diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-05 07:53:36 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-05 07:53:36 -0800 |
| commit | 72d48e5ff2a241f1a2754fa7415a2d0597ef3b01 (patch) | |
| tree | ecc2fbd347e2d008ed610a90c15edae41548ecd4 | |
| parent | cc3f0a6f678245ea2ec6e54c9def818643814a32 (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51140-h.zip | bin | 167840 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51140-h/51140-h.htm | 5642 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51140-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 51116 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51140.txt | 5590 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/51140.zip | bin | 117164 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 11232 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3843bbe --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #51140 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51140) diff --git a/old/51140-h.zip b/old/51140-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1ffe869..0000000 --- a/old/51140-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51140-h/51140-h.htm b/old/51140-h/51140-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index d301d4f..0000000 --- a/old/51140-h/51140-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5642 +0,0 @@ - -<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> -<html> -<head> - -<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> - -<title> -The Project Gutenberg E-text of The Bible and Polygamy: Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?, by Orson Pratt -</title> -<link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg"> -<style TYPE="text/css"> -body { color: Black; background: White; margin-right: 10%; margin-left: 10%; - font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-align: justify } - -h1 { text-align: center } - -h2 { text-align: center; padding-top: 15%; } - -h3 { text-align: center; padding-top: 4%; } - -h4 { text-align: center } - -p.chapterHeading { margin-right: 20%; margin-left: 20%} - -p.caption { text-align:center; font-style: italic; margin-right: 20%; margin-left: 20%; padding-bottom: 4%} - -img {display: block; margin-left: auto; - margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 1%; margin-right: auto; } - -.pagenum { position: absolute; left: 1%; font-size: 95%; text-align: left; text-indent: 0; - font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant: normal; } - -.centered {text-align: center} - -.right {text-align: right} - -.lessright {text-align: right; padding-right: 15%} - - -sup { font-size: 60%} - -.sidenote { right: 0%; font-size: 80%; text-align: right; text-indent: 0%; width: 17%; - float: right; clear: right; padding-right: 0%; padding-left: 1%; padding-top: 1%; - padding-bottom: 1%; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant: normal; } -</style> - -</head> - -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Bible and Polygamy, by -Orson Pratt and J. P. Newman and George A. Smith and George Q. Cannon - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Bible and Polygamy - Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy? - -Author: Orson Pratt - J. P. Newman - George A. Smith - George Q. Cannon - -Release Date: February 6, 2016 [EBook #51140] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BIBLE AND POLYGAMY *** - - - - -Produced by the Mormon Texts Project -(http://mormontextsproject.org), with thanks to Christopher -Dunn for proofreading. - - - - - - -</pre> - - - -<h1>THE -<br>BIBLE & POLYGAMY. -<br><small> -DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY? -</small></h1> - -<p class="centered">A DISCUSSION -</p> -<p class="centered">BETWEEN -</p> -<p class="centered">PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT, -</p> -<p class="centered">One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day -Saints, -</p> -<p class="centered">AND -</p> -<p class="centered">REV. DOCTOR J. P. NEWMAN, -</p> -<p class="centered">Chaplain of the United States Senate, -</p> -<p class="centered">IN THE NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, -</p> -<p class="centered">August 12, 13, and 14, 1870. -</p> - -<p class="centered">TO WHICH IS ADDED -</p> -<p class="centered">THREE SERMONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT, -</p> -<p class="centered">BY -</p> -<p class="centered">PREST. GEORGE A. SMITH, -</p> -<p class="centered">AND -</p> -<p class="centered">ELDERS ORSON PRATT AND GEORGE Q. CANNON, -</p> - -<p class="centered">SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, -</p> -<p class="centered">1874. -</p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CORRESPONDENCE"></a>CORRESPONDENCE -</h2> -<p class="centered">BETWEEN -</p> -<p class="centered">REVEREND DR. J. P. NEWMAN, -</p> -<p class="centered">Pastor of the Metropolitan Methodist Church, Washington, D. C., -</p> -<p class="centered">AND -</p> -<p class="centered">BRIGHAM YOUNG, -</p> -<p class="centered">President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -</p> -<p class="centered">——— -</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, Aug. 6th, 1870. -</p> -<p>TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG: -</p> -<p>Sir:—In acceptance of the challenge given in your journal, "The Salt -Lake Daily Telegraph," of the 3rd of May last, to discuss the question, -"Does the Bible sanction polygamy?" I have hereby to inform you that I -am now ready to hold a public debate with you as the head of the Mormon -Church upon the above question, under such regulations as may be agreed -upon for said discussion; and I suggest for our mutual convenience -that, either by yourself or by two gentlemen whom you shall designate, -you may meet two gentlemen whom I will select for the purpose of making -all necessary arrangements for the debate, with as little delay as -possible. May I hope for a reply at your earliest convenience, and at -least not later than 3 o'clock to-day? -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, etc., -</p> -<p class="right">J. P. NEWMAN. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 6th, 1870. -</p> -<p>REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: -</p> -<p>Sir:—Yours of even date has just been received, in answer to which I -have to inform you that no challenge was ever given by me to any person -through the columns of the "Salt Lake Daily Telegraph," and this is the -first information I have received that any such challenge ever appeared. -</p> -<p>You have been mis-informed with regard to the "Salt Lake Daily -Telegraph;" it was not my journal, but was owned and edited by Dr. -Fuller, of Chicago, who was not a member of our church, and I was not -acquainted with its columns. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">BRIGHAM YOUNG. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870. -</p> -<p>TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG: -</p> -<p>Sir:—I confess my disappointment at the contents of your note in reply -to mine of this date. In the far East it is impossible to distinguish -the local relations between yourself and those papers which advocate -the interests of your Church; and when the copy of the "Telegraph" -containing the article of the 3rd of May last, reached Washington, the -only construction put upon it by my friends was that it was a challenge -to me to come to your city and discuss the Bible doctrine of polygamy. -</p> -<p>Had I chosen to put a different construction on that article, and -to take no further notice of it, you could then have adopted the -"Telegraph" as your organ and the said article as a challenge, which -I either could not or dared not accept. That I am justified in this -construction is clear from the following facts: -</p> -<p>1. The article in the "Telegraph," of May 3rd, contains these -expressions, alluding to my sermon as reported in the N. Y. "Herald," -it says: "The discourse was a lengthened argument to prove that the -Bible does not sustain polygamy. * * * * * * * * The sermon should have -been delivered in the New Tabernacle in this city, with ten thousand -Mormons to listen to it, and then Elder Orson Pratt, or some prominent -Mormon, should have had a hearing on the other side and the people been -allowed to decide. * * * * * Dr. Newman, by his very sermon, recognizes -the religious element of the question. * * * * Let us have a fair -contest of peaceful argument and let the best side win. * * * We will -publish their notices in the "Telegraph," report their discourses as -far as possible, use every influence in our power, if any is needed, -to secure them the biggest halls and crowded congregations, and we -are satisfied that every opportunity will be given them to conduct a -campaign. We base this last remark on a statement made last Sunday week -in the Tabernacle by President Geo. A. Smith, that the public halls -throughout the Territory have been and would be open to clergymen of -other denominations coming to Utah to preach. * * * Come on and convert -them by the peaceful influences of the Bible instead of using the means -now proposed. Convince them by reason and Scriptural argument and no -Cullom Bill will be required." -</p> -<p>2. I understand the article containing the above expressions, was -written by Elder Sloan, of the Mormon Church, and at that time -associate editor of the "Telegraph;" and that he was, and has since -been, in constant intercourse with yourself. The expressions of the -said article, as above cited, were the foundation of the impression -throughout the country, that a challenge had thus been given -through the columns of the "Telegraph," and as such, I myself, had -no alternative but so to regard and accept it. I may add that I am -informed that an impression prevailed here in Utah, that a challenge -had been given and accepted. Under this impression I have acted from -that day to this, having myself both spoken of and seen allusions to -the anticipated discussion in several prominent papers of the country. -</p> -<p>3. It was not till after my arrival in your city last evening, in -pursuance of this impression, that I learned the fact that the same -Elder Sloan, in the issue of the "Salt Lake Herald," of Aug. 3rd, -attempts for the first time to disabuse the public of the idea so -generally prevalent. Still acting in good faith and knowing that -you had never denied or recalled the challenge of the 3rd of May, I -informed you of my presence in your city and of the object of my visit -here. -</p> -<p>My note this morning with your reply, will serve to put the matter -before the public in its true light and dispel the impression of very -many in all parts of the country, that such a challenge had been given -and that such a discussion would be held. -</p> -<p>Feeling that I have now fully discharged my share of the responsibility -in the case, it only remains for me to subscribe myself, as before, -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">J. P. NEWMAN. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870. -</p> -<p>REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: -</p> -<p>Sir:—It will be a pleasure to us, if you will address our congregation -to-morrow morning, the 7th inst., in the small Tabernacle at 10 a. m., -or, should you prefer it, in the New Tabernacle at 2 p. m., same inst., -or both morning and evening. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">BRIGHAM YOUNG. -</p> -<p>P. S. I hope to hear from you immediately. -</p> -<p class="lessright">B. Y. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870, Eight o'clock, P.M. -</p> -<p>TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG: -</p> -<p>Sir:—In reply to your note just received to preach in the Tabernacle -to-morrow, I have to say that after disclaiming and declining, as you -have done to-day, the discussion which I came here to hold, other -arrangements to speak in the city were accepted by me, which will -preclude my compliance with your invitation. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">J. P. NEWMAN. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 6, 1870. -</p> -<p>REV. DR. NEWMAN: -</p> -<p>Sir:—In accordance with our usual custom of tendering clergymen of -every denomination, passing through our city, the opportunity of -preaching in our tabernacles of worship, I sent you, this afternoon, -an invitation tendering you the use of the small Tabernacle in the -morning, or the New Tabernacle in the afternoon, or both, at your -pleasure, which you have seen proper to decline. -</p> -<p>You charge me with "disclaiming and declining the discussion" which -you came here to hold. I ask you, sir, what right have you to charge -me with declining a challenge which I never gave you, or, to assume -as a challenge from me, the writing of any unauthorized newspaper -editor? Admitting that you could distort the article in question to -be a challenge from me, (which I do not believe you conscientiously -could) was it not the duty of a gentleman to ascertain whether I was -responsible for the so-called challenge before your assumption of such -a thing? And certainly much more so before making your false charges. -</p> -<p>Your assertion that if you had not chosen to construe the article -in question as a challenge from me, I "could then have adopted the -'Telegraph' as your [my] organ and the said article as a challenge," -is an insinuation, in my judgment, very discreditable to yourself, and -ungentlemanly in the extreme, and forces the conclusion that the author -of it would not scruple to make use of such a subterfuge himself. -</p> -<p>You say that Mr. Sloan is the author of the article; if so, he is -perfectly capable of defending it, and I have no doubt you will find -him equally willing to do so; or Professor Orson Pratt, whose name, it -appears, is the only one suggested in the article. I am confident he -would be willing to meet you, as would hundreds of our elders, whose -fitness and respectability I would consider beyond question. -</p> -<p>In conclusion I will ask, What must be the opinion of every candid, -reflecting mind, who views the facts as they appear? Will they -not conclude that this distortion of the truth in accusing me of -disclaiming and declining a challenge, which I never even contemplated, -is unfair and ungentlemanly in the extreme and must have been invented -with some sinister motive? Will they not consider it a paltry and -insignificant attempt, on your part, to gain notoriety, regardless of -the truth? This you may succeed in obtaining; but I am free to confess, -as my opinion, that you will find such notoriety more unenviable -than profitable, and as disgraceful, too, as it is unworthy of your -profession. -</p> -<p>If you think you are capable of proving the doctrine of "Plurality of -Wives" unscriptural, tarry here as a missionary; we will furnish you -the suitable place, the congregation, and plenty of our elders, any of -whom will discuss with you on that or any other scriptural doctrine. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">BRIGHAM YOUNG. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, Aug. 8th, 1870. -</p> -<p>TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG. -</p> -<p>Sir:—Your last note, delivered to me on Sunday morning, and to which, -of course, I would not on that day reply, does not at all surprise me. -</p> -<p>It will be, however, impossible for you to conceal from the public -the truth, that with the full knowledge of my being present in your -city for the purpose of debating with you or your representative the -question of polygamy, you declined to enter into any arrangements for -such a discussion; and after this fact was ascertained, I felt at -liberty to comply with a subsequent request from other parties, which -had been fully arranged before the reception of your note of invitation -to preach in your Tabernacles. -</p> -<p>I must frankly say that I regard your professed courtesy, extended -under the circumstances, as it was, a mere device to cover, if -possible, your unwillingness to have a fair discussion of the matter in -question in the hearing of your people. -</p> -<p>Your comments upon "disclaiming and declining the discussion" are -simply a reiteration of the disclaimer; while, in regard to your notice -of my construction of the article in the Telegraph of May last, I -have only to leave the representations you have seen fit to make to -the judgment of a candid public sure to discover who it is that has -been resorting to "subterfuge" in this affair. Your intimation that -Elder Sloan, Prof. Pratt, or hundreds of other Mormon elders, would -be willing to discuss the question of Polygamy with me from a Bible -standpoint, and your impertinent suggestion that I tarry here as a -missionary for that purpose, I am compelled to regard as cheap and safe -attempts to avoid the appearance of shrinking from such a discussion by -seeming to invite it after it had, by your own action, been rendered -impossible. As to the elders you speak of, including yourself, being -ready to meet me in public debate, I have to say that I came here -with that understanding and expectation, but it was rudely dispelled, -on being definitely tested. Were it possible to reduce these vague -suggestions of yours to something like a distinct proposition for a -debate, there is still nothing in your action, so far, to assure me -of your sincerity, but, on the contrary, every thing to cause me to -distrust it. -</p> -<p>I have one more point of remark. You have insinuated that my motive is -a thirst for "notoriety." I can assure you that if I had been animated -by such a motive, you give me small credit for good sense by supposing -that I would employ such means. Neither you, nor the system of which -you are the head, could afford me any "notoriety" to be desired. -</p> -<p>But, to show how far I have been governed by merely personal -aspirations, let the simple history of the case be recalled. -</p> -<p>You send your Delegate to Congress who, in the House of -Representatives, and in sight and hearing of the whole Nation, throws -down the gauntlet upon the subject of Polygamy as treated in the Bible. -Being Chaplain of the American Senate, and having been consulted by -several public men, I deemed it my duty to preach upon the subject. The -discourse was published in tho New York "Herald," and on this reaching -your city one of your Elders published an article which is generally -construed as a challenge to me to debate the question with you, or -some one whom you should appoint, here in your tabernacle. Acting upon -this presumption, I visit your city, taking the earliest opportunity -to inform you, as the head of the Mormon Church, of my purpose, and -suggesting the steps usual in such cases. You then reply, ignoring the -whole subject, but without a hint of your "pleasure" about my preaching -in the Tabernacle. -</p> -<p>Subsequently other arrangements were made which precluded my accepting -any invitation to speak in your places of worship. The day passed away, -and after sunset I received your note of invitation, my reply to which -will answer for itself. And this can intimate is an attempt on my part -to obtain an "unenviable notoriety." -</p> -<p>Sir, I have done with you—make what representation of the matter you -think proper you will not succeed in misleading the discriminating -people either of this Territory or of the country generally by any -amount of verbiage you may choose to employ. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, etc., -</p> -<p class="right">J. P. NEWMAN. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p>[The communication referred to in the letter below was addressed to Dr. -Newman by five persons, who asked him whether it was a fact that he -was unwilling to debate the question of polygamy now and here, as that -was the impression, they say, the Deseret Evening News and <em>Salt Lake -Herald</em>, conveyed.] -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, Aug. 9th, 1870. -</p> -<p>TO MR. BRIGHAM YOUNG: -</p> -<p>Sir:—In view of the inclosed communications, received from several -citizens of this place asking whether I am ready now and here to debate -the question "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" with you, as the Chief -of the Church of Latter-day Saints, and in view of the defiant tone -of your Church journals of last evening and this morning; and in view -of the fact that I have been here now four days waiting to have you -inform me of your willingness to meet me in public discussion on the -above question, but having received no such intimation up to this time -of writing, therefore, I do now and here challenge you to meet me in -personal and public debate on the aforesaid question. I respectfully -suggest that you appoint two gentlemen to meet Rev. Dr. Sunderland and -Dr. J. P. Taggart, who represent me, to make all necessary arrangements -for the discussion. -</p> -<p>Be kind enough to favor me with an immediate reply. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">J. P. NEWMAN. -</p> -<p>Residence of Rev. Mr. Pierce. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, U. T., August 9th, 1870. -</p> -<p>REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: -</p> -<p>Sir:—Your communication of to-day's date, with accompanying enclosure, -was handed to me a few moments since by Mr. Black. -</p> -<p>In reply, I will say that I accept the challenge to debate the question -"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" Professor Orson Pratt or Hon. John -Taylor acting as my representative, and in my stead in the discussion. -I will furnish the place of holding the meetings, and appoint two -gentlemen to meet Messrs. Sunderland and Taggart, to whom you refer as -your representatives, to make the necessary arrangements. -</p> -<p>I wish the discussion to be conducted in a mild, peaceable, quiet -spirit, that the people may receive light and intelligence and all be -benefitted; and then let the congregation decide for themselves. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">BRIGHAM YOUNG. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">City, Aug. 9th, 1870 -</p> -<p>REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: -</p> -<p>Sir:—I have appointed Messrs A. Carrington and Jos. W. Young to meet -with Messrs Sunderland and Taggart, to arrange preliminaries for the -discussion. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">BRIGHAM YOUNG. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, Aug. 9th, 1870. -</p> -<p>TO MR. BRIGHAM YOUNG: -</p> -<p>Sir:—I challenged you to a discussion and not Orson Pratt or John -Taylor. You have declined to debate personally with me. Let the public -distinctly understand this fact, whatever may have been your reasons -for so declining. Here I think I might reasonably rest the case. -However, if Orson Pratt is prepared to take the affirmative of the -question, "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" I am prepared to take -the negative, and Messrs. Sunderland and Taggart will meet Messrs. -Carrington and Young to-night at 8 o'clock at the office of Mr. Taggart -to make the necessary arrangements. