The New York Herald Newspaper, September 3, 1870, Page 11

MORMONISM. Last Day of the Great Discus- sion on Polygamy. Both Parties Satisfied but Neither Convinced, The Mathematical Proof of the Au- thority for Polygamy. Remarkable Prayer by a Saint at the Close of the Disenssion. en Thousand Persons in the Great ‘Tabernacle. Saur Lake Ciyy, August 14, 1870, The great debate between Professor Orson Pratt and the Rev. Dr. J. P, Newman on the question “Does the Bibie Sanction Polygamy?” was closed this (Sunday) afternoon. It was commenced on Friday last, and continued on three successive days. The interest, which had gradually heightened from the first, reached its culuiinatiag point thjs after- noon, The interior of the Tavernacle presented a spectacle which has seldom been surpassed, It is computed Ihave never seen au assembly in the Tabernacie manifest so much absorbing interest. Ihe usual religious services of the Mormons are generally told and formal; but to-day every countenance was Aglow, for almoat every indiviiual was personally interested in the great discussion. It was an event in the history of the Mormons to have a distin- guished Christian minister, whose words are but the ecko of the sentiment of the nation, come to the great stronghold of polygamy and pronounce the law of condemaation before the faces of ten thou- Band people. Brigham Young and his counsellors, the aposties, the bishops and the eiders sat in their Places ana Usteued to the Doctor while he poured into their ears the Divine denunetation of their sys- tem. Move than half the audience was composed of ‘Women, aud it was evident that most of them were in sympathy with the Doctor during the whole of ethe discussion, when he pointed out from his Serip- tural standpoint that monogamy is the fundamental and the only form of marriage which, instituted by God Limself in Eden, approved by ali the prophets and glorified by Christ and Bis sposties, has ever had the Almighty’s sinile and sanction. At the close of the debate a desperate effort was made tn the closing prayer by one of the apostles to counteract the influence of Dr. Newman's arguments by, not in reality a prayer to the Lord, buc an argument to the People in favor of polygamy, The proceedings this afternoon were opened by the choir singing the 187th hymn in the Mormon Hyma Book, com mencing:— Hosannah to the great Messiah, ‘The long expeoted Saviour King! Heil come and cleanse the earth by fre, ‘And gather scattered Israel in.” Prayer was then offered by the Rev. Dr. Sunder- Jand, after which the choir sang the Forty-first hymn, beginning:— Spirit of Faith come down, Reveal the thiugs of God, And make us to the Godiead known, And witness with the bivod. Elder George Q. Caunon, one of the Twelve Apos- tes, at the request of Judge Snow, one of the um- Pires, read a feiv of the contitions agreed upon for Tegulating the discussion, in order that persons in the audience who had not been present on the pre vious days might understand them, He also stated that, in order to allow the speakers to finish thelr Concluding sentences, in case such were not com- Pleted when their time was up, one minute more Would be allowed them for that purpose. CONCLUDING ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR PRATT. Professor Pratt then rose and spoke as follows:— LapIgs AND GENTLEMEN—We have assembled Ourselves in this vast congregation, in the third ses- ston of our discussion upon a very Important Instita- tion of the Bible, The question, as you have already heard, is, ‘Does the Binle Sanctlon Poiygamy ?” Many arguments have been adduced, both on the fide of the affirmative and also on the side of the negative of this question. This afiernoon one hour is allotted to me in the discussion to bring forth atill further evidences, Which wil! close the debate $0 far as the affirmative 1s concerned; then to be fol- lowed by the Rey. Dr. Newman, which will fually Close the discussion. Polygamy 1s a question, or, In otner words, an {n- Btitution, of the Bible; an institution established, as I have already shown, by Divine authority, estab- Ished by law, by commartd; and hence, of course, Must be sanctioned py the great Divine law- giver whose words are recorded in the Bible. There is one particular item which [ wish to bring forth in the commencement of my remarks this afternoon. Yesterday I was challenged by the Rey. Dr. New- man to bring forth any evidences whatever to prove that there were more than two polygamists’ families In ail Israel during the time of their sojourn in the Wilderness. At least that is what I understood the genuican to say. I shall now proceed to bring forth the proof, The statistics of Israel in the days Of Moses show that there were of males over twenty years old (Numbers 1,46) 603,550, This will be found in the passage to which I have referred. Ali the number from twentyyears old and up- wards of the male population isput down at 603,559 souls. It was admitted yesterday afternoon that there were 2,500,000 of the Israelites. I will grant Mr. Newman's assertion—2,500,000. I shall also take the position that tre females among Israel svere far more numerous then the males; I mean that por- tion of them that were over twenty years of age, For this reason 1 assume this:—From the birth of Moses down to the time that Israel were numbered some eighty ve: hud @lapsed, The destruction of the male chilttven had commenced before the birth of Moses; how many years before that I know not. The crder of King Pharaoh was to destroy ail the male children by drowning them, All tiie people of his realm were commanded to see thai they were destroyed and Ubrown into the fr Nile. How long @ perlod this great destruction continued is unknown; but if we suppose that one male child to every 250 persons was de- stroyed every year it would amount to tno Dumber of 10,000 persons destroyed--I mean infant males, Thus would soon begin to tell in regard to the difference in the number of mates and females, Ten thousand cach year would only be one male child to each 260 persons. How many would this make in eighty years’-—Moses then being elgnty years of age. it would amount to 890,000 females above that of males. But ido not wish to take ad. vantage In this argument by assuming too high a Muinber. We will spilt the disference and say it was One-halt that numbe Instead of $00,000 we will Bay 400,000 more femaies than males, owing to the great destruction that was ordered asiong them, ‘This would be one male destroyed each year out of every 500 persons. The females then over twenty y of age would bo 603,550, plus or added to 400,000 suglus women, making In all 1,003,500 femaies over twenty years of age. The children, therefore, unde my y to make UD the 2,500,000, Woutd be 882,000, the total popula- tion of Israel beng Intd down at 2,500,000 people. Now, then, for (ue number of families cdustituting this populatton. ‘Te families having first bora males over one month old (Nambers 11, 43) num- pered 2 “\mities having no male cnildren over one month old supposed to be in the ratio of three toone. The atio might, pertaps, be far different from thi own country and among duferent uations, there may have beei some families with only females, some fam.ties without aay children at all, some 273. famthes where Childven Were 1e83 than @ month old; but if we take them as three to one the uumber wonll be 7,424 additional families hav- tog no first born males. Add these to the 22,273 with first born mates, asd we have the sum total of £9,697 families in israel, Now, in order to favor the monogauugie’ argument, and awe them all the that the audience numbered 10,000. | but judgiag from what we see here in our | NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1870.