of te Wographical record of some eminent mes, apd that which 1% recorded there for our tmijation, for whieh we shall give account at God's bar, e the poetry of ne Bib) 2 wural poeury ubject to the same rub poetry of Homer or Virgii, or Miltou or Ye this EXcepuon, that the poetry of the Bibie 1s ¢ ployed to couvey # grand thought, aud there is no redundancy either of thought or imagery in Bible ary. We come to biography, and to tay mind it is sublime fot, aud one for which I thank God, that the Muspared writers were impartial in recora- biographical history. 4 m4 Yeas of men. They did not disguise the jaults even of thelr muimate friends, nor did they always stop to prowounce condemuation upon the vices of such, but recorded the oue and the other ‘They recorded the virtues | ‘Vhe animals had passed in review before Adain, but neither among che doves that plumed ther pinions in the aur of Paradise, nor amid the fish or the deep, nor the beasts of the field, nor the reptiles of the earth, could 2 companion be found for man. But & special exertion of Divine Power must be put forth that Uits companion should ve p And how was she made? A deep sleep is catsed to come upon the firsi man. Here 1s Adam upon the anorostal Hoor of Paradise, and out of bis side a rib is taken, and out of that ry the woman was created. And when somebody asked old Martin Luther why did noi God Aimighty make the woman out of some otber vone of the mau than oat of arib, ie auswer Was, “ile did nob ke Woman oui of man’s bead, Jest she shoud rule over bin He did not make her out 01 & bove of his toot, lest he should trample upon her; put He made her out of his side, that she might ve near his heart; trom under ius ara, that be tight protect he: primary object of marriage, there- fore, 18 companionship, the union of two loving hearts. The uext desigu is procreation. ft has pleased the Almighty to people the earth oy the oif- spring coming from jJhose united 1p murnage. This was ils wisdom; tus was His plan. itis an old saying that history repeats itself, ana after tl that swept away tie antediluvians aad ailer terrible storm liad subsided the Noah and tus sons and their wives—four men four women, Lt God Algugiiy sanctioned polyga- myim the beginning, and mtended to sanction tt afterwards, way did not He in the Aré a dozen wives for ah anda dozen wives for each of his sonsy But one wife tor Noun aad one wile fot each ofhissons; and thus God Almiguty repeats iistory. ‘The next design is prevention, namely, to preveut the Imdiscriminate intercourse of tne sexes. God loves chastity 1m man und in Woman, aud (therefore he bas established marriage, which ts a divine insit- Luton, iting man abevi brutes. He would not ; have man as the male of the brute creation mingling indiscriminately with the females, bat He establishes an institution holy asthe angels, bearing upon tts brow tte signet of His approval, sancuoned by the | good und yr wes, tat the Ines may be | darawn and ©) asuty of the males aud the | females may be preserved. . Aud, passing irom this question of design, let us naider the very nature of marriage. It 1S twofold. | Ibis an insuvuuon, nota law; itis a state, and not | an act; something that las been originated, framed, but up, crowned with glory. Ibis not an act—the mere act of sexual imtercourse—bub it is @ state, a state to ron paralic! with the hfe of the married pair unless the bonds of marriage are sundered | by one crime—that of adulter, ‘the sider the grand fact that obligations in tis insiltauion of more than this, the very essential elements of mar- | rage distinguish {1 1 its monogamy from the 1nsti- tution of marriage in its polygamic condition. ‘There ts choice ur pre ce—one man for one Wo- man and one woman for one man. The census— and whelt we come to that question we will demon- strate it Clear as sunlight; we will prove the equality of the sexes; we will prove that there is not an cess of marriageable Women, either in this country or in any other country. ‘Therefore the command given by St. Paul, “Levevery man have tisown wie and let every woman have her own husband.” Now, if the equatity of the sexes be @ fact, and if every man Js to have his own wife and eyery Woman Is to | have her own husband, then 1 say that this great idea of choice 1s fully sustained—a preference on the part of the man no iess than ® preierence on the part of the woman. And ground this institution God has thrown guards to protect it. Indeed He has surrounded it with muniments high a8 heaven, aud so long as the ov- lagations of marriage are obseryed then these de- fences siand impregnable, and all the gates of helt Shall not prevail against marriage. First, there ts its innovency. The union of a man with nis wife 1s an act pure as the devotion of angels in heaven. ‘Then comes the nobleness of marnage. “Marriage 1s honorable in all things, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” Ve hen notice the sanctions of divine and human law that urround this instication, in the law that was given on Mount Sinat amid its awfal thunderiugs 1s agrand muniment of this iaonogamous institution, | dn all civilized Christian countries civil legisiarion has extended the arm of the law to protect mar- riage. Then recall the aMuities of the sexes, the natural desire of man for woumwn aud the natural desire of woman for map, There may be some exceptions. Now and then we tid an old bachelor im the wor but a man without a wile is only hall a man. (interchanging 1o0Ks of plight among the eiders.) Now and then we find a woman in the world whom they style an otd mad; but a woman without a husband ts enly halt @ humanity, In the beginning Adam was a perfect humanity, pos ing tne strength, the dignity and ihe courage of man, with the grace, gentleness and beauty ol woman, After Eve's: jon he retained the strength and dignity and courage; bat lost in Eve the giace and beauty and gentleness; so that tt the union of ain, with the Sterner and one Woman, with the gentler graces— 1i HOW takes this Unlon of one man and One Wondsn— to produce one lect humanity, and tha type of marriage