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, etc., -</p> -<p class="right">J. P. NEWMAN. -</p> -<p class="centered">———</p> -<p class="right">Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 10th, 1870. -</p> -<p>REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: -</p> -<p>Sir:—I am informed by Messrs. Carrington and Young that at their -meeting last evening with Drs. Sunderland and Taggart they were unable -to come to a decision with regard to the wording of the subject of -debate. -</p> -<p>Bearing in mind the following facts: Firstly, that you are the -challenging party. Secondly, That in a sermon delivered by you in the -city of Washington, before President Grant and his Cabinet, Members of -Congress and many other prominent gentlemen, you assumed to prove that -"God's law condemns the union in marriage of more than two persons," it -certainly seems strange that your representatives should persistently -refuse to have any other question discussed than the one "Does the -Bible sanction Polygamy?" It appears to the representatives of Mr. -Pratt that if Dr. Newman could undertake to prove in Washington that -"God's law condemns the union in marriage of more than two persons," -he ought not to refuse to make the same affirmation in Salt Lake City. -Mr. Pratt, I discover, entertains the same opinion, but rather than -permit the discussion to fall, he will not press for your original -proposition, but will accept the question as you now state it: "Does -the Bible sanction Polygamy?" -</p> -<p>I sincerely trust that none of the gentlemen forming the committee will -encumber the discussion with unnecessary regulations, which will be -irksome to both parties and unproductive of good, and that no obstacles -will be thrown in the way of having a free and fair discussion. -</p> -<p class="lessright">Respectfully, -</p> -<p class="right">BRIGHAM YOUNG. -</p> - - -<h2><a name="THE"></a>THE -<br>BIBLE AND POLYGAMY. -</h2> -<p class="centered">DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY? -</p> -<p class="centered">DISCUSSION BETWEEN PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT AND DR. J. P. NEWMAN, CHAPLAIN -OF THE U. S. SENATE, IN THE NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, AUGUST 12, -13 AND 14, 1870. -</p> - - -<h2><a name="FIRSTDAY"></a>FIRST DAY. -</h2> -<p>At two o'clock yesterday afternoon Professor Pratt and Dr. Newman, with -their friends and the umpires, met in the stand of the New Tabernacle: -the two former gentlemen prepared for the discussion of the question, -"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" An audience of three or four -thousand—at least half of which was of the gentler sex—assembled -to hear the discussion. At a few minutes past two, the audience was -called to order by Judge C. M. Hawley, the umpire of Dr. Newman, on the -negative, he (fortunately we presume) being absent from his district -at this juncture—and Elder John Taylor offered the opening prayer. -The same umpire, who somehow or other had got the idea that he was the -master of ceremonies on the occasion, and that he would relieve the -umpire of the affirmative side from all his duties, then introduced -Professor Pratt to the audience, which, as the professor was so well -known and the umpire almost unknown, created a slight titter, which, -however, speedily subsided, and the assemblage listened quietly to the -</p> -<h3>ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT. -</h3> -<p>I appear before this audience to discuss a subject that is certainly -important to us, and no doubt is interesting to the country at large, -namely: the subject of plurality of wives, or, as the question is -stated: "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" I would state, by way of -apology to the audience, that I have been unaccustomed, nearly all -my life, to debate. It is something new to me. I do not recollect of -ever having held more than one or two debates, in the course of my -life, on any subject. I think the last one was some thirty years ago, -in the city of Edinburgh. But I feel great pleasure this afternoon -in appearing before this audience for the purpose of examining the -question under discussion. I shall simply read what is stated in the -Bible, and make such remarks as I may consider proper upon the occasion. -</p> -<p>I will call your attention to a passage which will be found in -Deuteronomy, the 21st Chapter, from the 15th to the 17th verse: -</p><blockquote> -<p> If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they - have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the - first-born be hers that was hated: Then it shall be when, he maketh - his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son - of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is indeed - the first-born: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the - first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he - is the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. -</p></blockquote> -<p>Here is a law, in the words of the Great Law-giver himself, the Lord, -who spake to Moses; and it certainly must be a sanction of a plurality -of wives, for it is given to regulate inheritances in families of -that description, as well as in families wherein the first wife may -have been divorced, or may be dead; wives contemporary and wives that -are successive. It refers to both classes; and inasmuch as plurality -of wives is nowhere condemned in the law of God, we have a right to -believe from this law that plurality of wives is just as legal and -proper as that of the marriage of a single wife. This is the ground -we are forced to take until we can find some law, some evidence, some -testimony to the contrary. They are acknowledged as wives in this -passage, at least—"If a man have two wives." It is well known that -the House of Israel at that time practised both monogamy and polygamy. -They were not exclusively monogamists; neither were they exclusively -polygamists. There were monogamic families existing in Israel in those -days, and therefore in the Lord giving this He referred not only to -successive wives, where a man had married after the death of his first -wife, or if the first wife had been divorced for some legal cause, but -to wives who were contemporary, as there were many families in Israel, -which can be proved if necessary, that were polygamists. I might here -refer to the existence of this principle concerning the rights of the -first-born in monogamic and polygamic families prior to the date of -this law. This seems to have been given to regulate a question that had -a prior existence. I will refer, before I proceed from this passage, -to the monogamic family of Isaac, wherein we have the declaration that -Esau and Jacob, being twins, had a dispute, or at least there was -an ill feeling on the part of Esau, because Jacob at a certain time -had purchased the right of the first-born—that is, his birth-right. -The first-born, though twins, and perhaps a few moments intervening -between the first and second, or only a short time, had rights, and -those rights were respected and honored centuries before the days of -Moses. This was a monogamic family, so far as we are informed; for if -Isaac had more than one wife, the Bible does not inform us. We come -to Jacob, who was a polygamist, and whose first-born son pertained to -the father and not to the mother. There were not four first-born sons -to Jacob who were entitled to the rights of the first-born, but only -one. The first-born to Jacob was Reuben, and he would have retained -the birth-right had he not transgressed the law of heaven. Because -of transgression he lost that privilege. It was taken from him and -given to Joseph, or rather to the two sons of Joseph, as you will find -recorded in the fifth chapter of 1st Chronicles. Here then the rights -of the first-born were acknowledged, in both polygamic and monogamic -families, before the law under consideration was given. The House of -Israel was not only founded in polygamy, but the two wives of Jacob, -and the two handmaidens, that were also called his wives, were the -women with whom he begat the twelve sons from whom the twelve tribes of -Israel sprang; and polygamy having existed and originated as it were -with Israel or Jacob, in that nation, was continued among them from -generation to generation down until the coming of Christ; and these -laws therefore were intended to regulate an institution already in -existence. If the law is limited to monogamic families only, it will -devolve upon my learned opponent to bring forth evidence to establish -this point. -</p> -<p>We will next refer to a passage which will be found in Exodus 21st -chapter, 10th verse. It may be well to read the three preceding -verses, commencing with the 7th: "And if a man sell his daughter to be -a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men servants do. If she -please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he -let her be redeemed; to sell her into a strange nation he shall have -no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he hath -betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner -of daughters. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment and -her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." Also the following verse, -the 11th: "And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go -out free without money." I think from the nature of this passage that -it certainly does have reference to two lawful wives. It may be that -objection will be taken to the word "wife"—"another wife"—from the -fact that it is in Italics, and was so placed by the translators of -King James, according to the best judgment they could form, taking -into consideration the text. I do not intend at present to dwell at -any great length upon this passage, merely declaring that this does -sanction plurality of wives, so far as my judgment and opinion are -concerned, and so far as the literal reading of the Scripture exhibits -it does sanction the taking of another wife, while the first is still -living. If this word "wife" could be translated "woman," that perhaps -might alter the case, providing it can be proved that it should be so -from the original, which may be referred to on this point, and it may -not. We have the privilege, I believe, of taking the Bible according -to King James' translation, or of referring to the original, providing -we can find any original. But so far as the original is concerned, -from which this was translated, it is not in existence. The last -information we have of the original manuscripts from which this was -translated, is that they were made into the form of kites and used for -amusement, instead of being preserved. With regard to a great many -other manuscripts, they may perhaps agree with the original of King -James' translation, or they may not. We have testimony and evidence in -the Encyclopedia Metropolitana that the original manuscripts contained -a vast number of readings, differing materially one from the other. We -have this statement from some of the best informed men, and in several -instances it has been stated that there are 30,000 different readings -of these old original manuscripts from which the Bible was translated. -Men might dispute over these readings all the days of their lives and -there would be a difference of opinion, there were so many of them. -This, then, is another law, regulating, in my estimation, polygamy. -</p> -<p>I will now refer to another law on the subject of polygamy, in the -25th chapter of Deuteronomy—I do not recollect the verse, but I -will soon find it—it commences at the 5th verse. "If brethren dwell -together"—Now, it is well enough in reading this, to refer to the -margin, as we have the privilege of appealing to it, so you will find -in the margin the words "next kinsmen," or "brethren." "If brethren—or -next kinsmen—dwell together:" -</p><blockquote> -<p> If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, - the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her - husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, - and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. -</p> -<p> And it shall be, that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed - in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out - of Israel. -</p> -<p> And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his - brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My - husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in - Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. -</p> -<p> Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if - he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; -</p> -<p> Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the - elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, - and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will - not build up his brother's house. -</p> -<p> And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his - shoe loosed. -</p></blockquote> -<p>It may be asked, What has this to do with polygamy? I answer that as -the law is general, it is binding upon brethren and upon all near -kinsmen dwelling together. Not unmarried brethren or unmarried kinsmen, -but the married and unmarried. The law is general. If it can be proved -from the original, or from any source whatever, that the law is not -general, then the point will have to be given up. But if that cannot -be proven, then here is a law that not only sanctions polygamy, but -commands it; and if we can find one law where a command is given, -then plurality of wives would be established on a permanent footing, -equal in legality to that of monogamy. This law of God absolutely -does command all persons, whether married or unmarried, it makes no -difference—brethren dwelling together, or near kinsmen dwelling -together—which shows that it is not unmarried persons living in the -same house that are meant, but persons living together in the same -neighborhood, in the same country in Israel, as it is well known that -Israel in ancient days did so dwell together; and the law was binding -upon them. This was calculated to make a vast number of polygamists -in Israel from that day until the coming of Christ. And the Christian -religion must have admitted these polygamists into the Church, because -they would have been condemned if they had not observed this law. -There was a penalty attached to it, and they could not be justified -and refuse to obey it. Hence there must have been hundreds, perhaps -thousands, of polygamists in Israel, when Jesus came, who were living -in obedience to this law and who would have been condemned if they had -disobeyed it. When the gospel was preached to them, if they could not -have been admitted into the Christian Church without divorcing their -wives God would have been unjust to them, for if they, through their -obedience to God's law, should have been cut off from the gospel, would -it not have been both inconsistent and unjust? But as there is no law -either in the Old or New Testament against polygamy, and as we here -find polygamy commanded, we must come to the conclusion that it is a -legal form of marriage. We cannot come to any other conclusion, for -it stands on a par with the monogamic form of marriage; consequently, -wherever we find either righteous men or wicked men, whatever may be -their practices in the course of their lives, it does not affect the -legality of their marriage with one wife or with two wives. -</p> -<p>We may refer you to Cain, who had but one wife, so far as we are -informed. He was a monogamist. He was also a very wicked man, having -killed his own brother. We find he was driven out into the land of -Nod. Of course, as the Lord had not created any females in the land of -Nod, Cain must have taken his wife with him, and there was born a son -to him in that land. Shall we condemn monogamy and say it was sinful -because Cain was a murderer? No; that will never do. We can bring no -argument of this kind to destroy monogamy, or the one-wife system, and -make it illegal. We come down to the days of Lamech. He was another -murderer. He happened to be a polygamist; but he did not commit his -murder in connection with polygamy, so far as the Scriptures give any -information. There is no connection between the law of polygamy and -the murder he committed in slaying a young man. Does that, therefore, -invalidate the marriage of two persons to Lamech? No; it stands on just -as good ground as the case of Cain, who was a monogamist and a murderer -also. -</p> -<p>Adam was a monogamist. But was there any law given to Adam to prevent -him taking another wife? If there was such a law, it is not recorded in -King James' translation. If there be such a law recorded, perhaps it is -in some of the originals that differed so much from each other. It may -be argued, in the case of Adam, that the Lord created but one woman to -begin the peopling of this earth. If the Lord saw proper to create but -one woman for that purpose, he had a perfect right to do so. -</p> -<p>The idea that that has any bearing upon the posterity of Adam because -the Lord did not create two women would be a very strange idea indeed. -There are a great many historical facts recorded concerning the days -of Adam that were not to be examples to his posterity. For instance, -he was ordered to cultivate the garden of Eden—one garden. Was that -any reason why his posterity should not cultivate two gardens? Would -any one draw the conclusion that, because God gave a command to Adam -to cultivate the garden of Eden, to dress it and keep it, that his -posterity to the latest time should all have one garden each, and -no more? There is no expression of a law in these matters; they are -simply historical facts. Again, God gave him clothing on a certain -occasion, the Lord himself being the tailor—clothing to cover the -nakedness of Adam and of Eve his wife; and this clothing was made from -the skins of beasts. This is a historical fact. Will any one say that -all the posterity of Adam shall confine their practice in accordance -with this historical fact? Or that it was an expression of law from -which they must not deviate? By no means. If the posterity of Adam see -fit to manufacture clothing out of wool, or flax, or cotton, or any -other material whatever, would any one argue in this day that they -were acting in violation of the law of the Divine Creator, of a law -expressed and commanded in the early ages? Why, no. We should think -a man had lost all powers of reason who would argue this way. As our -delegate remarked in his speech, Adam had taken all the women in the -world, or that were made for him. If there had been more, he might have -taken them: there was nothing in the law to limit him. -</p> -<p>I would like to dwell upon this longer, but I have many other passages -to which I wish to draw your attention. The next passage to which I -will refer, you will find in Numbers, 31st chapter, 17th and 18th -verses. This chapter gives us a history of the proceedings of this -mixed race of polygamists and monogamists called Israel. At a certain -time they went out to battle against the nation of Midianites; and -having smote the men, they took all the women captives, as you will -find in the 9th verse. Commencing at the 15th verse, we read: -</p><blockquote> -<p> And Moses said unto them have ye saved all the women alive? Behold - these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to - commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was - a plague among the congregation of the Lord. -</p></blockquote> -<p>You will recollect the case of some Midianitish women being brought -into the camp of Israel contrary to the law of God, not being wives; -and Israel with them sinned and transgressed the law of heaven, and the -Lord sent an awful plague into their midst for this transgression. Now, -here was a large number of women saved, and Moses, finding they were -brought into camp, said these had caused the children of Israel to sin; -and he gave command: "Now, therefore, kill every male among the little -ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But -all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, -keep alive for yourselves." How many were there of this great company -that they were to keep alive for themselves? There was something very -strange in this. If they had caused Israel to sin why spare them? Or -why keep them alive for themselves? That they might have them lawfully. -Some may say to have them as servants, not as wives. Some might have -been kept as servants and not as wives, but would there not have been -great danger of Israel sinning again with so many thousand servants, -as they were the same women who had brought the plague into the camp -of Israel before? How many were there of these women? Thirty-two -thousand, as you will find in another verse of the same chapter. And -these were divided up as you will also find, in the latter part of the -same chapter, among the children of Israel. Those who stayed at home -from the war took a certain portion—sixteen thousand in number; those -who went to the war, including the Levites, took the remaining sixteen -thousand. -</p> -<p>Now to show that polygamy was practised among the children of Israel in -taking captive women, let me refer you to another passage of Scripture, -in Deuteronomy, 21st chapter, commencing at the 10th verse. -</p><blockquote> -<p> When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy - God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them - captive; -</p> -<p> And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto - her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; -</p> -<p> Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her - head, and pare her nails; -</p> -<p> And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall - remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full - month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, - and she shall be thy wife. -</p> -<p> And it shall be. If thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let - her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, - thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. -</p></blockquote> -<p>Now, this law was given to a nation, as I have already shown, which -practised polygamy as well as monogamy; and consequently if a -polygamist saw a woman, a beautiful woman, among the captives; or if a -monogamist saw a beautiful woman among the captives; or if an unmarried -man saw a beautiful woman among the captives, the law being general, -they had an equal right to take them as wives. This will explain the -reason why the Lord told Israel to save thirty-two thousand Midianitish -women alive for themselves. It will be recollected that the Israelites -had a surplus of women. I have no need to refer to the destruction -of the males that had been going on for a long period of time—about -eighty years, until Moses went to deliver Israel from Egypt. During -this time females were spared alive, making a surplus of them in the -midst of Israel; but the Lord saw there was not enough, and He made -provision for more by commanding them to spare these captive women and -keep them alive for themselves. If my opponent, who will follow me, -can bring forth any evidence from the law of God, or from the passage -under consideration, to prove that this law was limited to unmarried -men, all right; we will yield the point, if there can be evidence -brought forward to that effect. "When you go forth to war if you see a -beautiful woman"—not you unmarried men alone, but all that go forth to -war. -</p> -<p>The next passage to which I will refer you, where God absolutely -commands polygamy, will be found in Exodus, 22nd chapter, 16th and 17th -verses: -</p><blockquote> -<p> And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he - shall surely endow her to be his wife. -</p> -<p> If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money - according to the dowry of virgins. -</p></blockquote> -<p>There is the law of Exodus; now let us turn to the law of Deuteronomy, -22nd chapter, 28th and 29th verses, on the same subject: -</p><blockquote> -<p> If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and - lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; -</p> -<p> Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father - fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath - humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -</p></blockquote> -<p>Does this mean an unmarried man? The law was given to a nation wherein -both forms of marriage were recognized, and wherein single men existed. -If it does mean single men alone, we would like to hear the proof. The -law is general. Whether married or unmarried, whether a monogamist -or polygamist, if he committed this crime, if he found a maid and -committed the crime there specified, of seduction, there is the law; -he shall marry her, and shall not only marry her, but shall pay a fine -of fifty shekels of silver to the father. This was the penalty; not -that they were justified in the act. It mattered not whether he was a -polygamist, a monogamist, or an unmarried man, he must comply with the -law as a penalty. That was another command establishing and sanctioning -polygamy, sanctioning it by Divine command. If this law could have -been put in force in modern times, among modern