—TRIPLE SHEET. een advantage possible, we will still ada to this number in order to make i round numbers, Instead of calling it 29,697 families we will add 903 families more, making thirty Wousand families in all, Now then we come to another species of calculation founded on this data. Davide 2,500,000 persons by 22,273 dist born males, and we find one frst born Male to every 112 Pog What a jarge family for & monogamist 1 But divide 2,600,000 persons by 90.000 fumtiles and the quotient gives eighty- threo persons im a family, Bighty-three per- sons in a family! Supposi these families to be monogamic, after «eductin; husband and wife we have the very respectable number of eighty-one children to each monogamic wife. And if assume the number of males and females to be exactly equal, makiag uo allowance for the de- struction of the maie infants, we shall then have to increase the number of enikiren under twenty years of age so as to keep good the number of 2,500,008, This would still make eighty-one children on an average in each of the 30,000 Inonogamic families, Now We come to examine the subject in regard to polygamic houseloids, so.as to reduce the number that each woman would have. If we suppose te average niinber of wives to be seven—the average number recollect—there may be Many that have no wife at ail; there may be many monogamic families; aud then there may be many poly- gamic having from one wife up to. thirty or forty. But we will average them, tho 30,000 families, we will average them to seven wives apiece. We should then h ve one husband to seven Wives, and seventy-five children, making eighty- | three in a family. In the polygamic houseliold th! | would give an average of over ten children to each } Of the 210,000 polygamic wives and 3u,000 husbands, When we take the 80,000 married men from the 608,550 men over twenty years old, we have 572,550 Unmarried men ip lsrael. If we deduct 210,000 mar- ried women from the 1,003,650 femates over twenty years we have 798,550 unmarried femates over twenty years old. This would be enough to supply all the Unmarried men with one wite each, leaving Sdll a balance of 220,000 unmarried females to live old maids or enter lato polygamic households. Tho law guaranteeing the rights of the t born which nas been referred to in other portions of our discussion, Lucludes these twenty-two thousand two hunured and seveaty-turee first-born male children | 1n Israel—that is, one person, ove first-bora person, ; to every one Hundred and iwelye persons in Israel, taking the population as represented by our most esteeuied and iearned friend, air. Newman, ab \Wo aud @ half miliions., Here, then, Was & iaw given to reguiate the rights of the iifst bora applyiug (0 over twenty-two thousand first-born mae children in israel; that they should all inherit @ double portion of the goods and inheritances ot their Lathe: But how, then, having brought forth these statis- ties, let us for a few moments examine the results more closely. How can any one prove from the statistics given in Numbers, in the Bible? How can any One assume them to be monogamic and be consistent? Is 1t reasonable, 1s it consistent to suppose Viat these househoids could have been mouogamile fn their nature? By no means; it caa- not beso. I presume that my friemd, notwithstand- lug his great desire and earnestness to overthrow polygamy—I presume that he wili not have the con- Science to say to this people that one wife can bring forth eigiaty-one childvea in a household. If they cannot, and we can depend upon these num- | bers, these biblical stallstics, them let Mr, Newman, Who assumes that the maies and females were equal, suow how these great and wonderiul houseuolds could be produced among Israel If there were oniy two polygamic families tu their midst. It requires something more powerlul than that medicinal herb called mandrakes to which Mr. Newman reiers in iis rejoinder to my reply iu the New York HERALD. (Laughter.) 1 think there are no mandrakes at the Dresent day that would accompilan auch Wouders as tat. (Laughter) Having then established that Isracl was a poly- ‘guuc nition, remember that when God gives laws ie gives them to @ polygamic nation, the mono- gamic families being the excepiion, and few of them | Compared to the puiygamic. They were foundea in the days of Israei, that 18, of Jacob, He com- menced the work and 1b was continued in poiygamy Uatil they became very, numerous, very great and poweriul, Wille here and there might be found a Invuoganite failly with only one wife. Now, i God gave laws Wo a people o1 these mixed forms of mar- Tlage in Lie wilderness of course He would adapt i.e laws to both Classes oi families, He would not shut out the isolated = Insiance that could bo picked up here and there of a man having but one Wile, bat he would adapt bis law lo the coadition of the monogamic aid polygamic forms of marriage throughout ail israel. But the reverend gentleman says in regard to laws given for the reguiation of the mstitution, that they bear upoa their face its coudemnation, aud re- Iers 10 the laws thac have been passed In Pars to regulate Che social evil, also (he ¢xcise laws passed du our country to regulate titemperance, and that these laws of regulation secm to be con- detmnatory, a¥ he has expressed it positively to be coudemmatory of these crimes, Admit it. Wien the Parisiant have passed laws to Teguiate the social evil they have denounced it asacrime. When the inhabliants of this country have passed laws to regutate intemperance they have denounced it as a crime, and when God’s laws are givén, or even laws enacted by human legtala- tion, they geuerally d2aounce the crime and atiach penalties (hereunto, When laws were given against Inurder tne penulty was that the murderer should die, When laws were givea to punish the thief and the blasphemer aud the Sabbath breaker we find that they were laws of death, When the adulterer was punished it was to be by stoning him to death, God then gave laws to regulate those ‘things in’ Isrucl But because God ‘nas regulated many of these great and aboulaavle crimes by law, has he not mght to regulate that which is good aud moral as weil as that which ts lmmoral? For instance, God instituted the law of circumcision and he gave laws regulating 1; shall we tuerelore say, according to the logic of the gen- tleman, that circumcision Was condewnel by the law of God because it was ulated by the law of God? Why, that would be his logic. That would be the natural conclusion, according to the gentle- man’s logic. Again, when God tustitused, the pass- oyer he gave laws how they sbould conduc! the passover; does that coniema the passover as being immoral because it was regulated by law? Bur, to come closer home, Go gave taws to regulate the in- stitution of marriage; docs that prove that mono- gamy is conldemued by the law of God because it is thus regulated? ‘Lat Kiud of logic will never do. We now cone, ticn, to that passage that was 8o often referred to in the geniicman’s reply yester- day afiernoon, I Was very glad to have the gentle- man refer to this passage. ‘Lhe law, according to. King James’ transiavion, a8 we ail heard yesterday afternoon, reads hike this:—Neither shalt thou take a wie to her sister to vex her,” &c. That was ihe ceording to King James’ transiation. My together with Dr. Dwight, br. Edwards and several other commentators, disagree with that interpretation; aad somebody (wo it was I know not) has inseried in the margin, “Neituer shalt thou take one we to another?— in tae margin, recollect, and not in the text. It is argued that tie interpretation im the margin imust be correct, while King James’ translators must have been mistaken, Now, xecoliect that the great com- meutacors that have tus witered King Janes’ trans- lation were monogamists, So were the translators of the Bible. They were all monogamists—mono- gamists contending against monogamists in regard to the true transiation of this passage. It has been argued by my esteemed and learned friend that tae original Hebrew signifies something literally differ. ent from that which is Comtamed ma King James’ translation, These are ms words, as will be found in fils first sermon, or his ser- jion published at Washington, in the Distiict of Columbia, upon this same — thing:—“But in verse eighteen the law against polygamy is given— ‘Neither shalt thou take @ wile to her sister,’ or, as the margiual reading is, ‘Phou shaft not take one wife lo auother;’ and tis rendering is sustained by Cookson, Bishop Jewell, Dr. Bdwards and Dr. Dwight,” four eminent monogamists. According to Dr. BOwards tho words which were translated “a wife to ter sister” are found in the Hebrew but eight tines, Now, I have not been favored with these authorities; 1 have not had access to them. Here in these moun.ain walds itis dificult to get books. ‘1a cach passage,’’ resuming his quotation from Dr, Newinan’s sermon, “they reier to taani- mate objecta;” that is, in each oi the eight places where these words are tound. I have searched them out in the Hebrew, and can refer you to the chapter and verse where the eght passages are iound, and I don’t know how many more; but It ts sald by the Rev. Dr. Newman that they are only found eight times—reading again from Dr. Newmaui—"“in each passage they refer to taani- mate objects, such as the wings of Ute cherubim, tenens, inortices, &e., and signity coupiteg together one to another;” as “Thou shalt not take one wile to another”’—‘one to another,” keep that in mind—“they denote the exact likeness of one thing to another’—that is all true; we admit that—“and here, therefore, as the margin expresses it, forbid the taking of one wife to another.” “Forbid it?