as instituted by God Almighty, aay as approved by His divine law. And now I desire co run the paratiel between tt two systems, showing how the one is desirucitve of the other, Take, for instance, the first elcment— | then. which, my friends, | shai vouce, I will sift them to the bout My oniy regret is that my distin- guished friend, tor whose scholarship I haye a re- gard, did not deliberately take tuem up and exhaust one passage at a Lune, without giving us passage alter passage and simply skinning them over with- out going to the bottom and showing their relaifons in their phology, history and practical bearing upon us. When gy frieud’ shall give us such an exegesis, When he shali give us ch aD analysis, Whetler he quotes the Hebrew, the Greek or the Latin, | promise to follow bim all through the mazes of his exposition and | wlll go down to the very bottom of his argument. I felt bouud to-d my friends, in my opening Speech to give this analysis of the question, ul tO present to you my idea of marriage in contradistine- Uon to the idea of imarpiage held here by poiygu mists. Now, £ presume that Lmay pass to con ide @ (eW passages of Scripture. (Turniag to one of th ulpires)-—-How much vime have L, sirs Umvinn—Eteven mares, MAN—I1 defer, therefore, the exposition. and will take up a few oi those sal ed opponent threw out, bretnrea dwell togeti back, and it was difficult for me to see what the antediluvians and what relation Adam had to This passage. But he referred to the autediinvians and to Adam, and we wili refer to the: . Ho relers to Laineci. And who was L He is the first polygamist oa record, tie frst recorded in the lrst two thousand years ot the history of the He had two Wives. Aad waat eise did ne He had murder in his heart and bivod on his hand; and J aver thas Whoever analyzes t case ff Lameecn will find this—tuat the murder which he comunitted grew out of bys having plural wives; in otier words, grew out of the poiygamy which he altcinpted to introduce and did titroduce into the world. This is clear irom his address to his wives— “| lave siain & man lo my wounding aud a young man to my burt.” Bat my friend says that Cain wasa murder he went down to tie iand of Nod. He did not ex- actly Know the geography of the land of Nod, put it was somewhere; and there he found a woman aad he married he 1 affirm this, that when Cato killed his brother Abel he was not inarr that he did not go duwa to the land of Nod Therefore the murder which he con mitted did not grow out of monogamy. It had no relatton to monogamy, but it grew out of this fact, thai these two brothers came belore the Lord to preseut thelr offeriugs. Cuin Was a Dest, He was a moralist—that is, he had no sins bo repent of; and therejore he did not bring a litte Jaub, & sucrificial offering, to adumbrate the Lamb of God, which should take away the situs of the world, bub he brought the first fruits of the earl, @ ULank of- fering; and he comes and saya, “1 have no sins to atone for, but here | am as Thou hast created me. 1 am dependeni upon Thee, and thereiore | present to Thee the first fruits of the soil.” But Abel come with his sin offermg. He brings his jamb and 1a it upon the altar; and that jamb preintimated ti coming of Jesus Christ, wuo is “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the word.” And if there is no record that Abel brought a thank oflering, itis a principle in theology, 1618 a truth in Seripturat exposition, that the whole includes the prs just as, for instance, when St. Pani says, “1 be- seech you by the mercies of God to present your bodies @ living sacrifice unto God,” do you think he excluded the souly No. He speaks of the one a+ including the other. So the offering which Abed presented was an offering sacriticiai m its nature, pointing to Christ, Now, in some significant man- ner, God sent down a tire, perhaps; at all events, im some significaut manuer He showed that He pro- ferred Abel's sacrifice, He recognized the rghi- eousness of Abel, and expressed a preference ior his offering to the offering of Cain, Cain was wrotth and luis pride belched forth, and he siew his broth ‘The murder, therefore, had no reference to marriage, no reference, directly or Indirectly, to marriage; while the murder which the t polygamist committed grew out of the marriage reia- tion, Then my friend goes back to Adam, and says that our first parents wore &kins— that is, wore clothes made of skins—therefore We must wear similiar ones. Weil, let us see. Our tirst parents were placed in a garden and were | driven out of a garden; therefore we must be placed 12 agarden and driven out of agarden., The first man Was created out of the dust of the earth; ther fore all subsequent men must be created out of the dust of the earth. The first woman was created our ol a man’s rib; therefore allsubsequent Women musk oe created out of a man’s rib, Such 18 the loge of my friewl. So you may follow these absurdities. He has failea to maxe the distimetion between what is essential to marriage and what is accidental to marriage, or, in other words, he bas failed to make the distinction between the creation and the fali of man and hetween the institution and the character- istics of marriage. One, therefore, is surprised at stitch an, argument, and drawn from such pre= muses, 0, my friends, that first marriage m te” Garden of ‘den is the great mocvel for all subsequent marriages—oue maa and one woman. My friend says that God could have made more if He had chosen, but He didnot preier to make more. Weill, will he tell us Why God Almighty did not prefer to make more’ It seems to ine thatit he designed that aul mea should be polys gamists that polygamy should haye been the Loria ¢ pamely, the desi nd how polygamy strixes at the Just as were. It is this book, therefore, that is Cur standard A Uyis dipoUAtOR, JL by COMLUOEd Of ign institution of marpiage tp that regard. 4 now reicr {vo companiousiin—tue upign of two loving uearts ta mart.age; that in the very beginning He would have statted right—thatis, He would have wade a - dumber of women for the Hirst man, Ab { What