Christian nations, -what a vast amount of evil would have been avoided in the earth. It -is proverbial that among all the nations of modern Europe, as well as -in our own great nation—Christian nations—there is a vast amount of -prostitution, houses of ill-lame, and prostitutes of various forms; -now, if this law, which God gave to Israel, had been re-enacted by the -law-makers and legislatures and parliaments of these various nations, -what would have been the consequence? In a very short time there would -not have been a house of ill-fame in existence. Their inmates would -have all been married off to their seducers, or their patrons; for who -does not know that females would far rather be married than prostitute -themselves as they do at the present time? And they would lie in wait -to entrap this man and that man, and the other man, to get out of these -brothels, and, as the law is general, if the same law had existed in -our day, it would soon have broken up houses of ill-fame. There might -have been some secret evils; but it would have broken up the "social -evil." -</p> -<p>The next passage to which I will refer you is in 2nd Chronicles, 24th -chapter, 2nd, 3rd, 15th and 18th verses: -</p><blockquote> -<p> And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the - days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives, and - he begat sons and daughters. -</p></blockquote> -<p>According to the ideas of monogamists, Jehoiada must have been a very -wicked man, and Joash "a beastly polygamist" for taking two wives. We -will take the man who received the wives first. Joash, who received the -wives from the highest authority God had on the earth, did "right in -the sight of the Lord, all the days of Jehoiada the priest." What! Did -he do right when Jehoiada took two wives for him and gave them to him? -Yes; so says the word of God, the Bible, and you know the question is -"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" But what a dreadful priest that man -must have been, according to the arguments of monogamists! Let us see -what kind of a character he appears. In this same chapter, 28th verse, -if I recollect aright: (looking). No, in the 15th and 16th verses we -read: -</p><blockquote> -<p> But Jehoiada waxed old, and was full of days when he died; a hundred - and thirty years old was he when he died. And they buried him in the - city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, - both toward God, and toward his house. -</p></blockquote> -<p>"Because he had done good in Israel, both toward God and towards his -house," they buried him among the kings, honored him in that manner; -and the reason why they did bestow this great honor upon him was -because he had done good. In the first place he had given two wives -to Joash, which was a very good act, for he was the highest authority -God had upon the earth at that time; and God sanctioned polygamy by -lengthening out the age of this man to 130 years, a very long age in -those days. -</p> -<p>But I shall have to hasten on, although there are many passages which I -have not time to quote. The next will be found in Hosea, 1st chapter, -2nd and 3rd verses: "The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea." -This was the introduction of Hosea as a prophet. No doubt he brought -the evidence as a prophet; and in the beginning of the word of God -through Hosea, to the world, he must have come with great proof. The -first thing the Lord said to him, was "Go take unto thee a wife of -whoredoms." In the 3rd verse it says: "So he went and took Gomer, the -daughter of Diblain." If such a thing had occurred in our day; if a -man had come forth, professing to be a prophet, and the first thing he -said as a prophet was that the Lord had revealed to him that he was -to go and take a wife of such a character, what would be thought of -him? Yet he was a true prophet. Was this the only wife God commanded -Hosea to take? No. The Lord said—"Go yet, love a woman beloved of -her friends, yet an adulteress"—See chapter 3rd. What, love a woman, -an adulteress, when he already had a wife of very bad character! Take -wives of such disgraceful reputation! Yet God commanded this, and he -must be obeyed. This did not justify any other prophet in doing so. -Jeremiah would not have been justified in doing the same. But this was -a command of God, given to Hosea alone. It was not given as a pattern -for any other man to follow after, or for the people of this generation -to observe. Yet it was given in this instance. "But," inquires one, -"does not the Lord require such characters to be put to death?" Yes; -but in this instance, it seems, the Lord deviated from this law; for -He commanded a holy prophet to go and marry two women. This recalls -to my mind the law given to Israel, recorded in Deuteronomy, where -the Lord commanded the law of consanguinity to be broken. You will -recollect that in two different chapters the Lord pointed out who -should not marry within certain degrees of consanguinity; yet in the -25th chapter of Deuteronomy he commanded brethren, who dwell together, -and near kinsmen, to break that law, which was a justification in -part to not regard the law of consanguinity. God has the right to -alter his commands as he pleases. Go back to the days of Noah, and -the command was given: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his -blood be shed;" yet the same God commanded Abraham, that good man who -is up yonder in the kingdom of God, according to the New Testament, to -take his son Isaac and slay him and offer him up as a burnt offering. -Here is one command in opposition to another. Consequently, God does -sometimes give a command in opposition to another, but they are not -examples for you or me to follow. Supposing I should prove by ten -thousand examples from the Bible that polygamy was practised in ancient -Israel, is that a reason why you and I should practise it. No; we must -have a command for ourselves. God sometimes repeats a command. The -Latter-day Saints in this Territory practise polygamy; not because God -commanded it in ancient times, not because Moses gave laws to regulate -it; not because it was practised by good men of ancient times— -</p> -<p>(At this point the umpires said the time was up.) -</p> -<p>Judge C. M. Hawley then introduced Dr. J. P. Newman, who proceeded to -deliver the following -</p> -<h3>ARGUMENT. -</h3> -<p>Honorable Umpires and -</p> -<p class="centered">Ladies and Gentlemen: -</p> -<p>The question for our consideration is "Does the Bible sanction -Polygamy?" It is of the utmost importance that we proceed to the -discussion of this question and the unfolding of its elements at -once; and therefore, that we lose no time, we propose to analyze the -question. I had desired nine hours to speak on this great subject; -but by mutual consent the time has been reduced to three. In view of -this fact I, therefore, proceed at once to the consideration of the -elements of the question "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" Every word -is emphatic. Does the Bible—the Bible—God's word, whether in the -original text or in the translation which is accepted by Christendom, -as the revealed will of God; this old book which has come down from the -hoary past; this old book written by different men, under different -circumstances, yet for one great and grand object; this book that comes -to us under the authority of plenary inspiration, no matter what has -become of the manuscripts, whether lost in the flood or consumed in the -flame that burned the doomed Persepolis, no matter what has been their -destiny, we have the original, the Hebrew, the Septuagint and the Greek -translations; in the New Testament the Greek, which have been and are -accepted by the most eminent Biblical scholars; therefore the point -the gentleman makes that so many manuscripts are lost, is a bagatelle. -I throw it away, as useless as a rush. Would he have me infer that -because some manuscripts are lost, therefore that book is not the -authentic word of God and the revealed will of High Heaven? No; for him -to assume that is to assume that that book is not God's will. Supposing -that the original revelation, the pretended revelation, that you, here, -were to practise polygamy, was consumed in the flames by the wife of -Joseph Smith, does that invalidate the preserved copy which Mr. Joseph -Smith had in his bosom? Certainly not. I hold therefore that that old -book comes to us with authority; and that whatever has become of the -manuscripts which have been furnished, formed, arranged and handed down -to us, that is our standard. -</p> -<p>I am here to speak to the people, and I will be an organ to you in the -name of the Lord. -</p> -<p>But let us look at this book. It is a book of history and of biography, -of prophecy and precepts; of promises and of miracles; of laws and -precepts; of promises and threatenings; of poetry and of narrative. -It is to be judged by the ordinary rules of grammar, of rhetoric and -of logic. It is written in human language. There is a language spoken -by the persons in the Godhead, and had God revealed himself in that -language we could not have understood the terms. There is a language -spoken by the angels that blaze before the throne; had God spoken to -us in angelic language we could not have understood the terms. But -he took human language, with all its poverty and imperfections, and -with all its excellencies. He has spoken to us in terms by which we -can understand his pleasure concerning us. But it is a great fact, my -friends, that all that is written in the Bible is neither approved -by the Almighty, nor was it written for our imitation. Achan stole a -Babylonish garment and a wedge of gold. God did not approve the theft, -nor are those acts recorded in the Bible for our imitation. We are to -read Bible history as we read Xenophon, Tacitus, and Herodotus, and, in -modern times, Hume, Gibbon and Bancroft, with this distinction—when we -take down Herodotus, Tacitus, or others I have not mentioned, we are -not always sure that what we read is true, but we are sure that what is -recorded in the Bible is true, whether it be prophetic truth, mandatory -truth or historic truth. We should therefore make a distinction, -according to the kind of composition we are reading. If we are reading -history, read it as history, and make a distinction between what is -simply recorded as part and parcel of the record of a great nation, or -part and parcel of the record or biography of some eminent man, and -that which is recorded there for our imitation, for which we shall -have to give an account at God's bar. So take the poetry of the Bible. -Scriptural poetry is subject to the same rules as the poetry in Homer, -Virgil, Milton or Young, with this exception—that the poetry of the -Bible is used to convey a grand thought, and there is no redundancy of -thought or imagery in Bible poetry. -</p> -<p>We come to biography, and to my mind it is a sublime fact, and one -for which I thank God, that the inspired writers were impartial in -recording biographical history. They recorded the virtues and the -vices of men; they did not disguise the faults even of their eminent -friends, nor did they always stop to pronounce condemnation upon such; -but they recorded one and the other, just as they came along the stream -of time. It is this book, therefore, that is my standard in this -discussion, and it is composed of the Old and New Testament. The New -Testament holds the relation to the Old Testament of a commentary, in -a prominent sense. Christ comes along and gives an exposition of the -law of Moses; comes and gives an exposition of some of those grand -principles which underlie Christianity: and then his references to the -law of Moses simply prove this—that what Moses has said is true. Take -his exposition of the Ten Commandments, as they were given amid the -thunders of Mount Sinai, and you find that he has written a commentary -on the Decalogue, bringing out its hidden meaning, showing to us that -the man is an adulterer who not only marries more women than one, but -who looks on a woman with salacial lust. Such is the commentary on the -law, by the Lord Jesus Christ. -</p> -<p>Now does this book, the Old Testament and the New? Not what revelation -has been made to the Latter-day Saints; that is not to be brought -into this controversy; that is not the question in dispute. Whether -Joseph Smith or any other member of the Church of Latter-day Saints -has had a revelation from God; whether the holy canon was closed by -the apocalyptic revelations to John on the Isle of Patmos—even that -question is not to be dragged into this controversy. Neither the Mormon -Bible, nor the Book of Covenants, nor the revelations of yesterday or -to-day, or any other day; but the grand question is, Does that old -book—read in old England, read in Wales, read in Ireland, read in -Norway and Sweden, and read in this land of liberty—does that book -sanction polygamy? -</p> -<p>We now come to another important word—namely, does the Bible -sanction? Sanction! By the term sanction we mean command, consequently -the authority of positive, written, divine law, or whatever may be -reasonably held as equivalent to such law. It follows, therefore, that -toleration is not sanction. Sufferance is not sanction. Municipal -legislation is not sanction. An historical statement of prevailing -customs is not sanction. A faithful narrative of the life and example -of eminent men is not sanction. The remission of penalty is not -sanction. A providential blessing, bestowed upon general principles, -for an ulterior purpose, is not sanction. The only adequate idea of -sanction is the divine and positive approbation, plainly expressed, -either in definite statute or by such forms of conformation as -constitute a full and clear equivalent. It is in this sense that we -take the term sanction in the question before us. -</p> -<p>The next word in the question is, "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" -By which we mean, as it (the Bible) now stands. Not as it once was, -but as it now is; that is, the Bible taken as a whole. The question -is not, Did the Bible formerly sanction Polygamy? But rather, Does -it, at the present day, authorize and establish and approve it? Just -as we may say of the Constitution of the United States, not, Did it -sanction slavery? but, does it now sanction it? For it is a well known -principle of jurisprudence that if any thing have been repealed in -the supreme law of the land, which that law once authorized, then it -no longer sanctions the matter in question. It is so here, precisely; -for let us suppose for a moment that it could be proved that the -Bible once sanctioned polygamy, in the sense excepted, and that this -sanction has never been withdrawn, then we are bound to admit that the -affirmative has been sustained; but supposing, on the other hand, that -the Bible, as it is now, to-day, does not sanction polygamy, then we -have sustained the negative of the question. -</p> -<p>There is another word, and one of importance, and that is the term -polygamy. There are three words in this connection which should be -referred to. The first is polygamy, which is from the the Greek polus, -and gamos, the former meaning "many," and the latter "marriage" and -signifies a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time. When a -man has more wives than one, or a woman more husbands than one, at -the same time, the offender is punishable for polygamy. Such is the -fact in Christian countries. Polygamy is allowed in some countries, -as in Turkey. Turn to Webster's Dictionary, page 844, and we shall -find the word "polyandry," from polus, many and aner, man, meaning the -practice of females having more husbands than one at the same time, or -a plurality of husbands. Then there is another word—polygyny, from -the Greek polus, and gune, woman or female, the practice of having -more wives than one at the same time. The word, therefore, to be used, -is not polygamy, but polygyny, for polygamy signifies a man with more -wives than one, or a woman with more husbands than one; and it seems -to me that if a man can have more wives than one a woman has the same -right to have more husbands than one. Then the true word is polygyny, -and hereafter we will scout the word polygamy, and use the true word -polygyny. -</p> -<p>This question involves or supposes two systems of marriage: What is -commonly called polygamy and what is known as monogamy. On the one -hand a man with more than one wife; and on the other, a man with only -one wife. You observe therefore that these are two systems essentially -and radically different and distinct, the one from the other, and -especially so in this controversy. The material question to be decided -is, which is the authorized system of marriage, polygamy, or a -plurality of wives, or monogamy, or what it termed the one-wife system? -</p> -<p>Let us glance for a moment at some of the grand features of monogamy; -and we shall thereby see the distinction between the two systems of -marriage. Take, for instance, the design of marriage, as originally -established by the Almighty in the garden of Eden, in the time of man's -innocency. That design was three-fold: companionship, procreation and -prevention. Companionship is first: the soul is more than the body. -The union of two loving hearts is more than the union of two bodies. -Ere Eve was created or she beheld the rosy sky or breathed its balmy -atmosphere, God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will -make for him a helpmeet." The animals had passed in review before -Adam; but neither among the doves that plumed their pinions in the air -of Paradise; nor amid the fish of the deep, the beasts of the field, -nor the reptiles of the earth could a companion be found for man. -But a special exertion of divine power had to be put forth that this -companion should be made. And how was she made? A deep sleep is caused -to come upon the first man. There lies Adam upon the ambrosial floor of -Paradise, and out of his side a rib is taken, and out of that rib woman -was created. And when some one asked old Martin Luther—"Why did not -God Almighty make the woman out of some other bone of a man than out -of a rib?" The answer was: "He did not make woman out of man's head, -lest she should rule over him; He did not make her out of the bone of -man's foot, lest he should trample upon her; but He made her out of his -side, that she might be near his heart; from under his arm, that he -might protect her." The grand primary object of marriage, therefore, is -companionship—the union of two loving hearts. -</p> -<p>The next design is procreation. It has pleased Almighty God to people -the earth by the offspring coming from those united in marriage. This -was his wisdom: this was his plan. It is an old saying that history -repeats itself; and after the flood had swept away the antediluvians, -and after that terrible storm had subsided, there, in the ark, was Noah -and his sons and their wives—four men and four women. If Almighty -God sanctioned polygamy in the beginning, and intended to sanction it -afterwards, why did not He save in the ark a dozen wives for Noah and -a dozen for each of his sons? But one wife for Noah, and one wife for -each of his sons; and thus the Almighty repeats history. -</p> -<p>The next design is prevention—namely to prevent the indiscriminate -intercourse of the sexes. God loves chastity in man and in woman, -and therefore he established marriage, it is a divine institution, -lifting man above the brutes. He would not have man as the male of the -brute creation—mingling indiscriminately with the females; but he -establishes an institution holy as the angels—bearing upon its brow -the signet of His approval, and sanctioned by the good and great of all -ages. He establishes this institution that the lines may be drawn, and -that the chastity of male and female may be preserved. -</p> -<p>On passing from this question of design, let us go to the consideration -of the very nature of marriage. It is two-fold. It is an institution, -not a law; it is a state, not an act; something that has been -originated, framed, built up and crowned with glory. It is not an act -of mere sexual intercourse, but it is a state to run parallel with the -life of the married pair, unless the bonds of marriage are sundered -by one crime—that is adultery. Then consider the grand fact that -there are solemn obligations in this institution of marriage. Nay, -more than this, the very essential elements of marriage distinguish it -in its monogamic, from the institution of marriage in its polygamic, -condition. There is choice, preference of one man for one woman, and -when we come to the question of the census that will demonstrate it -clear as the sunlight; when we come to that question we will prove the -equality of the sexes; we will prove that there is not an excess of -marriageable women either in this or any other country. Therefore the -grand advice of Paul: "Let every man have his own wife, and every woman -have her own husband." -</p> -<p>Now, if the equality of the sexes be a fact, and every man is to -have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, then I say that -this great idea of choice is fully sustained, of preference on the -part of a man, and also preference on the part of woman. And around -this institution God has thrown guards to protect it; indeed, he has -surrounded it with muniments which seem to be as high as heaven; and -whenever the obligations, or so long as the obligations of marriage -are observed, then these defenses stand impregnable and the gates of -hell shall not prevail against marriage. First, there is its innocency: -the union of a man with his wife, is an act as pure as the devotion -of angels in heaven. Then comes the nobleness of marriage: the bed -undefined is honorable in all; but whoremongers and adulterers will God -judge. Then notice the sanction of divine and human law that surrounds -this institution; the law that was given amid the awful thunderings -of Mount Sinai is a grand muniment of this monogamic institution. In -all civilized Christian countries civil legislation has extended the -arm of the law to protect marriage. Then recall the affinities of the -sexes; the natural desire of man for woman; and the natural desire of -woman for man. There may be some exceptions. Now and then we find an -old bachelor in the world; but a man without a wife is only half a man. -Now and then we find a woman in the world who is styled an "old maid;" -but a woman without a husband is only half a humanity. Adam, in the -beginning, was a perfect humanity, possessing the strength, dignity and -courage of man, with the grace, gentleness and beauty of woman. After -Eve's creation he retained the strength, dignity and courage; but lost, -with Eve, the grace, beauty and gentleness; so that it now takes the -union of one man, with the sterner qualities, with one woman, with the -gentler graces, to produce one perfect humanity, and that is the type -of marriage, as instituted by Almighty God, and as is approved by His -divine law. -</p> -<p>And, now, I desire to run the parallel between the two systems, -showing how the one is destructive of the other. Take, for instance, -the element, namely, the design, and see how polygamy strikes at the -institution of marriage in that regard. I now refer to companionship, -the union of two loving hearts to the exclusion of a third. A man may -love three or more friends; he may love three or more children; he may -love three or more brothers or sisters; but God has so ordained the law -of affinities between the man and the woman that companionship can only -be secured to the exclusion of a third person. Ah! what a pleasure it -is for a man when away from home to know, "I shall soon return to the -bosom of my wife, and my little children will climb upon my knee and -lisp the child's welcome at my return." And he hastens from afar to -the embraces of that wife. And then what an almost infinity of joy it -is on the part of the woman, whose husband is far away, to know that -he is coming. Says she, "I will stand in the door-way and will watch -his returning footsteps. He is coming to me, to my embrace, to my home -prepared for