— this 18 what we deny; and we have the liberty, ac- cording to the articles of agrecment before us, of going to the original What are the Hebrew we u Veishan elanotan, to tik thou take a wie to her sister transiation of that passag: “Neliher shalt VNat is te literal e, Veishah being wanslated | Owhie” by King Jaiacs’ transiation, #/ dhorah beng iransiated “to her sister,’ lo translated “neither,” and (ikkah “shall tiow take.’ Have they given & literal transiation? Certaloly. Appeal to ine He- b Jexicon anu you wil find that the word tian occurs huadreds of mes in tbe Bible, and is trans- lated “wife? The word ahotah, twansiated by Kiog James’ translators “a sister,” occars hundreds of times in the Bivie, and 1s trauslated “sister. But are the ony transiaions—ihe on renderings? On, no! Jshah whea it 1s fol lowed “by ahot has ane.her rendering, Whea “wife” is followed by ister’? were 1s another rendering. Whatis it? Isiah is transiated “one” and ahot 13 trausiated “another.” That is periectly correct when they occur together, wuen they are Coupled together, We are not going to dis- agree With the gentieman so far as these Lwo words | are concerned, Wen used together they mean “oue to another,” ev being inserted between thei to sig- nify “io’—“one to anotier.”” But then whea you | have given them tls translation T ask Dr. Newman and all learned people in the Hebrew language to find any word lest in that passage that can be ren- dered “Wife.” It eannot be done; there is no such word in the original, Woen you have by coup! these two words together and tanslaung one tiem into the English word “one,” and then transiate that which is generally rendered “sisters”? vy tne Hogitsh word “another,” wheredo you get that nownrepreseating “wife?’—taxe one wife to another. It cannot be fouud, geutremen and tadies, There 1s nothing in the passage Which Warrants a double transtation of the same word m the same phrase. oe,” xeuder it “sister” cannot aiso it wo render it “another;” er, on the other hand, if render it “one” we Ro right to give it another translation and ase the word ‘‘wite,” as they have in the mar Now, that word ‘‘wife”’ is manufac- tured, 16 is not In the original; it cannot be found there. I do not kuow what the ideas of Dr. Dwight and Dr. Edwards ant the other learned commentators were in manufacturing the word “wife,” when there was no orginal word that sig- nied it, only that they were monogamtsts, and they were very feartut that they could not find any law to condemn porgany, and conciuded to manufacture the word “wife and sitck It tuto the margin, “But,” Bays one, “are mot these in the elcht passages referred to by Dr. Edwards translated ‘one to another:’’? Yes, Why, then, sbonld this be an exception herey Why should King James’ transla- tion give the literal translation of wife’, and “sts ter.” instead of “one to another? Why should there be anexceptiont Because they saw a necessity for it, There 18 this difference. in alt the pas- sages—the seven other passages where these words occar ishanh el ahol-ah—wierever these occur we find there 18 @ noun preceding them—something to be coupled tovether—a noun in the nominative case, to be joined together. For instance, lot me refer you to the passages tiemselyes so th: hunt them up. Exodus xxvi, 3, contains ishah el ahotah iw iwo places. signifying the coupling to- gether of curtains, “one to another; and the same Words are used as in ts text. Go then to the fifth verse of the same chapter, and t-cre we have the loopa of the cuttains coupled together, joined to- gether, “one to another.”’ The noun ta the nomina- tive case, then, ia these instances, means cur- tains and loops. Next, go to Ezekiel i, li, 23, and you will find that these three passages give the rendering of these same words, “‘coupling-the wings of the cherubim one to another’—the wings of the cherubim were to be jained ‘one to another.” Then, again, go to the third chapter of Ezekiel and the thirteenth verae, “and the wings of the living creature were to bo coupled together,” but nothing about mortises and tenons in Lhese passages. There may be other cases overlooked by the Kev, Dr. Edwards, Now, what ig the literal rendering. supposing that we admit that the word ishah should be translated “one,” and the word qahot (sister) should be transiated “another?” f am willing to” admit that the words agree the seven other passages I rhferred to. And what will be the cousequence of the admission? The consequence will be, tbat if they had a right to manufacture a word when there was no original to sustain them 1m that mana- facture, I have the same right to manufacture another word, if it is needful to do it, and let it read thus:—* Neither shalt thou take one sister to aaother to vex her during her lifetime.” And that is really the true rendering, and that agrees with King James's rendering, showing that it wus a part and portion of the law of consanguinity that is contained 1m @ great numper of the preceding verses about the Inarriage between blood reiations:—“ Neither shalt thon take one sister to another to vex her durtng her ifetime.” Now that accords, you know, wit the idea of translating tshah “one,” and ahot *anowmer.” 1 am willing to admit it, “But then,” says one, ‘you have to manufacture the word ‘sister,’ and uf we have have no right to manufacture the word ‘wife’ you have po right on your part to manufacture the word ‘sister.’"" Very well. Let ussee if we can get a@ word from the cogmat by this translation. Yes, yes. There is something now that will step in to Supply the place when we translate it according to the real m . What is that? The personal pro- noun ‘her’ eithor saalt thou take a wife to her sister.” Where is that personal pronoun found in the original? It 1s a sux attached to the Hebrew word for sister. It. reads ‘anhol-ah,” signifying “her sister.’ Now we all kaow whata If we render it “wife” we cannot render tt | fe shall not dininish, pronoun means; it means something that is used In the stead Of a noun. Now-snpposing we supply the noun that this word represents, then it will read thus:—“Neither shalt thou take a sister's sister to vex her Curing her lifetime”—when we come to restore the noun in place of the pronoun represented by the Hebrew letters @” attache! as a sufix to the noun aot, making it ahot-ah. Thus we see that 1h examming this subject we have found out that It is @ law prohibiting @ marriage In that aay between the blood relatives of one sister to another. And the reason is siated why it is thus given—“to “Ah, what? says Dr. Newman, in his sermon, “this certainly wouid look very strange, and, Indeed, is absurd to suppose that sisiers macht quarrel; we may look for quarrels on the other side, between wives that were not blood relations; but sisters would be very apt to live in great peace and harmony with each other.” But what are the facts In relation to quarre/s in families between bloou re- lations? What are the facts? Go back to Cain and Abel. Who was it that spiiied the blood of Abel? It Was a biood relation. Who was {t tiat cast Joseph into the den to perish with hunger, and afterwards dragged hia forth from his den and sold him as & slave to persons that were trading through the coun- try? It was blood relations that did this. Among blood relations there was an enmity