him!" And with what pride and care the busy housewife -arranges for his return! How neat and beautiful everything is! The -bouquet of flowers is on the table, the best viands are spread on the -board, and everything in the house is prepared with the utmost care! -But oh! what a gloom comes down upon the poor woman's soul when she -knows that he returns not to her, but returns to one, two, three, four, -twelve, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty. -</p> -<p>Then see how the system works against the next design—namely, -procreation. It is a fact that in polygamous countries one sex or -the other has preponderance in numbers. Some good authorities say -the females preponderate, others say the males. I do not know, I do -not care a rush which preponderates: all that I say is this, that -good, reliable authorities say that in polygamic—mark you, polygamic -countries, there is a preponderance of one or the other; while in -monogamic nations the great law of equality is brought out. According -to some authorities the tendency of polygamy is to make all males; -according to other authorities to make all females; and if either -follow, then comes the destruction of the race, and within a hundred -years the earth is depopulated and is a howling wilderness. -</p> -<p>Take the influence of polygamy upon what may be properly called the -rights of marriage, and these rights are two-fold:—authority on the -part of the man, and protection on the part of the woman. The man is -the head of the family; the man is the high priest of the family; -the man is the legislator and executive of the family. He is to have -reverence from his wife; she is to obey him; and I never performed the -marriage ceremony without including that word when I address the woman, -"Wilt thou obey the man?" That is God's authority, and every true and -loving wife will obey her husband in the Lord as readily as she obeys -the Lord Jesus Christ. But while man is the legislator and executive; -while he is endowed with authority as his right, so, on the other hand, -protection belongs to and is the natural and inalienable right of the -woman. See that ivy as it entwines around the oak! That grand old oak -has sent down its roots and takes hold of the very foundations of the -earth, and its branches tower up towards the sky. See that ivy how it -entwines itself gently, sweetly and beautifully around the oak? -</p><blockquote> -<p> "A thing of beauty is a Joy forever." -</p></blockquote> -<p>So woman entwines herself, the tendrils of her affection go out and -they entwine themselves around the man; and what must be the depth -of the depravity to which that man has fallen who ruthlessly tears -asunder these gentle tendrils of affection! What the ivy is to the -oak, the woman is to the man; and it is for man, in his pride and -glory, in his strength and energy, with his strong arm to protect -her; and it is woman's right to go to man for protection. But how is -it possible under the system of polygamy for these great rights to be -preserved? It is true that the man retains his right and authority; -this system augments and multiplies that authority. This system is -one of usurpation, extending a right over the larger number that is -not included in God's law. But, on the other hand, where is the right -of woman to protection? A whole soul for a whole soul! A whole body -for a whole body, and a whole life for a whole life! Just like the -shells of the bivalve; they correspond with each other! Just like the -two wings of a bird, male and female. So precisely this great idea of -reciprocity, mutual affection and reciprocal love is developed in this -idea of monogamous marriage. But polygamy, it seems to me, strikes down -this right of woman; in other words, it divides the protecting power -of man in proportion to the number of wives he possesses; and it seems -to me that in view of the distribution of worldly goods in this life a -man can support and protect but one family. Kings, who can tax a whole -people; kings, who can build palaces and rear pyramids; kings, who can -marshal their armies on the banks of the Rhine and go to war, may have -their harems—their plurality of wives; but the poor man, doomed to -toil, with the sweat of labor on his brow, how is it possible for him -to provide for more than one family? Yet if the king in his glory has -the right to have a plurality of wives, so also has the poor man, who -is doomed to toil, the same right; and God Almighty, in making this -law for a plurality of wives, if He has made it, which I, of course, -question, yet, if He has made it, then He has not made provision -for the execution of that law; or, in other words, He has not made -provision for its immunities to be enjoyed by the common people. It is -a law exclusively for nabobs, kings and high priests; for men in power, -for men possessing wealth, and not for me, a poor man, or for you, -[pointing to audience] a poor laborer. God Almighty is just, and a king -is no more before him than a peasant. The meanest of His creatures, -as well as the highest, are all alike unto Him. I ask you, therefore, -to-day, Would He enact a law sanctioning—commanding a plurality of -wives, without making a provision that every man should be in such -financial circumstances as to have a plurality of wives and enjoy them? -See, therefore, how these two systems of marriage are antagonistic one -against the other! And, after hearing this exposition of the nature and -the elements and the rights and the muniments of marriage, it is for -you to infer which is the system which God ordained in the beginning. -</p> -<p>My distinguished friend has hastily reviewed many passages of -Scripture, all of which, my friends, I shall notice. I will sift -them to the bottom. My only regret is that my distinguished friend, -for whose scholarship I have regard, did not deliberately take up -one passage and exhaust that passage, instead of giving us here a -passage and there a passage, simply skimming them over without going -to the depths, and showing their philological relation and their -entire practical bearing upon us. When my friend shall give us such -an exegesis and analysis, whether he quotes Hebrew, Greek or Latin, I -will promise him that I will follow him through all the mazes of his -exposition and I will go down to the very bottom of his argument. -</p> -<p>I feel bound, to-day, my friends, in my opening speech to give this -analysis of the question and to present to you my ideas of marriage in -contradistinction to the idea of marriage held here as polygamous. -</p> -<p>Now I presume that I will pass to the consideration of a few of the -salient points which my distinguished friend threw out. -</p> -<p>Let us see in relation to the text he quoted, "If brethren dwell -together," though he wanders back, and it was difficult for me to see -what relation the antediluvians, and what relation old Adam had to -this passage; but he referred to the antediluvians and to Adam, and he -also referred to Lamech. Who was Lamech? He is the first polygamist -on record, the first mentioned in the first two hundred years of the -history of the world. He had two wives; and what else did he have? -He had murder in his heart and blood on his hand, and I aver that -whoever analyzes the case of Lamech, will find that the murder which he -committed grew out of his plurality of wives; in other words, it grew -out of the polygamy which he attempted to introduce into the world. -Said he to his wives, "I have slain a man;" and the inference is that -this man had come to claim his rights. -</p> -<p>My friend says that Cain was a murderer, and went down to the land of -Nod; he don't exactly know the geography, but it was somewhere. And -there he found a woman and married her. Now I affirm this, that when -Cain killed his brother Abel he was not married, and he didn't go down -to the land of Nod, then, therefore the murder he committed didn't -grow out of monogamy, and seems to have had no relation to monogamy; -but it grew out of this fact: these two brothers came before the Lord -to present their offerings. Cain was a deist, a moralist as we may -say, that is, he had no sins to repent of. He therefore did not bring -the little lamb as a sacrificial offering, but he came with the first -fruits of the earth as a thank offering. He comes before God Almighty -and says: "I have no sins to atone for, none at all; but here, I am -conscious that thou hast created me and that I am dependent upon thee, -therefore I present to thee the first fruits of the soil." Abel comes -with his thank offering. He brings his lamb and lays it upon the altar, -and that lamb pre-intimated the coming of Jesus Christ, who is "the -lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world;" and if there is -any record that Abel brought a thank offering, it is a principle in -theology and in scriptural exposition that the whole includes the -part, just as Saint Paul says: "I beseech you, by the mercies of God, -to present your bodies a living sacrifice to God." Do you think that -he excluded the soul? No, he speaks of one as including the other. So -the offering which Abel presented was an offering, sacrificial in its -nature, pointing to Christ. Now, perhaps by sending down fire from -heaven, or at all events in some significant manner, God recognized the -righteousness of Abel, and expressed a preference for his offering, and -Cain was wroth, and his pride belched forth and he slew his brother. -The murder, therefore, had no reference, directly or indirectly, to -marriage, while the murder which the first polygamist mentioned in -history committed grew out of the marriage relation. -</p> -<p>Then my friend goes back to Adam, and says our first parents wore -clothes made of skins, and therefore we must wear similar ones. Well, -let us see. Our first parents were placed in a garden and were driven -out of a garden, therefore we must be placed in a garden and driven -out of a garden. The first man was created out of the dust of the -earth, therefore all subsequent men must be created out of the same -material. The first woman was created out of man's rib, therefore all -subsequent women must be made so. They would make very nice women, no -doubt about that! Such is the logic of my friend! So you may follow on -his absurdities. He has failed to make a distinction between what is -essential to marriage and what is accidental to marriage; or in other -words, he has failed to make a distinction between the creation and -the fall of man, and between the institution and characteristics of -marriage. One, therefore, is surprised at such arguments, and drawn -from such premises! -</p> -<p>Now, my friends, that first marriage in the garden of Eden is the great -model for all subsequent marriages: one man and one woman. My friend -says that God could have made more if He had chosen; but He did not -do so, and it seems to me, if God Almighty had designed that all us -men should be polygamists, and that polygamy should be the form of -marriage, that in the very beginning He would have started right, that -is, He would have made a number of women for the first man. Ah! what a -grand sanction that would be; but instead of that He makes one man and -one woman, and says—"For this cause shall a man leave his father and -mother and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." -</p> -<p>This is not merely an historical fact; were it so I think the argument -would be with my friend. But as I come along the stream of time I find -this fact referred to as expressing a great law. I hear old Malachi -repeating the same words, referring to this institution of marriage -in the garden of Eden, reproving the Jews for their practice of -polygamy, putting the pungent question to their conscience—"Why have -ye dealt treacherously with the wife of your youth?"—your first wife, -the one with whom you went to the bridal altar and swore before high -Heaven that you would forsake all others and cleave unto her so long -as you both live. "Ah!" that old prophet asks, "why have you dealt -thus treacherously with the wife of your youth and the wife of your -covenant?" God hates this putting away, says the prophet, and then -he refers to Eden as a reason for his reproof. The reason is purely -monogamous, and that in the beginning God created one woman for one -man, and one man for one woman. -</p> -<p>When the Pharisees propounded a question to the Lord Jesus Christ, -touching divorce, he refers to the same grand idea spoken of by the -Prophet Malachi: "Have ye not read that in the beginning God created -them male and female?" Thus re-enacting, as it were, the marriage law; -thus lifting marriage, which had been stained by polygamy, from its -degradation, and re-establishing it in its monogamic purity. And then -St. Paul, corroborating the words of Jesus, [at this time the umpires -said the time was up] refers to the marriage in Eden, and says, "God -created them, male and female, one flesh." This is the great truth -brought out in the Bible. -</p> - - -<h2><a name="SECONDDAY"></a>SECOND DAY. -</h2> -<p>After opening with religious exercises Prof. Pratt commenced: -</p> -<p>Ladies and Gentlemen: -</p> -<p>We again come before you this afternoon, being the second session of -our discussion, to examine the question: "Does the Bible Sanction -Polygamy?" I will here remark, that yesterday afternoon I occupied one -hour upon the subject, and brought forth numerous evidences from the -Bible to show that polygamy was a divine institution sanctioned by the -Bible, and sanctioned by the Almighty, who gave the laws contained in -the Bible. Here let me observe that it is of the utmost importance to -clearly understand the point under discussion. I perceive that in the -arguments that followed me yesterday the subject is dwelt upon somewhat -lengthily with regard to the meaning of the term polygamy—that it -included both a plurality of wives and a plurality of husbands. Hence a -new term was introduced by the reverend Doctor, who followed me, namely -polygyny, if I recollect the term, having reference to the plurality of -wives. This seems to be the question under discussion: Does the Bible -Sanction Polygamy? and as the word polygamy appears to be discarded -and scouted, it would be: Does the Bible Sanction Polygyny? Perhaps -I may not have the term aright; that is, Does the Bible sanction -plurality of wives? It was was said by the speaker who followed me, -in relation to the plurality of wives—perhaps I had better refer to -some of his remarks from print, lest my memory should not serve me on -the occasion. The first remark to which I will call your attention is -in regard to the original of the Bible. I admit in this discussion the -Bible called King James' translation as authority. I admit the Bible -in the original Hebrew, if it can be found. Of course we have Hebrew -Bibles at the present day. I hold one in my hand; that is, a Bible in -the Hebrew language. But there is no such thing in existence as the -original copies of the Bible; neither secondary copies; and copies that -might come in as the hundreth copy, I presume, cannot be found, as, for -instance, of the original law of Moses, written on tables of stone. -Such tables and such original law have not been in existence to our -knowledge for the last eighteen hundred years. We cannot refer to them; -we cannot refer to any copies only those that have been multiplied in -modern times—that is, comparatively modern times. And inasmuch as -these copies disagree one with the other, so much so that it is said -there are thirty thousand different readings in the various manuscripts -and copies, who is to decide whether this Hebrew Bible, translated -from one of a number of manuscripts, is translated from the original -or not? Certainly it would not do for me as an individual to set up my -judgment in the matter; nor for any other learned man to set up his -judgment. I would far rather take the translation known as King James', -made by the able translators chosen in his day; men of great learning, -who had studied the original languages, the Hebrew and the Greek, and -had become extensively acquainted with manuscripts in existence; I say -I would far rather take their judgment than one that might be advanced -by myself, or by any other learned man, however deeply he might be -versed in the Hebrew or Greek. I do not by these remarks disparage the -Bible, or set it aside. By no means. I accept it as proof that it was -translated by those men who were chosen for the purpose. And hundreds -of thousands, I may say scores of millions, of copies of this Bible -have been circulated among all nations in various languages. They have -been sent forth by millions among the inhabitants of the earth for -their information. -</p> -<p>We will pass along after having decided upon the nature of the Bible -that is to be admitted as evidence and proof in regard to polygamy. -It was stated in the course of the remarks of the reverend gentleman -in relation to polygamy, or polygyny, whichever term we feel disposed -to choose, that marriage with more than one woman is considered -adultery. I will read one or two of Mr. Newman's sentences: "Take his -exposition"—that is the Savior's—"Take his exposition of the ten -commandments as they were given amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and -you find he has written a commentary on the Decalogue, bringing out its -hidden meaning, showing to us that the man is an adulterer who not only -marries more women than one, but who looks on a woman with salacial -lust. Such is the commentary on the law by the Lord Jesus Christ." -</p> -<p>With part of this I agree most perfectly. If a man, according to the -great commentary of our Savior, looks upon a woman with a lustful heart -and lustful desire, he commits adultery in his heart, and is condemned -as an adulterer. With the other part I do most distinctly disagree. It -is merely an assertion of the reverend gentleman. No proof was adduced -from the New Testament Scriptures; no proof was advanced as the words -of the great commentator, the Lord Jesus Christ, to establish the -position that a man who marries more than one woman is an adulterer. If -there is such a passage contained within the lids of the New Testament, -it has not come under my observation. It remains to be proved, -therefore. -</p> -<p>We will now pass on to another item, that is, the meaning of the word -"sanction:" "Does the Bible sanction polygamy?" I am willing to admit -the full force and meaning of the word sanction. I am willing to take -it in all of its expositions as set forth in Webster's unabridged -edition. I do not feel like shirking from this, nor from the definition -given. Let it stand in all its force. The only adequate idea of -sanction, says Mr. Newman, is a divine and positive approbation, -plainly expressed; or stated so definitely and by such forms of -expression as to make a full and clear equivalent. It is in this way -that we take the term sanction in the question before us. Admit that -it must be expressed in definite terms, these terms were laid before -the congregation yesterday afternoon. From this Bible, King James' -translation, passage after passage was brought forth to prove the -divine sanction of polygamy; direct commands in several instances, -wherein the Israelites were required to be polygamists; and in one -instance, especially, where they were required under the heaviest curse -of the Lord: "Cursed be he that continueth not in all things written -in this book of the law; and let all the people say Amen," was the -expression. I say, under this dreadful curse and the denunciations of -the Almighty, the people were commanded to be polygamists. Did this -give authority and sanction to practise that divine institution? It -certainly is sanction, or I do not understand the meaning of the word -as defined by Webster, and the meaning of the arguments presented by -my opponent. I waited in vain yesterday afternoon for any rebutting -evidence and testimony against this divine sanction. I was ready -with my pencil and paper to record anything like such evidence, any -passage from the Bible to prove that it was not sanctioned. I heard -a remarkable sermon, a wonderful flourish of oratory. It certainly -was pleasing to my ears. It fell upon me like the dews of heaven, as -it were, so far as oratorical power was concerned. But where was the -rebutting testimony? What was the evidence brought forth? Forty-nine -minutes of the time were occupied before it was even referred to; -forty-nine minutes passed away in a flourish of oratory, without -having the proofs in rebuttal and the evidence examined which I had -adduced. Then eleven minutes were left. I did expect to hear something -in those eleven minutes that would in some small degree rebut the -numerous evidences brought forth to establish and sanction polygamy. -But I waited in vain. To be sure, one passage, and only one that had -been cited, in Deuteronomy, was merely referred to; and then, without -examining the passage and trying to show that it did not command -polygamy, another item that was referred to by myself with regard to -Lamech and Cain was brought up. Instead of an examination of that -passage, until the close of the eleven minutes, the subject of Abel's -sacrifice and Cain's sacrifice, and Cain's going to the Land of Nod -and marrying a wife, and so on, occupied the time. All these things -were examined, and those testimonies that were brought forth by me were -untouched. -</p> -<p>Now, then, we will proceed to the fourth, or rather to the fifth -position he took; that is the first great form of marriage established -in the beginning—"one woman created for one man." However, before I -dwell upon this subject, let me make a correction with regard to Cain -and Lamech; then we will commence on this argument. I did not state -yesterday afternoon, as it was represented by the speaker who followed -me, that Cain went to the land of Nod and there married a wife, for -there is no such thing in the Bible. I stated that Cain went to the -land of Nod, after having murdered his brother Abel. I stated that we -were not to suppose that God had created any woman in the Land of Nod, -and that Cain took his wife in the land of Nod. We are not to suppose -this; but we are to suppose that he took his wife with him. He went to -and arrived in the land of Nod, and begat a child. So says the Bible. -But what has all this to do with regard to the form of marriage? Does -it prove anything? No. The murder that Cain committed in slaying his -brother Abel does not prove anything against the monogamic form of -marriage, nor anything in favor of it. It stands as an isolated fact, -showing that a wicked man may be a monogamist. How in regard to Lamech? -Lamech, so far as recorded in the Bible, was the first polygamist; the -first on record. There may have been thousands and tens of thousands -who were not recorded. There were thousands and tens of thousands of -monogamists, yet, I believe, we have only three cases recorded from -the creation to the flood, a period of some sixteen hundred years or -upwards. The silence of Scripture, therefore, in regard to the number -cf polygamists in that day, is no evidence whatever. -</p> -<p>But it has been asserted before this congregation that this first case -recorded of a polygamist brought in connection with it a murder; and -it has been indicated or inferred that the murder so committed was -in defence of polygamy. This I deny; and I call upon the gentleman -to bring forth one proof from that Bible, from the beginning to the -end of it, to prove that murder had anything to do in relation to the -polygamic form of marriage of Lamech. It is true he revealed his crime -to his wives, but the cause of the crime is not stated in the book. -What, then, had it to do with the divinity of the great institution -established called polygamy? Nothing at all. It does not condemn -polygamy nor justify it, any more than the murder by Cain does not -condemn the other form of marriage nor justify it. -</p> -<p>Having disposed of these two cases, let me come to the first -monogamist, Adam. Let us examine his character, and the character of -his wife. Lamech "slew a young man to his wounding, a young man to his -hurt." That was killing one, was it not? How many did Adam kill? All -mankind; murdered the whole human race! How? by falling in the garden -of Eden. Would mankind have died if it had not been for the sin of -this monogamist? No. Paul says "that as in Adam all die, so in Christ -shall all be made alive." It was by the transgression of this first -monogamist and his monogamic wife, that all mankind have to undergo -the penalty of death. It was the cause, and I presume it will be -acknowledged on the part even of monogamists that it was a great crime. -What can be compared with it? Was Cain's crime, or Lamech's crime to -be compared with the crime of bringing death and destruction, not only -upon the people of the early ages, but upon the whole human race? -But what has all that to do with regard to the divinity of marriage? -Nothing at all. It does not prove one thing or the other. But when -arguments of this kind are entered into by the opponents of polygamy, -it is well enough to examine them and see if they will stand the test -of scripture, and sound reason, of sound argument and sound judgment. -Moreover, Adam was not only guilty of bringing death and destruction -upon the whole human race, but he was the means of introducing fallen -humanity into this world of ours. Why did Cain slay Abel? Because he -was a descendant of that fallen being. He had come forth from the loins -of the man who had brought death into the world. When we look abroad -and see all the various crimes, as well as murder, that exist on the -face of the globe; when we see mankind committing them; see all manner -of degradation and lust; see the human family destroying one another, -the question might arise, What has produced all these evils among men? -They exist because a monogamic couple transgressed the law of heaven. -</p> -<p>The learned gentleman referred us to a saying of that great man, Martin -Luther, concerning the relationship that exists between husband and -wife. It was a beautiful argument. I have no fault whatever to find -with it. And it is just as applicable to polygamy as to monogamy. The -answer of Martin Luther to the question put to him—Why God took the -female from the side of man, is just as appropriate, just as consistent -with the plural form of marriage as it is with the other form. He did -not take the woman from the head. Why? The argument wad that the man -should be the head, or as Paul says—"Man is the head of the woman," -and that is his position. I believe my learned opponent agrees with me -perfectly in this, so there is no dispute upon this ground. Why did not -He take the woman from the foot? Because man is not to tyrannize over -his wife, nor tread her under foot. Why did He take her from his side? -Because the rib lies nearest the heart, showing the position of woman. -Not only one woman but two women, five women, ten women, twenty women, -forty women, fifty women, may all come under the protecting head. Jesus -says: "No man can serve two masters," because he may love the one and -hate the other, cleave unto the one and turn away from the other; but -it is not so with women under the protecting head. -</p> -<p>Now let us examine polyandry, for that was referred to yesterday; and -the reverend gentleman could not see why, if a man has the privilege of -taking more wives than one, a woman should not have the same privilege. -If that is expressed in the Bible we have not found it; the other is -expressed there, and we have proved it, and call upon the reverend -gentleman to show the opposite. When we come to polyandry, or the woman -having more husbands than one, there is no sanction for it in the -Scriptures. What is the object of marriage? Companionship, we are told. -I agree with the gentleman. Another object he says is procreation. -I agree with the gentleman also in the second object. Another was -prevention. Here I agree with him so far as the argument is carried out -in a true light. Let us examine the second, namely procreation. The -Lord instituted marriage—the sacred bond of marriage—for the purpose -of multiplying the human species here on the earth. Does polyandry -assist in the multiplying of the human species, the woman having four, -or five, or ten, or fifty, or sixty husbands? Does it tend to rapidly -increase the race? I think monogamists as well as polygamists, when -they reflect, will say that a woman having more than one husband -would destroy her own fruitfulness. Even if she did have offspring, -there would be another great difficulty in the way, the father would -be unknown. Would it not be so? All knowledge of the father would be -lost among the children. Is this the case with a plurality of wives? -No, by no means. If a man have fifty wives the knowledge of the father -is as distinct as the knowledge of the mother. It is not destroyed, -therefore. The great principle of parentage on the part of the -husband, on the part of the father, is preserved. Therefore it is more -consistent, more reasonable, first for procreation, and secondly for -obtaining a knowledge of parentage, that a man should have a plurality -of wives than that a woman should have a plurality of husbands. -</p> -<p>Again; a man with a plurality of wives is capable of raising up a -very numerous household. You know what the Scriptures have said about -children: "Children are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the -womb is his reward." This being the case, a faithful, righteous, holy -man, who takes, according to the great, divine institution of polygamy, -a plurality of wives, is capable of multiplying his offspring ten or -twenty-fold more than he could by one wife. Can one wife do this by -polyandry? No. Here then is a great distinction between the male and -the female. Look at that great and good and holy man, called Gideon -in the Scriptures; a man to whom the angel of God was sent, and who, -among all the hosts of Israel was chosen to go forth as the servant -of the Most High. For what purpose? To deliver Israel from their -enemies, the Midianites and others that had gathered against them. -Was he a polygamist? Yes. He had many wives. He had seventy-two sons. -How many daughters he had I do not know. Could any woman in polyandry -conceive or bring forth seventy-two sons and perhaps an equal number of -daughters? I do not know but there might be some efficacy in that herb -called "mandrake," or in some other miraculous herb that would give -power and strength for one woman to bring forth seventy-two sons. Who -knows, in a day of wonders like this! But a man has the ability, a man -has the power to beget large families and large households. Hence we -read of many of the great and notable men who judged Israel, that one -man had thirty sons—his name was Jair; you will find it recorded in -the Judges of Israel; and another had thirty sons and thirty daughters; -while another Judge of Israel had forty sons. And when we come to the -Gideon we have named, he had seventy-two. Now, we have nothing to do -with the righteousness of these men, or their unrighteousness, in this -connection. That has nothing to do with the marriage institution. -God has established it by divine command. God has given it his own -sanction, whether it be the polygamic or the monogamic form. If Gideon -afterwards fell into idolatry, as the reverend gentleman may argue, -that has nothing to do with the matter. He had the power to beget -seventy-two sons, showing he had a superior power to that of the female. -</p> -<p>Right here, I may say, God is a consistent Being; a Being who is -perfectly consistent, and who delights in the salvation of the human -family. A wicked man may take unto himself a wife, and raise unto -himself a posterity. He may set before that wife and her posterity a -very wicked example. He may lead those children by his drunkenness, by -his blasphemy, by his immoralities, down to destruction. A righteous -man may take fifty wives, or ten, as you choose; and he will bring -up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; he will -instruct them in the great principles of righteousness and truth, -and lead them along and bring them up by his example and by his -teachings to inherit eternal life at the right hand of God, with -those polygamists of ancient times, Abraham and Jacob of old, who are -up yonder in the kingdom of God. Which of the two is the Lord most -pleased with? The man who has five, or ten, or twenty wives, bringing -up his children, teaching them, instructing them, training them so -that they may obtain eternal life with the righteous in the Kingdom -of God; or the monogamist that brings up his children in all manner -of wickedness, and finally leads them down to hell? Which would you -prefer with your limited wisdom when compared with that of the great -Creator? Who among you would not prefer to entrust your offspring with -your friends instead of your enemies? Would not God, therefore, upon -the same principle, do the same? Does God delight in the marriages that -exist among the wicked? Go to the antediluvian race. They married and -were given in marriage until the day that Noah entered into the ark. -They were not righteous men nor righteous women; and their children -were taught in the wicked precepts of their fathers, who committed all -manner of wickedness until all flesh had corrupted itself before the -Lord. Therefore the Lord had to destroy those evil workers of iniquity -that had received wives, but did not honor nor regard the Lord. Instead -of those marriages consummated before the flood, the marriages and -intermarriages among the sons of God and the daughters of men, being -acceptable to the Most High, He was obliged to destroy those that were -married and their offspring from the face of the earth. How much better -it would have been had they been righteous polygamists who would have -brought forth a pure offspring that the Lord could have exalted to -eternal life. Consequently, when we examine the subject of polygamy -in regard to this matter, we must acknowledge, from these scriptures, -and from various other testimonies, that the marriages of the wicked -are not approved by the Heavens. There are many passages of scripture -to support me in what I have now said. The Lord in one place commands -the destruction of a people, parents and children, "lest they should -fill the world with cities," lest all the world should be filled with -people who had married contrary to His law. No person can pretend that -a marriage consummated between an unrighteous man and an unrighteous -woman, is a marriage in which God has joined the parties together. You -might as well take the ordinance of baptism, and say that Simon Magus, -when he went forward and was baptized, had complied with the ordinance -of Heaven, while he yet remained in a condition of hardened sinfulness; -and that because he had passed through the outward observance of the -ordinance it was acceptable in the sight of Heaven. God never had -anything to do with the marriages of the wicked only to permit them, -perhaps for a wise purpose, as he permitted Joseph to be sold into -Egypt by his brethren. He permitted the deed for his own wise purposes, -but He did not justify the instruments who did the deed. So he permits -these unauthorized marriages between wicked men and wicked women, to -perpetuate the human race, because they will not hearken to Him, until -the time shall come when he can have a pure people who will obey his -laws, educating their posterity to honor and serve him. He permits, but -He does not sanction such marriages. -</p> -<p>If we should argue with the reverend gentleman that the census shows an -equality of males and females, this argument that I have now advanced -will rebut the idea thus sought to be established. The idea is that -because there may be made to appear an equality in numbers, therefore, -every man must be confined to one wife and every woman must have one -husband. Is that the way God dispenses his gifts and blessings to the -human family? Does he give the same amount of blessings to the wicked -that He does to the righteous? In some respects He does. He sends the -rain from heaven upon the just and the unjust. But there are many -great and important blessings that are bestowed more abundantly upon -the righteous than upon the wicked. God has holy designs to accomplish -when He makes a distinction between the righteous and the wicked in -dispensing His blessings. Therefore if the wicked take wives without -their being joined together by divine authority, those wives have -allied themselves to their husbands without the Lord's sanction. -Because the Lord permits this it does not prove that He sanctions -it; and He would prefer that a people should be like Israel of old, -a nation of polygamists as well as monogamists, and the blessings -be dispensed between them, rather than have this so-called perfect -equality between the males and females, and a wicked generation be -the result. To prove this I will refer you to the 37th Psalm. God in -that Psalm has expressly said, and repeated again and again, that -the seed of the evil-doers should he rooted out of the earth, while -the righteous should inherit it and should prosper. He bestows His -blessings upon the one and His curses upon the other. -</p> -<p>I shall expect this afternoon to hear some arguments to refute those -passages brought forward to sustain polygamy as well as monogamy; and -if the gentleman can find no proof to limit the passages I have quoted -to monogamic households, if there is no such evidence contained in the -passages, and there is nothing in the original Hebrew as it now exists -to invalidate them, then polygamy as a divine institution stands as -firm as the throne of the Almighty. And if he can find that this form -of marriage is repealed in the New Testament; if he can find that God -has in any age of the world done away with the principle and form of -plural marriage, perhaps the argument will rest with the other side. -I shall wait with great patience to have some arguments brought forth -on this subject. We are happy, here in this Territory, to have the -learned come among us to teach us. We have embraced the Bible as a -rule of faith; and if we misunderstand it, if we are acting contrary -to its precepts, how very happy we should be to have the learned come -from abroad—people who are acquainted with the original languages—to -correct us and set us right. I think this is generous on the part -of those gentlemen; much more so than it would be to enact laws and -incarcerate in dungeons those who practice a form of marriage laid down -in this book; to send them for three, or four, or five years to prison, -tearing them from their poor wives and children, while their families -would suffer hardship and hunger, being robbed of their natural -protectors. We thank Mr. Newman and those who have come with him with -their hearts full of philanthropy to enlighten us here in this mountain -Territory, and if possible convince us of our errors. -</p> -<p>I have many arguments that I have not drawn upon, not only to reason -upon, but testimonies as well in favor of polygamy; but I am informed -that only seven minutes of the time remains to me. I cannot, therefore, -pretend on this occasion to enter into these arguments and examine -them with that justice that should be expected before the people. Mr. -Newman has said he would like nine hours to bring forth his arguments -and his reasonings for the benefit of the poor people of Utah. I wish -he would not only take nine hours, but nine weeks and nine months, and -be indeed a philanthropist and missionary in our midst; and try and -reclaim this poor people from being the "awful beastly" people they are -represented abroad. We are very fond of the Scriptures. We do not feel -free to comply with a great many customs and characteristics of a great -many of those who call themselves Christians. Much may be said upon -this subject; much, too, that ought to crimson the faces of those who -call themselves civilized, when they reflect upon the enormities, the -great social evils, that exist in their midst. Look at the great city -of New York, the great metropolis of commerce. That is a city where we -might expect some of the most powerful, and learned theologians to hold -forth, teaching and inculcating principles and lessons of Christianity. -What exists in the midst of that city? Females by the tens of -thousands, females who are debauched by day and by night; females who -are in open day parading the streets of that great city! Why, they are -monogamists there! It is a portion of the civilization of New York -to be very pious over polygamy; yet harlots and mistresses by the -thousands and tens of thousands walk the streets by open day, as well -as by night. There is sin enough committed there in one twenty-four -hours to sink the city down like Sodom and Gomorrah. -</p> -<p>We read that there was once a case of prostitution among the children -of Benjamin in ancient days. Some men came and took another man's wife, -or concubine, whichever you please to call her; some men took her and -abused her all night; and for that one sin they were called to account. -They were called upon to deliver up the offenders but they would not do -it, and they were viewed as confederates. And what was the result of -that one little crime—not a little crime—a great one; that one crime -instead of thousands? The Lord God said to the rest of the tribes of -Israel, Go forth and fight against the tribe of Benjamin. They fought -against Benjamin; and the next day they were again commanded to go -forth and fight against Benjamin. They obeyed; and the next day they -were again so commanded; and they fought until they cut off the entire -tribe except six hundred men. The destruction of nearly the whole tribe -of Benjamin was the punishment for one act of prostitution. -</p> -<p>Compare the strictness that existed in ancient Israel with the -whoredoms, the prostitution and even the infanticide practised in all -the cities of this great nation; and then because a few individuals -in this mountain Territory are practising Bible marriage a law must -be threatened to inflict heavy penalties upon us; our families must -be torn from us and be driven to misery, because of the piety of a -civilization in which the enormities I have pointed out exist. -</p> -<p>To close this argument I now call upon the reverend gentleman, whom I -highly respect for his learning, his eloquence and ability, to bring -forth proof to rebut the passages laid down in yesterday's argument in -support of the position that the Bible sanctions polygamy. I ask him to -prove that those laws were limited. If they were limited— -</p> -<p>(Here the umpires announced that the time was up.) -</p> -<h3>Dr. NEWMAN Rose and Said: -</h3> -<p>Messrs. Umpires and Ladies and Gentlemen: -</p> -<p>I understand the gentleman to complain against me that I did not -answer his Scriptural arguments adduced yesterday. If I did not the -responsibility is upon him. He, being in the affirmative, should have -analyzed and defined the question under debate; but he failed to do -that. It therefore fell to me, not by right, but by his neglecting to -do his duty; and I did it to the best of my ability. It was of the -utmost importance that this audience, so attentive and so respectable, -should have a clear and definite understanding of the terms of the -question; and I desire now to inform the gentleman, that I had the -answers before me to the passages which he adduced, and had I had -another hour, I would have produced them then. I will do it to-day. -Now, my learned friend will take out his pencil, for he will have -something to do this afternoon. -</p> -<p>A passing remark—a word in regard to the original manuscripts, written -by Moses, or Joshua, or Samuel, or the prophets. You sit down to -write a letter to a friend; you take it into your head to copy that -letter; you copy that letter; the original draft you care nothing -about—whether it is given to the winds or the flames. What care I -about the two tables of stone on which the original law was written, -so that I have a true copy of this law? A passing remark in regard to -Mother Eve. I will defend the venerable woman! If the Fall came by the -influence of one woman over one man, what would have happened to the -world if Adam had had more wives than one? More, if one woman, under -monogamy, brought woe into the world, then a monogamist, the blessed -virgin Mary, brought the Redeemer into the world, so I think they are -even. -</p> -<p>My friend supposes that the Almighty might have created more women than -one out of Adam's ribs; but Adam had not ribs enough to create fifty -women. My friend speaks against polyandry, or the right of woman to -have more husbands than one. He bases his argument upon the increase -of progeny. Science affirms that where polygamy or polygyny, or a -plurality of wives prevails, there is a tendency to a preponderance or -predominance of one sex over the other, either male or female, which -amounts to an extermination of the race. -</p> -<p>I will reply, in due time, to the gentleman's remarks in regard to -Gideon and other Scriptural characters, and especially in regard to -prostitution, or what is known as the social evil. But first, what was -the object of the gentleman yesterday? It was to discover a general -law for the sanction of polygamy. Did he find that law? I deny it. -What is law? Law is the expression of the legislative will; law is -the manner in which an act is performed. It is the law of gravitation -that all things tend to a common centre. It is the law in botany that -the flowers open their fan-like leaves to the light, and close them -beneath the kisses of night. What is the civil law? Simply defining -how the citizens should act. What is the moral law? Simply defining -the conduct of God's moral subjects. Laws are mandatory, prohibitory -and permissive: commanding what should be done; prohibiting what -should not be done, and permitting what may be done. And yet, where -has the gentleman produced this general law which he spent an hour in -searching for yesterday? And then remember, that this law must sanction -polygamy! Perhaps it is not necessary to repeat our definition of the -word "sanction." My learned friend, for whom I have respect, agrees -with me as to the definition of that term, therefore we need not spend -a solitary moment further touching these two points. -</p> -<p>There is another vital point in reference to the nature of law. In -legislating upon any subject there must be a great, organic central -principle, mandatory or prohibitory, in reference to that subject; and -all other parts of the particular law as well as of the general code -must be interpreted in harmony therewith. -</p> -<p>Now I propose to produce a law this afternoon, simple, direct and -positive, that polygamy is forbidden in God's holy word. In Leviticus -xviii and 18 it is written: "Neither shalt thou take one wife to -another, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in -her life time." There is a law in condemnation of polygamy. It may be -said that what I have read is as it reads in the margin, but that in -the body of the text it reads: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her -sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her -lifetime." Very well, argumentum ad hominem, I draw my argument from -the speech of the gentleman yesterday. Mr. Pratt said, in his comments -upon the text, "If brethren dwell together,"—Now it is well enough in -the reading of this to refer to the margin, as we have the liberty, -I believe, to do so, and you will find that in the margin the word -brother is translated "near kinsmen." I accept his mode of reasoning: -he refers to the margin, and I refer to the margin; it is a poor rule -that will not work both ways; it is a poor rule that will not favor -monogamy if it favor polygamy. Such then is the fact stated in this law. -</p> -<p>Now it is necessary for us to consider the nature of this law and -to expound it to your understanding, it may be proper for me to say -that this interpretation, as given in the margin, is sustained by -the most eminent biblical and classical scholars in the history of -Christendom—by Bishop Jewell, by the learned Cookson, by the eminent -Dwight, and other distinguished biblical