existing. . Who was it that slew the seven sons of Gideon upon one stone? It was ove of their own brotiers who hired men to do it. Who was it that rebelled against David and caused him, with all his wives, except ten concubines, to flee out of Jerusalem? tt was his biood relation, his son Absalom. Who waa it that quarrelied in the family of Jacob? Did Lean quarrel With Bilhah? Nota word of quarrelling. Did she uarrel With Zilpak ? Nosuch thing m the recor Hid Kachel quarrel with either of the two han maids? Not a word concerning the matter; but the quarrel seemed to exist between the two blood rela- tions, Rachel and Leah; and the Lord seeing this probably gave tiat commandment in that day in order to put @ stop to the marriage of blood relauons, between sister and sister. Now, then, having effectually answered an ap- peai tv the original, I will defy not oniy the learned gentieman, but ali the world of Hebrew scnoiars, to find any word whatsoever im the origipal to bo transiatet ‘a wife,’’ If the rendering be given t is given in the wargin. What becomes of it, then? Why, It takes its original posittoa, and because there is 20 HOUN preceding the ‘words “one to an- other,’ as there t3 in the other seven passages Where these words occur—— {One of Mr. Pratt's fiends seeing that he was likely to exhaust all his time in his exegesis of the Hebrew, here whispered into his ear.) PRatr—I am informed that 1 have only fiftecn minaies left Iwas not aware that 1 fad spoken a quarter of that time, I snati have to leave this sub- Ject and go on to another, The pert subject to which T will call your .atten- tion very briefy 1s in regard to the uniimied natare of the command which Was given tu ibe various passages which I have referred to in my first re- marks. If a man shall entice @ maid; if a man shall Commut rape; if & mau shail do thls, that or the oiher thing, will any one pretend to 8 y thot a mar- ried person is not aman? If a married person is & man, thea it proves tha! the law ia general, and 1 is tue part of my learned opponent to prove that it is not genera}. I am lot ovliged to aller a passage to prove something that #8 not asserted. Let him prove that it is limited. Moreover, the passage was given as ihe found..tion and principal law by witich ail the other, passages were to be tried. The passage jiseif das failed, and thereiore all the other passages stand together, uniess there is something else to be found, perhaps we may hear in the answer to my remarks the pussage of Scripture referred to that the fuiure King of isract should not muitipiy wives to himsei dhat wasalaw, Now the word mult.piy, Lt is ar- gued by a great many opposed to polyguiay, means Lice one 14 two; thal means multiply | and conse- quently the future of israel must not muitiply two wives, But right in the same connection.is a Com- mand that he shall not multiply norses to humself. Twice one horse is two iorses. Does this mean that the Luture kings of Israel must only have on horsey Why, according to that iogic aad interpre tion It would mean that, But tae very idea is ridicu- lous. Lt siiuws very plainly that the iuiure kings of Jstaci siiali not muitiviy them im excess, either horses or wives, We Mave no time to dwell upon that any longer. We will now refer to the case of Ruth and Boaz. Boaz represented nimself as not being the nearest Kin, There was another kin that was still nearer, and he tappened to be tue brother uf Boaz, He provavly was the oldest, and cousequenily tt was us right. Josepivus teils us, according to tie learned gentleman, that the person who was O1 nearest kin, provaviy the oldest brother, was a married man. Supposing we admit it, did not his brotier know It? Wuy, thea, suould he represent lim as being the nearest of kin and that he had the right before him? And even this other brother acknowledges lus right. A married man ackuowledgiug Bis right! “Go thou and redeem my righ L havea rigui to take tier, but I aim afraid of marryiug my iMberi- tance. Go thou and take my right.” Tuis, then, with the assistauce of Josephus to carry us right, proves that married men were obiiged to comply with the law. We have no further time to examine that passage. We sliall now examine the passage that is concained in Matthew i regard to divorce, and also in Malacht. or the Lord, by tie mouth of Malachy, tuformed as that the Lord bateta hin who putteth away the wife of his youth, and gives the reason why the wile sitould not be pul away. Not @ Word said about polygamy. Sul thereis a certain reason given la that passage to show that tie wife must not ve put uway; and what sit? ‘That ‘an the beginning God created one” Whatior? Io order that Adam might not be alone, witout any heipmeet, without the possible power of mcrease, We Lord, thereiore, made one in order tha, he might begin the work. And that one was never tp be divorced. It was bone of his bone and flesh of fis fiesa, and Could not be put away; and consequently it Was a condemmation of those who underiook i those days to divorce their wives, Come to Matthew. Jesus there gives a law re- specung divorce; taat they should not put away tueir wives for any ovker cause Lhan that of fornica- tion and take another; for if they did they would commit adulvery, Now, Jesus says, in the Sith chapter of Matthew, that the puting away of tie wile canses her to cominit adultery. on Une hus- band is a coniederate, and if he causes nis wiie to commit aduliery be is gully Dimset!, the same as @ man that ussisis anotucr in murder, Now, has the adulterer any right to tak» anoiher? No. Has he a rigit to take even one wife? No; he has no right. Why? Because tis right i$ to be stoned to death; his right is to ve punished with death for nis adultery. Consequently, Mf the adui- terer bas no right to even life Lself he certainly has DO righby tke IAW Of God Lo a wife, It may ve ar. gued that the crime 1s not in pucting away, but it is in taking another. I argue that 1 18 i poth toge- ther—one crime added to another, But this has no application, then, to a man Who keeps his wile, re- uiius her and at the same tine takes another. Now the Jaw of God that I have referred to, in Levit Xvili., 18, shows that polygamy was in existence; ‘but tt was required by thts law to be ket withia the circie of those who Were not blood relations. “Duty of marriage’—I will refer to that; sorry That i have not more time, The words “duty of marriage” occurring in the passage, “if @ man shall wake another wile,” &¢., respecting the first Re says, “er Tood and ner raiment and her duty of marriage Now what does this wean, it is something more than the Gaty of marriage.” | ST FE ad betrothal. It is something snowing that the indi- | and murderer? ‘Therefore the other predic- | bere Obriat them merken vidual that had been prev! betrothed is actually | thon does not justify connection which Abraham Berto Gost torte ene ae not al im the ml ane, Ae ae Lg had with this eds Bhe was sent away by Livine is to is one body? for marriage’ press mean- | commandme: God asia Abraham, “ gg ORE We OR ye nt, unte am, “Now | saith he, shall be one fest. But be that ie ‘inal dw or habitation or refuge, #8 asserted in the Naw York HERALD by Mr. Newman. Fodr pas- sages are quoted by him, and I[ have xamined ali jour of the passages wud e the word does not occur in cither of theu. In one Place it is a word translated in Denieronomy as “refuge,” and ta the lidth Paalin it is trauslated “den,” and in Jeremiah it is transiated “habitation,” and in Amos itis translated by a word tbat repre- 8enbs the Same thing, But the original word occurs once 1p tie Bible, as I can prove by wie] exieon that was eenuane by Mr, Gh» », Professor of Sacred Literavure in the theological Institution of Yale College. Go and read what he says upoa the subject, and he will tell you, upon page 160 of tins lexicon, tit the ‘duty of marriage’ means cohabitauion; her food’ aud raiment and the duty of cohabitation he shui not diminish What? An unmarried woman a betrothed woman? God command an undiminished cohabitation wath one hot married? Can any one believe this fora | moment? By bo means. ‘lhe person was previously married, and we have the acknowledgment by Mr, Newman that tie second person that was taken is acknowledged as the true wife, Here, then, we have the true wile and (he Lord gave laws regulating it. ‘There ae many other passages that I would be jad Lo refer tw would time perinit, Let me state I ave @ Moment’s time left, Refer to Hosea. 