scholars. It is an accepted -canon of interpretation that the scope of the law must be considered -in determining the sense of any portion of the law, and it is equally -binding upon us to ascertain the mind of the legislator, from the -preface of the law, when such preface is given. The first few verses of -the xviii chapter of Leviticus are prefatory. In the 3rd verse it is -stated that— -</p><blockquote> -<p> After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not - do and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, - shall ye no do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. -</p></blockquote> -<p>Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites practised incest, idolatry -sodomy, adultery and polygamy. From verse 6 to verse 17, inclusive, the -law of consanguinity is laid down, and the blood relationship defined. -Then the limits within which persons were forbidden to marry, and in -verse 18 the law against polygamy is given—"neither shalt thou take a -wife to her sister," but as we have given it, "neither shalt thou take -one wife to another," etc. -</p> -<p>According to Dr. Edwards, the words which are translated as "wife" or -"sister," are found in the Hebrew but eight times, and in each passage -they refer to inanimate objects, such as the wings of the cherubim, -tenons, mortises, etc., and signify the coupling together one <em>to -another, the same as thou shalt not take one wife to another</em>. -</p> -<p>Such then is the law. Such were the ordinances forbidden which the -Egyptians and the Canaanites practised. Now we propose to push this -argument a little further. If it is said that this passage does not -prohibit a man marrying two sisters at the same time then such a -marriage is nowhere in the Bible pronounced incestuous. That is the -objection of my friend. To which I reply that such a marriage is -forbidden by sequence and analogy. As for example where the son, in -the 7th verse, is prohibited from marrying his mother, it follows -that the daughter shall not marry her father; yet it is not so given -and precisely stated. In verse 14 it is said—"thou shalt not uncover -the nakedness of thy father's brother;" so I infer that it would be -equally criminal to uncover the nakedness of a mother's brother, -though it is not so stated. In verse 16 it is said—"thou shalt not -uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife," so I infer that a man -shall not uncover the nakedness of his wife's sister that is, if two -brothers shall not take the same woman, then two women shall not take -the same man, for between one man and two sisters, and one woman and -two brothers is the same degree of proximity, and therefore both are -forbidden by the law of God. Furthermore, if for argument's sake, we -consider this means two literal sisters, then this prohibition is -not a permission for a man to take two wives who are not sisters; -for all sound jurists will agree that a prohibition is one thing and -a permission is another thing. Nay, more, the Mormons do or do not -receive the law of Moses as binding. That they do not is clear from -their own practices. For instance, in Leviticus, xx chap. and 14 verse -it is said— -</p><blockquote> -<p> And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall - be burnt with fire, both he and they. -</p></blockquote> -<p>Yet Mr. John Hyde, jr., page 56 of his work called "Mormonism," states -that a Mr. E. Bolton married a woman and her daughter; that Captain -Brown married a woman and her two daughters. These are illustrations -of the violation of the law. More than this Leviticus xviii, 18, -prohibits a man from marrying two sisters; yet Mr. Hyde informs us that -a Mr. Davis married three sisters, and a Mr. Sharkey married the same -number. If the question is, Is the law of Moses obeyed here or not? -and supposing this gentleman can prove that the text means two literal -sisters, and two literal sisters are married here, then I affirm that -you do not keep God's law, or that which you say is God's law, as given -through his servant Moses. Nay, more than this: if it here means two -literal sisters, and, whereas, Jacob married two sisters; and, whereas, -the great Mormon doctrine that God worked a miracle on Leah and Rachel -that they might have children; and, whereas, it is here said that said -miracles were an approval of polygamy, so also were such miracles -an approval of incest; if it be true that God did not express this -approval at Jacob having two wives, neither did he express disapproval -of his having two sisters; therefore the Divine silence in the one case -is an offset to the Divine silence in the other case. Even you are -driven to this conclusion, either my interpretation of this passage is -correct,—neither shall a man take another wife,—two wives, or you -must admit that this passage means two literal sisters, and in either -case you live in violation of God's law. It is for my distinguished -friend to choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases. I thank him -for the compliment he paid me—that I came here as a philanthropist. -I have only kindness in my heart for these dear men and women; and -had not this kindness filled my heart; had I believed in a crushing, -iron, civil law, I could have remained in Washington. But I came here -believing the truth as it is in Jesus, and I am glad to say that I have -the privilege of speaking what I believe to be God's truth in your -hearing. -</p> -<p>The gentleman quoted Deuteronomy xxi, 15-17, which is the law of -primogeniture, and is designed to preserve the descent of property: -</p><blockquote> -<p> If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they - have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the - first-born son be hers that was hated; -</p> -<p> Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he - hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before - the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born: -</p> -<p> But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, - by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the - beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. -</p></blockquote> -<p>How did he apply this law? Why he first assumed the prevalence of -polygamy among the Jews in the wilderness, and then said the law -was made for polygamous families as well as for monogamous. He -says—"inasmuch as polygamy is nowhere condemned in the law of God, we -are entitled to construe this law as applying to polygamists." But I -have shown already that Leviticus xviii, 18, is a positive prohibition -of this law, and therefore this passage must be interpreted by that -which I have quoted. I propose to erect the balance to-day, and try -every scriptural argument which he has produced in the scales of -justice. -</p> -<p>I have recited to you God's solemn law—"Neither shall a man take one -wife unto another:" and I will try every passage by this law. My friend -spent an hour here yesterday in seeking a general law; in a minute I -gave you a general law. How natural is the supposition, where a man -has two wives in succession, that he may love the last a little better -than the first! and I believe it is common out here to love the last -a little better than the first. And how natural it is for the second -wife to influence the father in the disposition of his property so -that he will confer it upon her child! while the children of the first -wife, poor woman, perhaps dead and gone, are deprived of their property -rights. But supposing the meaning of this passage is two wives at the -same time, this cannot be construed, by any of the accepted rules of -interpretation, into a sanction of polygamy; if it can, I can prove -that sheep stealing is just as divinely authorized. For it is as if -Moses had said: "for in view of the prevalence of polygamy, and that -you have so far forgotten and transgressed God's law of monogamy as -to take two wives at the same time, therefore this shall not work the -abrogation of the law of primogeniture, the first-born son shall not -thereby be cheated out of his rights." Now it is said: "if a man have -two wives:" very well, if that is a privilege so also are these words: -"If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it and sell it, he -shall restore five oxen for the ox he stole, and four sheep for the -sheep." If the former assertion is a sanction of polygamy, then the -latter assertion is a sanction of sheep stealing, and we can all go -after the flocks this afternoon. -</p> -<p>The second passage, in Exodus xxi, 7th to 11th verses, referring to the -laws of breach of promise, Mr. Pratt says proves or favors polygamy, in -his opinion; but he did not dwell long upon this text. He indulged in -an episode on the lost manuscripts. Now let us inquire into the meaning -of this passage. -</p><blockquote> -<p> And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go - out as the men-servants do. -</p> -<p> If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then - shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he - shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. -</p> -<p> And if he hath betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her - after the manner of daughters. -</p> -<p> If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of - marriage, shall he not diminish. -</p> -<p> And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free - without money. -</p></blockquote> -<p>What are the significant points in this passage? They are simply -these—According to the Jewish law a destitute Jew was permitted to -apprentice his daughter for six years for a pecuniary consideration; -and to guard the rights of this girl there were certain conditions: -First, the period of her indenture should not extend beyond six years; -she should be free at the death of her master, or at the coming of the -year of jubilee. The next condition was that the master or his son -should marry the girl. What, therefore, are we to conclude from this -passage? Simply this, that neither the father nor the son marry the -girl, but simply betrothed her; that is, engaged her, promised to marry -her: but before the marriage relation was consummated the young man -changed his mind, and then God Almighty, to indicate his displeasure -at a man who would break the vow of engagement, fixes the following -penalties, namely that he shall provide for this woman, whom he has -wronged, her food, her raiment and her dwelling, and these are the -facts: and the gentleman has not proved, the gentleman cannot prove, -that either the father or the son marry the girl. He says the honored -term "wife" is there. Honored term! God bless that term! It is an -honored term, sacred as the nature of angels. Yet I have to inform my -distinguished friend that the word wife is neither in the Hebrew nor -in the Greek, but simply "if he take another," that is if he betroth -another, and then change his mind he shall do thus and so. Where then -is the gentleman's general law in approval of polygamy? -</p> -<p>The next passage is recorded in Deuteronomy xxv chap., and from the 5th -to the 10th verses, referring to the preservation of families: -</p><blockquote> -<p> If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, - the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her - husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her unto him to wife, - and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. -</p> -<p> And it shall be, that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed - in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out - of Israel. -</p> -<p> And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his - brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My - husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in - Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother: -</p> -<p> Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if - he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; -</p> -<p> Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the - elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, - and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will - not build up his brother's house. -</p> -<p> And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his - shoe loosed. -</p></blockquote> -<p>What is the object of this law! Evidently the preservation of families -and family inheritances. And now I challenge the gentleman to bring -forward a solitary instance in the Bible where a married man was -compelled to obey this law. Take the case of Tamar! Certainly the -brother that was to have married her could not have been a married man, -because she had to wait until he grew up. Then take the case of Ruth. -You know how she lost her noble Mahlon afar off beyond Jordan, and -how she returned to Bethlehem, and goes to Boaz, a near kinsman, and -demands that he shall marry her. Boaz says—"there is another kinsman. -I will speak to him." It is asked—"Didn't Boaz know whether the nearer -kinsman was married?" but yet that was not the business of Boaz. The -divine law required that this man should appear at the gate of the -city before the elders, and there either marry her or say that he was -disqualified because he was already a married man; and there is no -proof in the Bible that Boaz had been married; nay, more than this, old -Josephus, the Jewish historian, asserts that the reason why the near -kinsman did not marry Ruth was that he had a wife and children already, -so I judge that this law, which is said to be general, is that that I -laid down—"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another," etc. He -refers me to Numbers xxxi, 17th and 18th verses. -</p><blockquote> -<p> Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every - woman that hath known man by lying with him. -</p> -<p> But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, - keep alive for yourselves. -</p></blockquote> -<p>This passage has nothing whatever to do with polygamy. It is an -account of the results of a military expedition of the Jews against -the Midianites; their slaughter of a portion of the people, and their -reduction of the remainder to slavery—namely the women for domestics. -My friend dwells upon thirty-two thousand women that were saved! What -were these among the Jewish nation—a people numbering two and a half -millions? -</p> -<p>He quotes Deuteronomy xxi, 10th and 13th verses: -</p><blockquote> -<p> When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy - God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them - captive; -</p> -<p> And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto - her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; -</p> -<p> Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her - head, and pare her nails; -</p> -<p> And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall - remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full - mouth: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband - and she shall be thy wife. -</p></blockquote> -<p>This passage is designed to regulate the treatment of a captive woman -by the conqueror who desires her for a wife, and has no more to do with -polygamy than it has to do with theft or murder. Not a solitary word -is said about polygamy, no mention is made that the man is married, -therefore every jurist will agree with me that where we find a general -law we may judge a special enactment by the organic, fundamental -principle. -</p> -<p>He quoted Exodus xxii chap., 16 and 17, and Deuteronomy xxii, and 28 -and 29: -</p><blockquote> -<p> And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he - shall surely endow her to be his wife. -</p> -<p> If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money - according to the dowry of virgins. -</p></blockquote> -<p>In Deuteronomy it is said: -</p><blockquote> -<p> If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and - lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; -</p> -<p> Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father - fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath - humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -</p></blockquote> -<p>My friend appeared to confound these two laws, as if they had reference -to the same crime; but the first is the law of seduction, while the -second was the law of rape. In both cases the defiler was required to -marry his victim; but in the case of seduction, if the father of the -seduced girl would not consent to the marriage, then the sum usual -for the dowry of a virgin should be paid him and the offense was -expiated. But what was the penalty of rape? In that case there is no -ambiguity—the ravisher married his victim and paid her father fifty -pieces of silver besides. But what has this to do with polygamy? He -says it is a general law and applies to married men. This cannot be so, -because it is in conflict with the great law of Leviticus xviii, 18. -</p> -<p>I tell you, my friends, these are simple downright assumptions. The -position is first taken, and therefore these passages are adduced to -sustain that position; and this gentleman goes on to assume that all -these men are married men. It is a tremendous fact, that if a man -seduced a girl or committed a rape upon her, he was bound to marry that -girl. It is a tremendous fact that the same law gives to the father -the right of the refusal of his daughter, therefore the father has the -power to annul God's law of marriage. -</p> -<p>The next passage is the 2nd Chronicles, xxiv and 3rd, &c. It is the -case of Joash the king, and when he began to reign Jehoiada was high -priest. He was more than that—he was regent. My friend in portraying -the character of this great man said that because he took two wives for -King Joash, he was so highly honored that when he died he was buried -among the kings. But the fact is, he was regent, and there was royalty -in his regency, and this royalty entitled him to be interred in the -royal mausoleum. All that is said in Chronicles is simply an epitome—a -summing up, that King Joash had two wives. It does not say that he had -them at the same time; he might have had them in succession. I give -you an illustration: John Milton was born in London in 1609. He was -an eminent scholar, a great statesman and a beautiful poet; and John -Milton had three wives. There I stop. Are you to infer that John Milton -had these three wives simultaneously? Why you might according to the -gentleman's interpretation of this passage. But John Milton had them in -succession. But more than this, for argument's sake grant the position -assumed by my friend, then the numerical element of the argument must -come out, and a man can only have two wives and no more. Do you keep -that law here? And yet that is the argument and that is the logical -conclusion. -</p> -<p>The last passage my friend referred to was the 1st chapter of Hosea, -and 2nd verse: -</p><blockquote> -<p> The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said - to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of - whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredoms, departing from - the Lord. -</p></blockquote> -<p>That is, says Newcomb, a wife from among the Israelites, who were -remarkable for spiritual fornication. My friend is so determined on a -literal interpretation that he gives a literal interpretation, whereas -this distinguished biblical scholar says that it was not literal -fornication, but rather spiritual; in other words, idolatry; for in the -Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, idolatry is mentioned -under the term fornication. God calls himself the husband of Israel, -and this chosen nation owed him the fidelity of a wife. Exodus the -xxxiv Chapter and 15th verse: -</p><blockquote> -<p> Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they - go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and - one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice. -</p></blockquote> -<p>The 14th verse of the same chapter says: -</p><blockquote> -<p> For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is - jealous, is a jealous God. -</p></blockquote> -<p>He therefore sees thee with indignation join thyself in marriage to -one of those who had committed fornication or spiritual idolatry, lest -they should raise up children, who, by the power of example, might -lay themselves under the terribleness of idolatry. The prophet is -directed to get a wife of whoredoms; and, after this, he is directed -to go and love an adulterous woman. My friend cites these as examples -where God makes an exception to a general law. He also cites the case -of Abraham offering up his son Isaac, and the case of consanguinity, -in Deuteronomy xxv, from 5th to 10th verse. Now the first three -cases were merely typical; the first two were designed to set forth -more impressively the relations between God and His people. The -case of consanguinity has nothing to do with polygamy. It is only a -modification or exception in special cases for the preservation of the -families of Israel from extinction. Where, therefore, I ask, is the -general law? -</p> -<p>But my friend has forgotten this fact, that after having divorced the -first wife for adultery, as he had a right to do, in chapter ii, 2nd -and 5th verses, he is then directed to go and take another wife. This -is not polygamy. It was represented to us here, yesterday, that this -prophet, Hosea, was first commanded to take a woman guilty of adultery -or fornication, and then to take an adulteress, and the representation -was made that he took them and had them at the same time; whereas, -if Mr. Pratt had read a little further, he would have found that the -prophet divorced the first wife for adultery, and he had a right to do -it; and after he divorced her, then he went and took a second wife. -</p> -<p>Professor Pratt admits, mark you, admits that none of these passages, -nor all of them together, can afford in this day a warrant for the -practice of polygamy. Gives it up! Turns the Bible aside! I will read -to you from his own words: -</p><blockquote> -<p> Supposing that we should prove by a thousand evidences from the Bible - that polygamy was practised by ancient Israel, and was sanctioned by - God in ancient days, would that be any reason that you and I should - practise it? By no means. We must get a command independent of that, - which we have received. God frequently repeats His commands, and His - servants are required to obey His commands when they are given. The - Latter-day Saints in this Territory practise polygamy not because the - law of Moses commands it; not because it was extensively practised - by the best of men we know of, mentioned in the Bible, the old - patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob and others, who are saved in the kingdom - of God. We have no right to practise it because they did it. -</p></blockquote> -<p>Then he yields the point! I respectfully ask him, if this is his -position, why does he attempt, in all his writings, and to establish it -in that clever book the Seer? Why did he, in his controversy with me in -the New York Herald? Why has he from this stand attempted to prove that -the practice of polygamy was right from the Bible? Why not, like a man, -come out and say that we practise this system here, not because the -Jews did it; not because the Divine law sanctioned it years ago; but -because a certain man of the name of Smith received a revelation that -this form of marriage was to be practised? You, my friends, can see the -logical conclusion, or in other words the illogical bearing. -</p> -<p>Now, I come to the assumptions by the gentleman. First, that there is -no law condemning or forbidding polygamy. Has he proved that? Second, -that the Hebrew nation, as it was in the wilderness, when the Mosaic -code was given, was polygamous. Has he proved that? Can he find in -the whole history of the Jewish nation, from the time they left Egypt -to the time they entered the land of Canaan, can he find more than -one instance of polygamy? Perhaps he may find two. I will be glad to -receive that information, for I am a man seeking light, and to-day -I throw down a challenge to your eminent defender of the faith, to -produce more than two instances of polygamy, from the time the Jews -left the land of Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. I will assist -him in his research and tell him one, and that was Caleb. Now supposing -that a murder should be committed in your city, would it be fair for -Eastern papers to say that the Mormons are a murderous people? No, -I would rise up in defence of you; I would say that that is a crime -and an injury to the people here! Yet, during a period of forty years -we find one man out of two millions and a half of people practising -polygamy, and my friend comes forward and assumes that the Israelites -were polygamists. -</p> -<p>Third, that these laws were given to regulate among them an institution -already existing. Has he proved that? Supposing he could prove that -Moses attempted, or did legislate for the regulation of polygamy, as -it did exist in Egypt and elsewhere, would such legislation establish -a sanction? Why in Paris they have laws regulating the social evil; -is that an approval of the social evil? There are laws in most of the -States regulating and controling intemperance. Do excise laws sanction -intemperance? Nothing of the kind. For argument's sake I would be -willing to concede that Moses did legislate in regard to polygamy, -that is to regulate it, to confine its evils; and yet my friend is too -much of a legislator to stand here and assert that laws regulating and -defining were an approval of a system. -</p> -<p>Fourth, that these laws were general, applying to all men, married and -unmarried. Has he proved that? I have proved to the contrary to-day, -showing that in the passages which he quoted there is not a solitary or -remote intimation that the men were married. -</p> -<p>Now let us, in opposition to these assumptions, remember that monogamy -was established by God in the innocence of the human race, and that -polygamy, like idolatry, and slavery, blood revenge, drunkenness and -murder came into existence after the apostasy of the human family, and -that neither of these evils have any other origin so far as appears -from the Bible than in the wickedness of man. We admit that polygamy -existed among the corrupt nations, just as any other evil, or vice, -or crime existed, and now when God had chosen the Hebrews for His own -people, to separate them from the heathen, He gives them for the first -time a code of laws, and especially on the subject of the commerce -of the sexes. And what is the central principle of that code on this -subject? Read Leviticus xviii, 18—"Neither shall a man take one wife -unto another." -</p> -<p>In this code the following things are forbidden: Incest, polygamy, -fornication, idolatry, beastliness, &c.; we therefore deny that -the nation was polygamous at that time, deny it definitely, deny it -distinctly, and on another occasion I will give you the character of -the monogamists and polygamists of Bible times. The Jews had been four -hundred years in slavery, and they were brought out with a strong hand -and an outstretched arm. -</p> -<p>We, to-day, then challenge for the proof that as a nation the Jews -were polygamous. One or two instances, as I have already remarked, can -be adduced. We may say again that if, as he assumes, these laws were -given to regulate the existing system, this does not sanction it any -more than the same thing sanctions sheep-stealing or homicide. He said -these laws were general, applying to all men, married or unmarried. Has -he proved it? This is wholly gratuitous. There is no word in either of -these passages which permits or directs a married man to take more than -one wife at a time. I challenge the gentleman for the proof. It is no -evidence of the sanction of polygamy to bring passage after passage, -which he knows, if construed in favor of polygamy, polygamy must be in -direct conflict with the great organic law recorded in Leviticus xviii, -18. -</p> -<p>[At this point the umpires announced that the time was up.] -</p> - - -<h2><a name="THIRDANDCLOSINGDAY"></a>THIRD AND CLOSING DAY. -</h2> -<p class="centered">PROF. ORSON PRATT. -</p> -<p>Ladies and Gentlemen: -</p> -<p>We have assembled ourselves in this vast congregation in the third -session of our discussion, to take into consideration the Divinity of -a very important institution of the Bible. The question, as you have -already heard, is "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" Many arguments -have already been adduced, on the side of the affirmative, and also -on the side of the negative. This afternoon one hour is allotted to -me in the discussion, to bring forth still further evidences, which -will close the debate, so far as the affirmative is concerned; then to -be followed by the Reverend Dr. Newman, which will finally close the -discussion. -</p> -<p>Polygamy is a question, or in other words, is an institution of the -Bible; an institution established, as we have already shown, by Divine -authority; established by law—by command; and hence, of course, must -be sanctioned by the great Divine Law-Giver, whose words are recorded -in the Bible. -</p> -<p>Yesterday I was challenged by the Reverend Dr. Newman, to bring forth -any evidence whatever to prove that there were more than two polygamist -families in all Israel during the time of their sojourn in the -wilderness. At least this is what I understood the gentleman to say. I -shall now proceed to bring forth the proof. -</p> -<p>The statistics of Israel in the days of Moses show that there were of -males, over twenty years of age, Numbers 1st chapter, 49 verse: -</p><blockquote> -<p> Even all they that were numbered, were six hundred thousand and three - thousand, and five hundred and fifty. -</p></blockquote> -<p>It was admitted, yesterday afternoon, by Dr. Newman, that there were -two and a half millions of Israelites. Now I shall take the position -that the females among the Israelites were far more numerous than the -males; I mean that portion of them that were over twenty years of -age. I assume this for this reason, that from the birth of Moses down -until the time that the Israelites were brought out of Egypt, some -eighty years had elapsed. The destruction of the male children had -commenced before the birth of Moses; how many years before I know not. -The order of King Pharaoh was to destroy every male child. All the -people, subject to this ruler, were commanded to see that they were -destroyed and thrown into the river Nile. How long a period this great -destruction continued is unknown, but if we suppose that one male child -to every two hundred and fifty persons was annually destroyed, it would -amount to the number of ten thousand yearly. This would soon begin to -tell in the difference between the numbers of males and females. Ten -thousand each year would only be one male child to each two hundred -and fifty persons. How many would this make from the birth of Moses, -or eighty years? It would amount to 800,000 females above that of the -males. But I do not wish to take advantage in this argument by assuming -too high a number. I will diminish it one half, which will still leave -400,000 more females than males. This would be one male destroyed each -year out of every five hundred persons. The females, then, over twenty -years of age would be 603,550, added to 400,000 surplus women, making -in all 1,003,550 women over twenty years of age. The children, then, -under twenty years of age, to make up the two and a half millions, -would be 892,900, the total population of Israel being laid down at -2,500,000 people. -</p> -<p>Now, then, for the number of families constituting this population. -The families having first-born males over one month old, see Numbers -iii chapter and 43rd verse, numbered 22,273. Families having no male -children over one month old we may suppose to have been in the ratio -of one-third of the former class of families, which would make 7,424 -additional families. Add these to the 22,273 with first-born males -and we have the sum total of 20,697 as the number of the families in -Israel. Now, in order to favor the monogamists' argument, and give them -all the advantage possible, we will still add to this number to make -it even—303 families more, making thirty thousand families in all. -Now comes another species of calculation founded on this data: Divide -twenty-five hundred thousand persons by 22,273 first-born males, and we -find one first-born male to every 112 persons. What a large family for -a monogamist! But divide 2,500,000 persons by 30,000 and the quotient -gives eighty-three persons in a family. Suppose these families to have -been monogamic, after deducting husband and wife, we have the very -respectable number of eighty-one children to each monogamic wife. If we -assume the numbers of the males and females to have been equal, making -no allowance for the destruction of the male infants, we shall then -have to increase the children under twenty years of age to keep good -the number of two and a half millions. This would still make eighty-one -children to each of the 30,000 monogamic households. Now let us examine -these dates in connection with polygamy. If we suppose the average -number of wives to have been seven, in each household, though there may -have been men who had no wife at all, and there may have been some who -had but one wife; and there may have been others having from one up to -say thirty wives, yet if we average them at seven wives each, we would -then have one husband, seven wives and seventy-five children to make -up the average number of eighty-three in the family, in a polygamic -household. This would give an average of over ten children apiece to -each of the 210,000 polygamic wives. When we deduct the 30,000 husbands -from the 605,550 men over twenty years old we have 573,550 unmarried -men in Israel. If we deduct the 210,000 married women from the total of -1,005,550 over twenty years of age, we have 793,550 left. This would -be enough to supply all the unmarried men with one wife each, leaving -still a balance of 220,000 unmarried females to live old maids or enter -into polygamic households. -</p> -<p>The law guaranteeing the rights of the first-born, which has been -referred to in other portions of our discussion, includes those 22,273 -first-born male children in Israel, that is, one first born male child -to every 112 persons in Israel; taking the population as represented by -our learned friend, Mr. Newman, at two and a half millions. Thus we see -that there was a law given to regulate the rights of the first-born, -applying to over 22,000 first-born male children in Israel, giving them -a double portion of the goods and inheritances of their fathers. -</p> -<p>Having brought forth these statistics, let us for a few moments examine -more closely these results. How can any one assume Israel to have -been monogamic, and be consistent? I presume that my honored friend, -notwithstanding his great desire and earnestness to overthrow the -Divine evidences in favor of polygamy, would not say to this people -that one wife could bring forth eighty-one children. We can depend -upon these proofs—upon these biblical statistics. If he assumes -that the males and females were nearly equal in number, that Israel -was a monogamic people, then let Mr. Newman show how these great and -wonderful households could be produced in Israel, if there were only -two polygamic families in the nation. It would require something more -wonderful than the herb called "mandrake," referred to by Dr. Newman -in his rejoinder to my reply to him in the New York Herald. I think he -will not be able to find, in our day, an herb with such wonderfully -efficacious properties, which will produce such remarkable results. -</p> -<p>I have therefore established that Israel was a polygamic nation when -God gave them the laws which I have quoted, laws to govern and regulate -a people among whom were polygamic and monogamic families. The nation -was founded in polygamy in the days of Jacob, and was continued in -polygamy until they became very numerous, very great and very powerful, -while here and there might be found a monogamic family—a man with -one wife. Now if God gave laws to a people having these two forms of -marriage in the wilderness, He would adapt such laws to all. He would -not take up isolated instances here and there of a man having one wife, -but He would adapt His laws to the whole; to both the polygamic and -monogamic forms of marriage throughout all Israel. -</p> -<p>But we are informed by the reverend Doctor that the law given for the -regulation of matters in the polygamic form of marriage bears upon the -face of it the condemnation of polygamy. And to justify his assertion -he refers to the laws that have been passed in Paris to regulate the -social evil; and to the excise laws passed in our own country to -regulate intemperance; and claims that these laws for the regulation -of evils are condemnatory of the crimes to which they apply. But when -Parisians pass laws to regulate the social evil they acknowledge -it as a crime. When the inhabitants of this country pass laws to -regulate intemperance, they thereby denounce it as a crime. And when -God gives laws, or even when human legislatures make penal laws, they -denounce as crimes the acts against which these laws are directed, -and attach penalties to them for disobedience. When the law was -given of God against murder, it was denounced as a crime by the very -penalty attached, which was death; and when the law was given against -adultery its enormity was marked by the punishment—the criminal was -to be stoned to death. It was a crime, and was so denounced when the -law was given. God gave laws to regulate these things in Israel; but -because He has regulated many great and abominable crimes by law, has -He no right to regulate that which is good and moral as well as that -which is wicked and immoral? For instance, God introduced the law of -circumcision and gave commands regulating it; shall we, therefore -say, according to the logic of the gentleman, that circumcision was -condemned by the law of God, because it was regulated by the law of -God? That would be his logic, and the natural conclusion according to -his logic. Again, when God introduced the Passover. He gave laws how it -should be conducted. Does that condemn the Passover as being immoral -because regulated by law? But, still closer home, God gave laws to -regulate the monogamic form of marriage. Does that prove that monogamy -is condemned by the law of God, because thus regulated? On, that kind -of logic will never do! -</p> -<p>Now, then, we come to that passage in Leviticus, the xviii chapter, -and the 18th verse; the passage that was so often referred to in -the gentleman's reply yesterday afternoon. I was very glad to hear -the gentleman refer to this passage. The law, according to King -James' translation, as we heard yesterday afternoon, reads thus: -"Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover -her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time." That was the -law according to King James' translation. My friend, together with -Doctors Dwight and Edwards, and several other celebrated commentators, -disagree with that interpretation; and somebody, I know not whom, some -unauthorized person, has inserted in the margin another interpretation: -recollect, in the margin and not in the text. It is argued that this -interpretation in the margin must be correct, while King James' -translators must have been mistaken. Now, recollect that the great -commentators who have thus altered King James' translation were -monogamists. So were the translators of the Bible; they, too, were -monogamists. But with regard to the true translation of this passage, -it has been argued by my learned friend that the Hebrew—the original -Hebrew—signifies something a little different from that which is -contained in King James' translation. These are his words, as will be -found in his sermon preached at Washington, upon this same subject: -"But in verse 38 the law against polygamy is given, 'Neither shalt -thou take a wife to her sister;' or, as the marginal reading is, 'Thou -shalt not take one wife to another.' And this rendering is sustained by -Cookson, by Bishop Jewell and by Drs. Edwards and Dwight," four eminent -monogamists, interested in sustaining monogamy. According to Dr. -Edwards, the words which we translate 'a wife to her sister' are found -in the Hebrew but eight times. Now we have not been favored with these -authorities, we have had no access to them. Here in these mountain -wilds it is very difficult to get books. In each passage they refer to -inanimate objects; that is, in each of the eight places where the words -are found. We have searched for them in the Hebrew and can refer you -to each passage where they occur. And each time they refer to objects -joined together, such as wings, loops, curtains, etc., and signify -coupling together. The gentleman reads the passage "Thou shalt not take -one wife to another," and understands it as involving the likeness of -one thing to another, which is correct. But does the language forbid, -as the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife to another? No; we -have the privilege, according to the rules or articles of debate, which -have been read this afternoon, to apply to the original Hebrew. What -are the Hebrew words—the original—that are used? <em>Veishah el-ahotah -lo tikkah:</em> this, when literally translated and transposed is, "neither -shalt thou take a wife to her sister," veishah being translated by -King James' translators "a wife," el-ahotah being translated "to her -sister;" lo is translated "neither;" while tikkah is translated by -King James' translators "shalt thou take." They have certainly given a -literal translation. Appeal to the Hebrew and you will find the word -ishah occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "wife." -The word "ahotah", translated by King James' translators "a sister," -occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "sister." But -are these the only translations—the only renderings? Ishah, when it is -followed by ahot has another rendering. That is when "wife" is followed -by "sister" there is another rendering. -</p> -<p>Translators have no right to give a double translation to the same -Hebrew word, in the same phrase; if they translate veishah one, they -are not at liberty to translate the same word in the same phrase over -again and call it wife. This Dr. Edwards, or some other monogamist, has -done, and inserted this false translation in the margin. What object -such translator had in deceiving the public must be best known to -himself: he probably was actuated by a zeal to find some law against -polygamy, and concluded to manufacture the word "wife," and place it -in the margin, without any original Hebrew word to represent it. Ahot, -when standing alone, is rendered sister; when preceded by ishah, is -rendered another; the suffix ah, attached to ahot, is translated "her;" -both together (ahot-ah) are rendered "her sister," that is sister's -sister; when ahot is rendered "another," its suffix ah represents "her" -or more properly the noun sister, for which it stands. The phrase will -then read: Veishah (one) el-ahotah (sister to another) lo (neither) -tikkah (shalt thou take) which, when transposed, reads thus: <em>Neither -shalt thou take one sister to another</em>. This form of translation agrees -with the rendering given to the same Hebrew words or phrase in the -seven other passages of Scripture, referred to by Dr. Newman and Dr. -Edwards. (See Exodus xxvi, 3, 5; Ezekiel i, 9, 11, 23; also iii, 13.) -</p> -<p>It will be seen that the latter form of translation gives precisely -the same idea as that given by the English translators in the text. It -also agrees with the twelve preceding verses of the law, prohibiting -intermarriages among blood relations, and forms a part and parcel of -the same code; while the word "wife," inserted in the margin, is not, -and cannot, by any possible rule of interpretation, be extorted from -the original connection with the second form of translation. -</p> -<p>Why should King James' literal translation "wife" and "sister" be -set aside for "one to another?" Because they saw a necessity for it. -There is this difference: in all the other seven passages where the -words Veishah el-ahotah occur, there is a noun in the nominative case -preceding them, denoting something to be coupled together. Exodus 26th -chapter, 3rd verse contains ishah el-ahotah twice, signifying to couple -together the curtains one to another, the same words being used that -are used in this text. Go to the fifth verse of the same chapter, and -there we have the loops of the curtains joined together one to another, -the noun in the nominative case being expressed. Next go to Ezekiel, -1st chapter, 9th, 11th and 23rd verses, and these three passages give -the rendering of these same words, coupling the wings of the cherubim -one to another. Then go again to the 3rd chapter of Ezekiel and 13th -verse, and the wings of the living creatures were joined together one -to another. But in the text under consideration no such noun in the -nominative case occurs; and hence the English translators concluded to -give each word its literal translation. -</p> -<p>The law was given to prevent quarrels, which are apt to arise among -blood relations. We might look for quarrels on the other side between -women who were not related by blood; but what are the facts in relation -to quarrels between blood relations? Go back to Cain and Abel. Who was -it spilled the blood of Abel? It was a blood relation, his brother. -Who was it that cast Joseph into the pit to perish with hunger, and -afterwards dragged him forth from his den and sold him as a slave to -persons trading through the country? It was blood relations. Who slew -the seventy sons of Gideon upon one stone? It was one of their own -brothers that hired men to do it. Who was it that rebelled against -King David, and caused him with all his wives and household, excepting -ten concubines, to flee out of Jerusalem? It was his blood relation, -his own son Absalom. Who quarrelled in the family of Jacob? Did Bilhah -quarrel with Zilpah? No. Did Leah quarrel with Bilhah or Zilpah? -No such thing is recorded. Did Rachel quarrel with either of the -handmaidens? There is not a word concerning the matter. The little, -petty difficulties occurred between the two sisters, blood relations, -Rachel and Leah. And this law was probably given to prevent such -vexations between blood relations—between sister and sister. -</p> -<p>Having effectually proved the marginal reading to be false, I will -now defy not only the learned gentleman, but all the world of Hebrew -scholars to find any word in the original to be translated "wife" if -ishah be first translated "one." -</p> -<p>I am informed I have only fifteen minutes. I was not aware I had spoken -a quarter of the time. I shall have to leave this subject and proceed -to another. -</p> -<p>The next subject to which I will call your attention is in regard to -the general or unlimited language of the laws given in the various -passages which I have quoted. If a man shall commit rape, if a man -shall entice a maid, if a man shall do this, or that, or the other, is -the language of these passages. Will any person pretend to say that a -married man is not a man? And if a married person is a man, it proves -that the law is applicable to married men, and if so it rests with my -learned friend to prove that it is limited. Moreover, the passage from -the margin in Leviticus was quoted by Dr. Newman as a great fundamental -law by which all the other passages were to be overturned. But it has -failed; and, therefore, the other passages quoted by me, stand good -unless something else can be found by the learned gentleman to support -his forlorn hope. -</p> -<p>Perhaps we may hear quoted in the answer to my remarks the passage -that the future king of Israel was not to multiply wives to himself. -That was the law. The word multiply is construed by those opposed to -polygamy to mean that twice one make two, and hence that he was not -to multiply wives, or, in other words, that he was not to take two. -But the command was also given that the future king of Israel was not -to multiply horses anymore than wives. Twice