1 want all of you when you go home to read the second chapter of Hosea, and you wiil find that instead of Hosea having divorced bis rst wue of whorcedome before taking the adulteress, that there 13 no stelt thing recorded in we chapter. ‘fue Lord telis Ho-ca WO go and speak to his brethren, not to nis sons; lO his sisters, Hol to his daughter, ahd to speak tothem and tet them what He the ‘Lord will do; that fie will not acknowledge them as wives— not acknowledge them in that capacity; the word of the Lora concerning Israel, of which those tWo Wives should represent their whorcdom. their abomination and their wickedness. ‘nat is all the time we nave left for that passage, Having di-cussed the sudject so far we leave it | now to all candid persons. Here is the law of God, here is tue command of the Most High, general ta tts | nature and not liited, or If be limited it cannot be | peeves to be se. No law against it, butit stands as wmmovable as the Rock of Ages and, will stand wien the heavens ani the earth pass away; lor it isa Jaw that was bi.ding upon ancient Israel, (Proies- sor Pratt's hour uad now expired ,) CONCLUDING ARGUMENT OF Dit. NEWMAN, Dr. Newman theu came forward and spowe as fol- lows:-— . RESPECTED UMPines, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN— T haa heard prior to my Coming to your city that my distingulsned opponent was cminent in mathe- mutica, and certaiuiy his display to-day contiras that repuration. Unfortunately, however, he is in- correct in his statemenis. first, he assumes (hat the slaying of the mule children of the Mebrews was continued through eighty years, He has failed to produce the proofs to-day. This was his startiag point. He assumes tt Where is the proof, either in the Bib! or tu Josephus? And until he can prove that the destruction of the male chudren went on for eigity years, then | say that his argument has no more foundation than a vision, ‘Then he makes another blunder, The 603,550 men above twenty years’ of ge mentioned in this case were men to go to war. they were not the total maie population of the Jewish nation. And yet my inatuematical mend stands here to-day and declares tas the whole maie Ropaiayce. above twenty of age consisted of 4,550, Waereas it is a fa this numoer «oes not inciude ali the males, Then, again, with rete- rence to the 22,273 tirst born. ‘This does not represent the number of familles la Israel at | that tme, for many of the first porn were | dead, ‘These are tie Lilunders the gentieman has made (0-day; aud | chalienge him to produce facts to the contrary, and prove that ne is not gullty of making Uieése numerical blunders. Zhen, he denies the assertion made yesterday that there could not be brought forward more than one or two mstances of polygamy in tue nistory of Israel from the time the Hebrews ijeft Egypt to the time they enterel Caanan, Has he disproved that? How has he at- tempted to disprove it? He has attempted to dis- prove it by @ matiematical probiem, which 18 baced on error: ‘his premises are wroug, abd therefore his conclusion is false, Why did he not turn to Ring James’ translation? I wil heip him to fine oue polygamisi—valeb, Why did he not speak of Caleb, aud thea go ou and give us name jor name | and date for date of any other polygamist recorded iu the history le Jews while they were in the Wilderness? Ladies and gentlemen, he had none to give; and, therefore, the agseruiou made yesterday 1s true, namely, that during the sojourn of the clul- dren of Israel in the wilderaess, there ts but ove in- stance of polygamy recorded, Now we come to the law as laid down yesterday— “Neither shait thou take one wife to auother.? 1 reaflirm that the translation in tho margin is perfect toa word. He labors to show that God does not mean what he says. That plirase, ‘One wife to an- other,” may be equally readered, ue WOIMAL LO an other,” ov, “One wile to her sister.” The very same bogged used im the other seven passages hamed y Dr. Dwiant, For example, Exodus xxXvi., 3; Ezekiel 1., 9 and so forth. He aduits the trausla. tion im these passages to be correct, If the transla. Won is Correct In these passages why is it net cor- rect in the other passage? His very admission knocks to pieces hig argument, Why, then, docs he labor to create the impression that the Hevrew word | isha, meaning ‘woman’? or “wii ig not in the text? What is the object of the travail of his soul— to bring forts what’ The word anot, he says, means “sister.” But “stster” itseli is a word which meais a specific relation and @ generic relation, kvery wouian is a@ sister to every other woman, and I challenge the gentieman to meet me Ou paper atany time in te newspapers of your city, or elsewhere upou the Hebrew of thia text I reailirm itin tie hearing of these learned gentie- ined, reailira itia the hearing of these Hebraists, that what ts state the margin is the true renders ing, Namely, “aentner shalt thuu take one Wise unto anoiner, Bul supposmg that 1s tneorrect. fore i pass on, vo vemind y suuct an argument he referred, 1 think, i his Speech, to the margin, The margin was correst then aud there, but tt is Mot Correct now and here, It is & poor rule that Will not Work boi ways—cor- rect when he Wats Lo quoce trom the y orrect Wien I want to quote from t) tinethe example, and I followed tious exaurple. | But now, my sriends, supposing that the text | means just what he says, nanicly—-**Netther siiait | thou take a wile unto Ger sister to vex her,” sup- posing that 1s the rendering, and he asserts (aod ne isa Hobraist) thet that iy the meaning, | argued yesterday, aud produted the proo‘, that this law of Moses is hot kept by the Mormons—in other words itis violated—here, ‘fnere are men in your very midst who tw married sisters, Where was the genleman’s solemn «ienunciation of the violation of God's law’ Why did he not Hitup his voice to vin- dicate the Divine law? But nota solitary word of disapproval Is uitered by him. Yesterday he pro- nounced a curse—"Cursed 14 he that conformeth not to the words of this law todo them’? Does not ihe curse rest upon hum and upon hts peoples 1 gave him the iiberiy to choose whether ts text con- denned polygamy, or whether it condemned a man marryivg lwo sisters. He himself took his choice. ‘Tie two horns of Wie dilemma are before him. Fo the sake of saving polygamy he stands up here in tite presence of Almighty God and Hits holy angels, and before Uns intetligent congregation, and adinits that vermit me, be- of this fact:—To con- o margin. his ilius- In this chur@i, and with this people, God's | holy Jaw 13 set at detlance! hat respect, therefore, cau we have for the genile- | mau’s argument, drawn from the teachings of Moses, in support of polygamy? He refers us to the muitiplication of horses. IF suppose the King might have one horse or two horses-there 18 no special rule as to the number of horses which he might have; but there 13 a spectsi rulo as to the number of Wives—“Neltuer shall the King jauitiply | wives.” God in the bezinning gave the first man one wife, and Christ and Paul sustained that law as binding upon us. But now sappose that tat is not accepted a8 a law, What thea’ Why Ulere is no lint to the number of wives. How many shall a man have? Seven? Twenty? ity? Sixty? One hundred? Why, they somewhere quote a passage that “If ‘a man forsakes ls wile he shall have an hundred.’ According to that he ought to goon forsaking, for, it he should forsake an hundred he will have ten thousand, and if he should forsake ten thousand ke will have 30 many | more in proportion, and it is his business to go on forsaking; and that is in the professor's book called “the seer.” Why, such a man would’ keep ine | Almignty busy creating women ior him. (Laugnter.) Lregret very much that L had not time to notice all the points whic have beea brought forward. | desired to do so, I plead for more tte, my Iricnds plead for more time, but time was denied us f aca, Merefore, restricted to au hour, Now | propose to | follow out the live of argument which | was pursuing yesterday when my Gme expired. And | propose to apply the great law brougit forward yes- | terday—"Neither shi @ maa take oae wile unto | anoit And in doing thig we call your atvention | to the jact that in the Bivie There are ‘ouiy live or thirty special recorded cases of pol, told, oul of the thousands aad mi lious of the peone. I say only twenty-live or thirty special recorded cases all Wold, Which polygauists of our day ny im support of their position. 1 propose to take up haif a dozen or so of the most prominent cases, wand in so dotug L shall divide the time ito two periods— before te aw and alter the law. First 1 take up Abrabam, It is asserted that he was a | polygamist. { deny it There is no proot that Abraham was guilty of polygamy. Wiat are the facts’ When he was catied by tne Almiguty to be the ler of @great nation, then tie pr . ise was given to him that ne should have anu ous posterity, At that time he was a moi he had but one wife, the noble Sarau. St ia passed and the promise was not full . “Then | Sarah, desiring to help the Lordto keep His own promise, brought her Egyptian maid Hagar and of- fered her as @ substitute for herself! fo Abrauam, Mind you, Abraham dtd not go a Hagar, bat Sarah produced her as her substitute. Tmmediately after the act Was performed Sarah discoveret hee sha, and sata, “My wrong be upon thee; 1 have com- mitied sin, butt aid it for thy sake, and therefore the mg that ££ have committed be upon | thee.” And then look at the subsequent facts. + By the Divine command this beypuan girl | ‘Was sent away from the abode of Abrahain, was sent away by mutaat consent of the husband and the wile, and by the Divine command, It ts said that she was recognived, Never as the wile of Avraham, You cannot prove it from the Bible. But it is said that she was promised & AUMeroUs posierity; Uhat 1s, by prediction. $0, alse, ft was foretold that tr macl, her son, should be a wild man—‘nis hand against every man and every man’s Baul agamst hun.” Does that justify fe in beng @ rbver j he ht } tion a Walk before me and be thon perfect’’ These are the Gacts, my friends. bh to Keturah, but this is the fict In regard to ber, hat Abraham lived thirty-euht years alter Wie of Sarah, ‘She energy miraculoual ham’s body for the generation was cop- tluued after Saran’s death, ‘To suppose thas he took Keturab during the ie of Sarah 1s to do violence to his ioral character, But if ts said that he seut away he sons of Keturah with presents, during his MMetime, therelore 11 must have been during the life- time of Sarah.’ But he lived Gurty-eight years efter the death of Sarah, and he sent these sons away cight years before his death, ané they were from twenty-tive to thirty years old. ‘Therefore this vene- rablo patriarch stands forth as a monogamist and Dot as a polygamist. (Manifestations of dissent.) Thea we come to the case of Jacob, and what are the facts in regard to him? Broaght up in the sanctity of monogamy, after having robbed nis brother of his birth: ight, after havi lied to his oid blind father, ten he steals away and goes to Paden Arain, and there he falls in love with Rachei, but in his bridal bed he fluds Rachel's sister, Leah, Ho did not enter polygamy votuntartly, but he was im- dd upow. As le had taken advantage of tie Lindness of his fatuer Lo impose upon him, 80 also he was imposed upon be daban in the dark- ness of the might. But hold this to be* tne that Jacob is howhere regarded as a saintly man price to bts conversion at the Jabbok. A'ter Chat conversion then fe appears in a salutly character. it 18 & remurkabie fact that Jacob lived 147 years all told, cighty-iive of which he lived before he became a polygamist. twenty-two years in polygamy. Me lived forty years afier he liad abaudonel polygamy. So that out Of 147 years there were only twenty-wo years during wiich he had any connection with poly- gamy. 1 wish my friend had referyed to the case of Moses. In his sersion on celestial marnage he chums that Moses was a poly t, and be deciares thal the leprosy (hat was upon Miriam was a punish- ment for her interierence with the poiygamie war riage of Moses, Whatare the facts: ‘There is no ive to Abra- record of & second mariage, Zipporah | ia the only name given to the wie of Moses, On what, then, 14 his assertion made? Simply this:—It is recorded that Moses was content to dweil with Jethro, and he gave Moses Zippora, his daughter, Josephus spears of two dauglters belonging to Jetire, and distinctly says he gave Moses one, In Numove ‘And Mitlam and Aaron spol iust Moses, because of the Etmopian woman who he hat ried; for he had married an Luuoplan woman.’ Now itis at iirmed that two women are here inention d, whereas nothing can be more true than that Zipporan and the Ethioplan woman are one and identical. It 4s the same person called by diferent Let us se The father of Zipporad was the priest of Midian, and according to Lie best autho- rides Midian aud Btiiopia are iueitical terms, and epply to that portion of Arabia where Jethro lived, So Uie wppellation Mician, Bunopia and Arabia are applied to the Arabian peninsula, (See Appletou’s American Eneyelpeedia.) There Moses siunds out; Moses, the Jewish ‘awgiver, stands forth as a mono- gamist, having but one wile, Surely tie founder of & polygamie nation, ad these geniicmen claun, the revealer of the polyganic law, as here asserted, Surely he should have set the exampie. He should have had a dozen or a huudred wives, But the son of Jochebed, as a burning reprvol of polygamists in all genera- Uons, Now we come to Gideon; and what about this man?’ An angel appeared to him, thatis true. But if the practice of poiyzamy by Gideon is @law [or us, then the practice of idolatry by Gideon is also If there is sileuce m (he Bivle tocebing tae poly of Gideon, there is also stience in the Bible toncaiag his idulatry, and If the one is sanctioned so also is the other. I wish my friend had brought up the case of Han- nah, the wie of Elkanah, lean prove to a demon- stration that Hannah was the first whe of Eikaual, but being barren Elkanah takes anoiher wife; bub Hannah, in the anxiety of her heart, pleaded to the Almighty, and God honored her motherhood by. answeling her prayer. it 1s asked, “14 not this & sancuion of polygamy? No; a gancuion of monogam because she was the first wife of Eikanan; aud be- cause Eikanah had been guiity of iniidelity and married another wifey Was that any reason why Hannah sheuld not have her rights from high heaven, and why God should not answer her prayer? Do you ask me why #9 did not pray before? Can you tell me why Isaac did not pray twenty years jouer for his wile Kebecca that she might have cnhildrem? | cannot tell, Dor can you, All that Lassert is, that Hannah was the first wile of Elkanab, and God honored and blessed the beautiful Samuel, ‘Vhen we come to David. Why did not my friend bring up David, the great warrior, king aud poet, ruler of Israeclt He might have mentioned uim, with ten wives alltold, He might also have men- tioned him 23 an aduiterer, and committiug @ pre- meditated and one of ihe most cold blooded murders on record, and simply to cover up his crime of adul- tery. How oiten do you hear quoted the words:— “And I gave thy master’s wives unto thy bosom?’ Is this an big hiker of polygamy? If you will read Iknow that some will reter death | cloniveiy Paul He lived | names, | Who Was & mouvosamist, stauds forti | 3 a toa harlot 1s one body? for two, sata he, shi one flesh. | But het i is joined unto the Lord pe »" Now look at the facts. “The apostle ix hei ; Showing the true relation of the believers to Christ, aud this reiation ts tlius' rated under tue figure of mar: design of this tigure is to show that the bellever becomes one with Christ; and the apostie further explains, in reproo’ of the Covinthians ming- ling with idolators aud adutterers, that thus mangling they became assimilated, identical; and he beings up the illvstration that if a man has mar- rlot—at simply cohabite with but is mar- ried to& harlot—he becomes identical with her, ox in other words, “one fiesh.”” There 18 @ passage which declares, “A bishoy then, must be blameless; the husband of one wife.” It is asserted that he must have one wile anyhow, @nd as many more as he pleases. It is supp that this very caution Indicates the prevalence peer in that day; bat no proof can be brought ‘oO Dear that polygamy prevailed exteusively at that time, On the contrary, I am prepared to prove that olygamista were not adiuitéed iato the Christan ‘hureh, for Paul lays down this postive command, “Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; so that, if you say the former applies to the priest, I say the latcer ap- | pnes to the layman; and what 1s good for the priest 8 good for the Jayman, and vice versa. How often is it asserted here that monogamy came from the Greeks and Romans. But look the palpaole contradiction in the assertion. It it as: ert Tt 13 also the thine of Ese 583 | Christ and Hts | ton is made to prove that polyga! | mitted tuto the early Chrisitan Church. Now, if | monogaty came from the Greeks and Romans then i polyeway could net bave been universally preva. lent, for it is admitted that at that time the Romans hell universa: sway, and where they held univer. Sal eWay there th laws prevailed, and the two Atatements cannot be reconciled. Now we come to the words of Christ—Matthew ¥,, 27-23; and Mark x, 11-12, was (iscoursing with the Pharisees, as reco Matthew Xix., the Jews were divided as to the in- terpretation of the law of Moses touching divorce, which says, “If a inan hath taken a wie and mar. ried her, and it come to pass that she Gnd no favor In his eves because he hath found some uncleanness | in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement,”? Upon the meaning of the word “unciean ess’? the Jews uifered, Some agreed with the school of Rabbt | Hillel in the opinion that a man migut divorce his | we for the slightest offence, or for no offence j; at all, if he found another woman who | pleased him better; but the school of Rabbt shammai hed that the term “uncleanness’? meant moral delinguency. The Pharisees came to Christ hoping to Involve him in this con- troversy, but he declined, Yet the Saviour, takiag: | advantage of,the opportunity, gave thein a discourse on marriage, And In discoursing upon marriage he refers to the original tostitution:—‘Have ye not reat that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female? And thus He brings | ont the great law of monogamy. Granting that the allusion isinctiental, never:heless it is all-important, as falling from the lips of the great Master, Twas challenged to show that polygamy ts adul- tery. The gentleman challenged me, and I will now BES d to prove it, As adultery is distinguished in Scripture from whoredom ana fornteation, proper to ascertain the exact meaning of the words as ured by the secred writers, The word translatert “whoredom” is from the Hebrew verb zanah and | the Greek porneia, and means pollulion, defilement, | lewdness, or, in common parlance, prostitation— rostitution of the person for gain. ‘Fornication’? 8 from the #ame words and signifies criminal sex- ual intercourse without the formalities or marriage. Aauitery ts from the Hebrew word natph and the Greek word joicheia, and is the crtiminal inter, course of @ married woman with any other mart than ner husband, or of a marvied man with any other woman tien his wife. This is indicated by the philological <twnifieance of the term ‘adulte- » compounded of two words meaning ‘to an- other,” as the mixture of pure and impure liquors or | of an alloy with pure metal, Adulterer is from the diebrew naaph and the Greck moichos, whieh means as above. The material question to be settle! ts, is the Hebrew word naaph and the Greek word motchos, or motcheia, contined to the criminal sexual intercourse between a man, married or unmarried, and @ married woman? This is the theory of the Mormon polygamists. but I join issue with them and assert that tue Scriptures leach that adultery 1s committed by a married man who ha Sexual ‘Intercourse with a woman other than his wife. Now, can it be proved that the sin of adultery 1s committed by a married man having carnal con- nection with a woman who Is neither married nor betrothed? Firat, the Hebrew word naaph, trans- | lated tn the seventh commandment ‘adultery, does on you Will find that God aiso promises to give lis | ineluie all criminal sexual intercourse. It 19 (David's) wives to another, and tiat another should | q generic term, and the whole includes lie with them in the sight Of the son, Surely, if one | the’ parts. It 1a like — thy word = ‘Kill’? ia the approval of polygamy the other is | jn the sixth commandment, which includes all the approval of rebellion and incest, David lived to | those passions and emotions of the human soul that be seventy five years oll. He was twenty-seven | lead to murder, such as Jealousy, envy, malice, jears of age when he took his iirst wile, and for the | hatred, revenge. So tits word naaph includes next forty years we tind him complicated with tne | whoredom, fornication, adultery and even salactal evils, cries and sorrows of polygamy, and then the | just, The terms “adultery” and “formation” are Sigua, sectbgter great sin: thoroughly repented of | ysed interchangeably by our Lord and mean the rt put it away from him, aad for the last eight | game thing. A married woman copu'ating with & ‘3 of his Life endeavored to atone, best he | man other than her husband is admitted to be coul?, for bis terriiie and guilty expertence. Aud | adultery; but Christ calls the act fornication, and What of Solomon, wio was the greatest polygamist and had a thousand wies? Do these gentlemen teil me that Solomon's greatness and thereforé Ws polygamic birth approved aud his polygamlc marriages aso approbaieds 1 cat remind them Of ihe fact that t ulure greatness of Christ was foretold; but the foreteiiag OF the great. of the Lord Jesus was nol an approval of the rayal by Judas and the cructixion by the Jews; neither was the mere foretelifing of the iuture great- Leas of Solomon &M approvai OF tie polygaumic char- acter of his birth, L supposed the gentleman ou tis occasion would have referreit to tie law ol bas tardy and have satd that if iny doctrine be true then | Solomon and others were bastards, We could lave wisued that he had prodaced thst point, He did de- ciare In this temple. not jong sinve the lw touch. ing bastardy—tiat a bastard should be brauded with Infamy to the tenth generauion. Bul tuts plain that $ misunderstood the law respecting bastards as contained in Deuteronomy Xxil, 2 101s evident from history that ihe terin has not always beea the tame, With usa basiard ts one bora out of wed- Jock--that ls, monogamonic matrimony. At Athens, } in the days of Pericles, 1a the filth century belore Christ, ail were deciared bastards who were not chil dren of native Athenians. We here assert to-day that the genticman cannot bring forward @ law from the nook of Jewish laws to prove that a cuild born of a Jew and Jewess, whetuer marrie @ bustard, ‘The only culld reconized as a bastard by Jewish law was a child bora of a Jew and a pa- gan woman, Phereiore the objection talis to the groubd, aud Solomon and others, who were not to Diamedor tue character oi their birth, are exone- | Tated, The geometrical progression of evil in this system of polygamy is seen in the first Uiree Kings of Israel—Saul, David, Solomon. Saul bad a wi'e aut a concubine, two women; David had ten, Solomon | @ thousand, and it broke the kingdom asander— God gays it—for that very cause. Soiomon had mul- tiplied his wives Lo such an extent that they had not only led him astray from God into idolatry, bat we very costiiness of bis harem Was & burden upon tie people too lieavy for them to bear. I said the other day that polygainy might do for kings and | fap for nabobs, but would not do for poor men, It costs: too muen, and the peo; port the harem, (Se! on.) Ati! you bring forward Ubege few cases of polygamy. Name them, if you please. Lamech, tle murderer; Jacob, who deceived his old blind father aud robved his brother of his biritiright; David, Woo seduced another man’s wile and mrdcred that man by putting hun in front of the patie, and Solomon, Who turned to be an idolas tor. ‘These are some of the polygumista, But now let me call tie roll of honor. There were Adam and Hnoch, and Noah, and Abraham and Isaac and Moses, and Aarov, aud Josiua, and Joseph, and Samuel, and ail the prophets, aud all the aposties, You are accustomed to hear frou this sacred place Unat all the patriarchs, and all Ue Kings, and all the pro- pheis were polygamists. J assert to the coutrary, aud these great aud emiment men Wao ft have just menuoued as belouging to the roll of honey Were monog amists, Yesterday the gentleman gave me three challenges. He challeuge’t me to show that the New Testament condemns polygamy. 1 now proeced to do it. I quote Paul’s words, I Corintiiaos vi, 2 and 4— “Nevertheless to avold fornication Jet every man have his own Wile, and Jet every woman have her own husband.” of her own body, bt the husband, and likewise also the husband havi not power of his own body, "ut the wie, Warringe is the remedy against forn id this is the subject Of the chapter. Su the opinion of Clark, Henry, W Olshauson, Lauge and others.” One great prevailed lin Coriiih, a community of wive here calls fornication. St, Paul suitkes at the very root of tis evil, And commands, “Let every man huve his own wife aad fet every’ woman have her ov husbaud;” that is, let the man have his own pecu- liar, proper, appropriate wie, and tue wife her owa peculiar, proper, appropriaie busband, In tds there is Mulwal appropriduon and excluslvencss of right. And tins command of Paul ay with tbe law of Moses in Leviticus xviii, i8—"Netther shait thou take one wife unto another,” and the two ure one statute, clear and unquestionable for monogarny avd aguinst = polygamy. The apostle teaches the ai duties of the husband and tbe wife. e exclusive right Which We asse | in verse jour ts matual, ‘fhe force of the terms ecrcos (is) and idion (own) is equal. They fave the force of one equivatent. A difference in the Tordée of the terms would destroy the analogy of the argunent, as auy ober idga Would be Wholly re- | im that pugusat Wo the assertion wi verse four. verse it 18 distinctly adirmed by the term homoios, or *ynst as’ —tinat ts, “in the hus! Ag EXClUsive powe wife; 50 has ihe wlie ¢ .chusi of her Wusbaud, It a8 univer c power over the boxy band to” the wele; the exclusive right of the husband, ‘These relations are mutual, a& husband can chum & whole wife, ana i good & right to a Whole husband as he has a right wa whole wile. reve ded, members of Christy Was predicted, | or not, Was | pare taxed too much to sup- | “The wife hath wot power | wich Ue aposuic | s | ame sense’—that the over the body of his | rally aduutted that | Ulis passage proves (he exciusive right of the hus- by pacity 1 also proves wife to the te | wile can clatm a whole husband; she has just as In IT Coviataians vi, 16-13, it 19 Knew ye not that your bodies are the Shai i, nen, take tie mem: | can say &mood Word Lo imduce this is the highest author.ty that we can bring for- ward. Thirdly, the carnal connection of a man with ap unimartied woman ts positively declared | adultery. In Job xxiv., 21, 1t13 expressly sald that the adulterer commits his erime with the barren and the widow, ‘He evil enireateth the barren that beareti not and doeth not good to the widow; and in Isaiah ivi, 3, itis taught the adulterer commits his sin with the whore (jane is the word)—“Bat draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed Oi Ube adniterer and the whore Therefore 1 con- clude that, fromy the sevent! commandment, from tfe common imeaning of adultery and fornication as given dy Cartst, and from Jov and Isaiah, that the term naaph compreheuds ail the modifications of | that crime down Co the salackel lust that aman may feel tu his soul for a woman. ’ Hut it may be asked, if (his is 40, then ‘Why does the: | Mosaic law mention the tarrie| womat aud not the unnmurried woman)” We deny that such @ distin tion was made, We do admit, however, that special penalties were den ed against } such connection with @ married wo- ; man, bat for special reaeons. What were | those reasons, The design Was Lo preserve the gene~ | alogy. parentage and birta of Christ from faterrups , Yon and contusion, which was in imminent danger | where tntercourse with a married woman was had | by aman other tian her husband; but uo such daa. ger could arise from the intercourse of a married man with an unmarried woman. Bot those temporary | and speeial laws passed away when Christ came. | Under the Jewish dispensation he that cohabited with & woman other than his Wife was respousibie to God for the violation of the seventi commaud- ment; the Women was also respousible Lo God for the violation of the seventh cominandment and thiq | Special law. Now both the man and the woman ar equally responsibie to God tor tue violator of thal commandment, y But you guy if this be true then some of the great’ | Men tn Bibte times were gaily of a violation of the | seventh commandment, 1 say they were; but they. | were not ali polygamists, as [have demonstrated ta: | you to-day, But t the facts, Abraham, whet | convinced of his sin, put away Hagar. Jacob lived | forty years out of @ st of potsgainy. David put | away his wives cight years beiore he died. If there is no accouns that Solomon put away his wives, neither {% there an axsurance that Solomon aban~ doned his idolatry. ‘This, then, my friends, is the | argument; and as a Christian minister, desiring only your good, | proclaim the ixct that polygamy 19 | aduliery, (General outbarst of disseue and loud cries of “Shame, suame! ao, nol’) T assert it, with, all Kindness, as a doctrine tanght in the Bible, and proclaim it witout fear as the law of God, Tam challenged to prove tat polygamy Is no pres vention of prostitution, It has been aM rmed time and again, not only in this discussion, bat in th written works of the distinguimbhed gentteme | around me, that in monogamous countries prostle tution, or social ovil 16 almost Universally prevalent.: | Tciscover that | have not the time to follow out this} written argument, but I am prepared to prove—L will prove it in your daily papers—that prostitution, Js as vid as authentic lustery: that prostitution bag been and 18 to-day more prevaient in polys gamic tian in monogatmte countries, 1 cal | prove that wie estimates representing pro itution =in monogam.c counties are ove drawn, They are overdrawn ta regard t | my native city, ‘That genleman brought oat New York; and in that milion and over of populaiio: | you cannot Hid more than 6,000 recor prost | intex. Tean go, for instance, to St, Louis, wher | they bave just taken the census, and the prostitut | of that cliy, WIth a population Of 309,000, are but 659. | You may gothrough the length and breadth of thi | land, fn vi ages where (here are from a tuousand t ten thousand Inhwiitants, and vou cannot ind house Of prostituuon, ‘The truth ts, iny friends, i would wot be aliuwed for a moment, aad these me} that assert that our monogamous country ts filed With prostitutes ulter a Slaager upon our Country. One distinguished friend referred to religious It erty and Claimed that he had a right, under tb federal constitution, to practice polygamy, Tarn a gels as he ia that we & religious liberty here. rejoice that a man can Worsttp God after his own heart. Bat Cafirm that the jaw of limitation ts no less applicable W religious liberty than i 13 to that revolution of the heavenly bodies, The law of litte) | tation is as universal as creation. Religious liberiy) must be precticed within tbe bounds of decency an the well being of society, and civil authority may bi extended to restrict religioas liberty withia du Fy bouuds, The Uindoo mother may corm here with her Shasta, which is her Bible, and she may throw her child into yow river or lake, and ctyil government according t your theory could not notice it nor say to thal Inother, “You shan’t do 1.” You say it is a murder Tsay itis n ‘The act is stripped of all the attr. butes of murder, Itisa reitwions act. She turn vo her Bible and says, “lam commanded to do thi trom my Bibie.”? her from (he Shasta, and you will say that Wwe inte! ests of society demand that you shall Bot murda f | that chitd. Se civi government Ras @ two lexi date in regard to marriage, and to restrict we mune ber of wives to oue, Buti am not an advocate t | stringent legisiation, 1 with my irien thatthe law suouta not reerate Men, WOM Nay, my friends, if Winans aad and chilavea in duugeons,