one make two again. Was -the future king of Israel not to have more than one horse? The idea is -ridiculous! The future king of Israel was not to multiply them; not to -have them in multitude, that is, only to take such a number as God saw -proper to give him. -</p> -<p>We might next refer you to the uncle of Ruth's dead husband, old Boaz, -who represented himself as not being the nearest kin. There was another -nearer who had the Divine right to take her, and this other happened -to be the brother of Boaz, perhaps a little older. Josephus tells us, -according to the learned gentleman, that this oldest brother was a -married man. Suppose we admit it. Did Boaz not know that his brother -was married when he represented him as the nearest of kin and had the -right before him? And even the brother acknowledges his right, and says -to Boaz: "Redeem thou my right to thyself." He had the right to marry -her. This, then, we arrive at by the assistance of Josephus; and it -proves that married men were required to comply with the law. I have -no further time to remark on this passage. I wish now to examine a -passage that is contained in Matthew, in regard to divorces, and also -in Malachi, on the same subject. Malachi, or the Lord by the mouth -of Malachi, informs the people that the Lord hated putting away. He -gave the reason why a wife should not be put away. Not a word against -polygamy in either passage. -</p> -<p>But there is certain reasoning introduced to show that a wife should -not be put away. In the beginning the Lord made one, that is a wife -for Adam, that he might not be alone. Woman was given to man for a -companion, that he might protect her, and for other holy purposes, but -not to be put away for trivial causes; and it was cause of condemnation -in those days for a man to put away his wife. But there is not a word -in Malachi condemnatory of a man marrying more than one wife. Jesus -also gives the law respecting divorces, that they should not put away -their wives for any other cause than that of fornication; and he that -took a wife that was put away would commit adultery. Jesus says, in the -5th chapter, that he that putteth away his wife for any other cause -than fornication causes her to commit adultery. Then the husband is a -guilty accomplice, and if he puts away his wife unjustly he is guilty -of adultery himself, the same as a confederate in murder is himself -a murderer. As an adulterer he has no right to take another wife; he -has not the right to take even one wife. His right is to be stoned -to death; to suffer the penalty of death for his sin of adultery. -Consequently, if he has no right to even life itself, he has no right -to a wife. But the case of such a man, who has become an adulterer -by putting away his wife, and has no right to marry another, has no -application, nor has the argument drawn from it any application, to the -man who keeps his wife and takes another. The law referred to by my -learned opponent, in Leviticus xviii and 18, shows that polygamy was in -existence, but was to be kept within the circle of those who were not -blood relations. -</p> -<p>Concerning the phrase "duty of marriage," occurring in the passage, -"If a man take another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of -marriage shall he not diminish." The condition here referred to is -sometimes more than mere betrothal. It is something showing that the -individual has been not merely previously betrothed, but is actually -in the married state, and the duty of marriage is clearly expressed. -What is the meaning of the original word? It does not mean dwelling nor -refuge, as asserted in the New York Herald by Dr. Newman. Four passages -are quoted by him in which the Hebrew word for dwelling occurs, but the -word translated "duty" of marriage, is entirely a distinct word from -that used in the four passages referred to. Does not the learned Dr. -know the difference between two Hebrew words? Or what was his object -in referring to a word elsewhere in the Scripture that does not even -occur in the text under consideration? In a Hebrew and English Lexicon, -(published by Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M., Prof. of Sacred Liter., in the -Theology School in Yale College,) page 160, it refers to this very -Hebrew word and to the very passage, Ex. xxxi, 10, and translates it -thus:—"cohabitation,"—"duty of marriage." "Duty of marriage" then is -"cohabitation:" thus God commands a man who takes another wife, not to -diminish the duty of cohabitation with the first. Would God command -undiminished "cohabitation" with a woman merely betrothed and not -married? -</p> -<p>While I have a few moments left let me refer you to Hosea. I wish all -of you, when you go home, to read the second chapter of Hosea, and -you will find, with regard to Hosea's having divorced his first wife -because of her whoredoms, that no such thing is recorded as stated -by Mr. Newman yesterday. The Lord tells Hosea to go and speak to his -brethren, (not to his son,) to his sisters, (not his daughter,) of -the house of Israel, and tell them what the Lord will do; that he may -not acknowledge them any longer as a wife. Hosea bore the word of the -Lord to Israel, whom his own two wives represented, saying that their -whoredoms, their wickedness and idolatries had kindled the anger of the -Lord against them. -</p> -<p>Having discussed the subject so far I leave it now with all candid -persons to judge. Here is the law of God; here is the command of the -Most High, general in its nature, not limited, nor can it be proved to -be so. There is no law against it, but it stands as immovable as the -Rock of Ages, and will stand when all things on the earth and the earth -itself shall pass away. -</p> -<h3>Dr. J. F. NEWMAN Said: -</h3> -<p>Respected Umpires, and Ladies and Gentlemen: -</p> -<p>I had heard, prior to my coming to your city, that my distinguished -opponent was eminent in mathematics, and certainly his display to-day -confirms that reputation. Unfortunately, however, he is incorrect in -his statements. First, he assumes that the slaying of all the male -children of the Hebrews was continued through eighty years; but he has -failed to produce the proof. To do this was his starting point. He -assumes it; where is the proof, either in the Bible or in Josephus? -And until he can prove that the destruction of the male children went -on for eighty years, I say this argument has no more foundation than -a vision. Then he makes another blunder: the 303,550, the number of -men above twenty years of age, mentioned in this case, were men to go -to war; they were not the total population of the Jewish nation, and -yet my mathematical friend stands up here to-day and declares that the -whole male population above twenty years of age consisted of 303,550, -whereas it is a fact that this number did not include all the males. -</p> -<p>Then again the 22,273 first-born do not represent the number of -families in Israel at that time, for many of the first-born were -dead. These are the blunders that the gentleman has made to-day, and -I challenge him to produce the contrary and prove that he is not -guilty of these numerical blunders. Then he denies the assertion made -yesterday that there could not be brought forward more than one or -two instances of polygamy in the history of Israel from the time the -Hebrews left Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. Has he disproved -that? He has attempted to prove it by a mathematical problem, which -problem is based on error: his premises are wrong, therefore his -conclusions are false. Why didn't he turn to King James' translation? -I will help him to one polygamist, that is Caleb. Why didn't he start -with old Caleb and go down and give us name after name and date after -date of the polygamists recorded in the history of the Jews while they -were in the wilderness? Ladies and gentlemen, he had none to give, and -therefore the assertion made yesterday is true, that during the sojourn -of the children of Israel in the wilderness there is but one instance -of polygamy recorded. -</p> -<p>Now we come to the law that I laid down yesterday—"Neither shalt thou -take one wife to another." I reaffirm that the translation in the -margin is perfect to a word. He labors to show that God does not mean -what He says. That the phrase "one wife to another," may be equally -rendered one woman to another, or one wife to her sister. The very same -phrase is used in the other seven passages named by Dr. Dwight. For -example, Exodus xxvi, 3, Ezekiel i, 9, etc. He admits the translation -in these passages to be correct. If it is correct in these passages, -why is it not correct in the other? His very admission knocks to pieces -his argument. Why then does he labor to create the impression that the -Hebrew ishau means woman, or wife? What is the object of the travail of -his soul? The word ahoot, he contends, means sister; but sister itself, -is a word which means a specific relation, and a generic relation. -Every woman is sister to every other woman, and I challenge the -gentleman to meet me on paper at any time, in the newspapers of your -city or elsewhere upon the Hebrew of this text. I reaffirm it, reaffirm -it in the hearing of this learned gentleman, reaffirm it in the hearing -of these Hebraists, that as it is said in the margin, is the true -rendering, namely, "neither shalt thou take one wife to another." But -supposing that is incorrect, permit me, before I pass on, to remind you -of this fact, he refers, I think, in his first speech, to the "margin;" -the "margin" was correct then and there, but it is not here. It is a -poor rule that will not work both ways; correct when he wants to quote -from the "margin," but not when I want to do so. He quoted from the -margin, and I followed his illustrious example. -</p> -<p>And now, my friends, supposing that the text means just what he says, -namely, "neither shalt thou take a wife unto her sister, to vex her;" -supposing that is the rendering, and he asserts it is, and he is a -Hebraist, I argued and brought the proof yesterday that this law of -Moses is not kept by the Mormons; in other words there are men in -your very midst who have married sisters. Where was the gentleman's -solemn denunciation of the violation of God's law? Why did he not lift -his voice and vindicate the Divine law? But not a solitary word of -disapproval is uttered! Yesterday he pronounced a curse—"cursed is -he that conforms not to the words of this law, to do them." Does not -the curse rest upon him and upon his people? I gave him the liberty to -choose whether this text condemned polygamy, or whether it condemned -a man for marrying two sisters; he must take his choice, the horns of -the dilemma are before him. For the sake of saving polygamy he stands -up here, in the presence of Almighty God and His holy angels, and -before this intelligent congregation he admits that in this church, -and with this people, God's holy law is set at defiance. What respect, -therefore, can we have for the gentleman's argument, drawn from the -teachings of Moses, in support of polygamy? -</p> -<p>He refers us to the multiplication of horses. I suppose a king may have -one horse or two, there is no special rule; but there is a special rule -as to the number of wives. Neither shall the king multiply wives. God, -in the beginning, gave the first man one wife, and Christ and Paul -sustain that law as binding upon us. And now, supposing that that is -not accepted as a law, what then? Why there is no limit to the number -of wives, none at all. How many shall a man have? Seven, twenty, fifty, -sixty, a hundred? Why, they somewhere quote a passage that if a man -forsake his wife he shall have a hundred. Well, he ought to go on -forsaking; for if he will forsake a hundred he will have ten thousand; -and if he forsake ten thousand he will have so many more in proportion. -It is his business to go on forsaking. That is in the Professor's book -called the Seer. Such a man would keep the Almighty busy creating women -for him. -</p> -<p>I regret very much that I have not time to notice all the points -which have been brought forward. I desired to do so. I plead for more -time; my friends plead for more time; but time was denied us, I am -therefore restricted to an hour. Now, I propose to follow out the -line of argument which I was pursuing yesterday when my time expired, -and I propose to carry out and apply the great law brought forward -yesterday—"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another;" and in -doing this we call your attention to the fact that in the Bible there -are only twenty-five or thirty specially recorded cases of polygamy, -all told, out of thousands and millions of people. I say twenty-five -or thirty specially recorded cases, which polygamists of our day -claim in support of their position. I propose to take up, say half a -dozen of the most prominent ones. I divide the period, before the law -and after the law. I take up Abraham. It is asserted that he was a -polygamist. I deny it. There is no proof that Abraham was guilty of -polygamy. What are the facts? When he was called of the Almighty to be -the founder of a great nation, a promise was given him that he should -have a numerous posterity. At that time he was a monogamist, had but -one wife—the noble Sarah. Six years passed and the promise was not -fulfilled. Then Sarah, desiring to help the Lord to keep His promise, -brought her Egyptian maid Hagar, and offered her as a substitute for -herself to Abraham. Mind you, Abraham did not go after Hagar, but -Sarah produced her as a substitute. Immediately after the act was -performed Sarah discovered her sin and said, "My wrong be upon thee." -"I have committed sin, but I did it for thy sake, and therefore the -wrong that I have committed is upon thee." Then look at the subsequent -facts: by the Divine command this Egyptian girl was sent away from the -abode of Abraham by the mutual consent of the husband and the wife; -by the Divine command, it is said that she was recognized as the wife -of Abraham, but I say you cannot prove it from the Bible; but it is -said that she was promised a numerous posterity. It was also foretold -that Ishmael should be a wild man—"his hand against every man and -every man's hand against him." Did that prediction justify Ishmael -in being a robber and a murderer? No, certainly not; neither did the -other prediction, that Hagar should have a numerous posterity, justify -the action of Abraham in taking her. After she had been sent away by -Divine command, God said unto Abraham—"now walk before me and be thou -perfect." -</p> -<p>These are the facts my friends. I know that some will refer you -to Keturah; but this is the fact in regard to her: Abraham lived -thirty-eight years after the death of Sarah; the energy miraculously -given to Abraham's body for the generation of Isaac was continued after -Sarah's death; but to suppose that he took Keturah during Sarah's -lifetime is to do violence to his moral character. But it is said -he sent away the sons of Keturah with presents during his lifetime, -therefore it must have been during the life time of Sarah. He lived -thirty-eight years after the death of Sarah, and he sent these sons -away eight years before his death, and they were from twenty-five to -thirty years old. Then this venerable Patriarch stands forth as a -monogamist and not as a polygamist. -</p> -<p>Then we come to the case of Jacob. What are the facts in regard to him? -Brought up in the sanctity of monogamy, after having robbed his brother -of his birth-right, after having lied to his blind old father, he then -steals away and goes to Padan-aram and there falls in love with Rachel; -but in his bridal bed he finds Rachel's sister Leah. He did not enter -polygamy voluntarily but he was imposed upon. As he had taken advantage -of the blindness of his father and thereby imposed upon him, so also -was he imposed upon by Laban in the darkness of the night. But I hold -this to be true that Jacob is nowhere regarded as a saintly man prior -to his conversion at the brook Jabbok. After that he appears to us in a -saintly character. It is a remarkable fact that Jacob lived 147 years -all told, eighty-seven of which he lived before he became a polygamist. -He lived twenty-two years in polygamy, he lived forty years after -he had abandoned polygamy, so that out of 147 years there were only -twenty-two years during which he had any connection with polygamy. -</p> -<p>I wish my friend had referred to the case of Moses. In his sermon -on celestial marriage he claims that Moses was a polygamist, and -he declares that the leprosy that was sent upon Miriam was for her -interference with the polygamous marriage of Moses. What are the facts? -There is no record of a second marriage. Zipporah is the only name -given as the wife of Moses. What, then, is the assertion made? Simply -this: It is recorded: and Moses was content to dwell with Jethro. He -gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter. Josephus speaks of Jethro having -two daughters, and distinctly says that he gave Moses one of them. In -Numbers xii and 1st, it is said: -</p><blockquote> -<p> And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian - woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. -</p></blockquote> -<p>Now it is affirmed that two women are here mentioned, whereas nothing -can be more untrue. Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman are one and -identical; it is one and the same person called by different names. Let -us see: The father of Zipporah was the priest of Midian; and according -to the best authorities Midian and Ethiopia are identical terms, and -apply to that portion of Arabia where Jethro lived. So the appellation -Midian, Ethiopia and Arabia are applied to the Arabian peninsula. See -Appleton's American Encyclopedia, volumes 6, 7 and 11. Then Moses, the -Jewish law-giver, stands forth as a monogamist, having but one wife. -Moses was not a polygamist. Surely the founder of a polygamist nation -and the revealer of a polygamist law, as this gentleman claims, should -have set an example, and should have had a dozen or a hundred wives. -This son of Jochebed; he was a monogamist, and stands forth as being a -reproof to polygamists in all generations. -</p> -<p>Now we come to Gideon. And what about this man? An angel appeared to -him, that is true; but if the practice of polygamy by Gideon is a law -to us, then the practice of idolatry by Gideon is also a law to us. If -there is silence in the Bible touching the polygamy of Gideon, there -is also silence in the Bible touching his idolatry, and if one is -sanctioned so also is the other. -</p> -<p>I wish my friend had brought up the case of Hannah, the wife of -Elkanah. I can prove to a demonstration that Hannah was the first wife -of Elkanah; but being barren Elkanah takes another wife. But Hannah, in -the anxiety of her heart, pleads to the Almighty, and God honored her -motherhood by answering her prayer. It is asked "Is not this a sanction -of polygamy?" Nay, a sanction of monogamy, because she was the first -wife of Elkanah, and because Elkanah had been guilty of infidelity and -married another wife, was that a reason why Hannah should not have her -rights from High Heaven, why God Almighty should not answer her prayer? -You ask me why did not she pray before. Can you tell me why Isaac did -not pray twenty years sooner for his wife, Rebecca, that she might have -children? I can not tell and you can not tell, all that I assert is -that Hannah was the first wife of Elkanah, and God honored and blessed -the beautiful Samuel. -</p> -<p>Now we come to David. Why did not my friend bring up David, the great -warrior, king and poet, the ruler of Israel? He might have mentioned -him, with ten wives all told; he might also have mentioned him as the -adulterer, who committed one of the most premeditated, cold-blooded -murders on record, simply to cover up his crime of adultery. How often -do you hear quoted the words "and I gave thy master's wives into thy -bosom!"? Is this an approval of polygamy? If you will read on you -will find also that God also promises to give his (David's) wives to -another, and that another should lie with them in the sight of the -sun. Surely if one is an approval of polygamy the other is an approval -of rebellion and incest! David lived to be seventy-five years old. He -was twenty-seven years old when he took his first wife Michael, the -daughter of Saul. For the next forty years we find him complicated with -the evils, crimes and sorrows of polygamy; and the old man, seeing its -great sin, thoroughly repented of it and put it away from him, and for -the last eight years of his life endeavored to atone, as best he could, -for his troubled and guilty experience. -</p> -<p>And what of Solomon? He is the greatest polygamist—the possessor of -a thousand wives! Had this gentleman told me that Solomon's greatness -was predicted, and therefore his polygamic birth was approved, and his -polygamic marriage also approbated, I can remind him of the fact that -the future greatness of Christ was foretold; but the foretelling of -the future greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ was not an approval of -the betrayal by Judas and the crucifixion by the Jews. Neither was the -mere foretelling of the future greatness of Solomon an approval of the -polygamic character of his birth. -</p> -<p>I suppose the gentleman on this occasion would have referred to the -law of bastardy and have said, if my doctrine is true, then Solomon -and others were bastards. I could have wished that he had produced -that point. He did quote and declare in this temple, not long since, -in reference to the law touching bastardy, that a bastard should be -branded with infamy to the tenth generation. But it is plain that -he has misunderstood the law respecting bastards, as contained in -Deuteronomy xxiii and 2nd. It is known from history that the same -signification has not always been attached to this term. We say a -bastard is one born out of wedlock, that is monogamous matrimony. In -Athens, in the days of Pericles, five centuries before Christ, all were -declared bastards by law who were not the children of native Athenians. -And we here assert to-day that the gentleman can not bring forward a -law from the book of Jewish laws to prove that a child born of a Jew -and Jewess, whether married or not, was a bastard. The only child -recognized as a bastard by Jewish law is a child born of a Jew and a -Pagan woman; therefore the objection falls to the ground, and Solomon -and others, who were not to blame for the character of their birth, are -exonerated. -</p> -<p>The geometrical progression of evil in this system of polygamy is seen -in the first three kings, Saul, David and Solomon. Saul had a wife and -a concubine—two women; David had ten women, Solomon had a thousand, -and it broke the kingdom asunder. God says it was for that very cause. -He had multiplied his wives to such an extent, that they had not only -led him astray from God into idolatry, but the very costliness of his -harem was a burden upon the people too heavy for them to bear. I said -the other day that polygamy might do for kings and priests and nabobs, -but could not do for poor men; it costs too much and the people are -taxed too much to support the harem. -</p> -<p>Ah! you bring forward these few cases of polygamy! Name them if you -please. Lamech the murderer; Jacob, who deceived his blind old father, -and robbed his brother of his birthright; David, who seduced another -man's wife and murdered that man by putting him in front of the -battle, and old Solomon, who turned to be an idolater. These are some -polygamists! Now let me call the roll of honor: There were Adam, Enoch, -Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Joseph and Samuel and -all the prophets and apostles. You are accustomed to hear, from this -sacred place, that all the patriarchs and all the kings and all the -prophets were polygamists. I assert to the contrary, and these great -and eminent men whom I have just mentioned, belonging to the roll of -honor, were monogamists. -</p> -<p>Yesterday the gentleman gave me three challenges; he challenged me to -show that the New Testament condemned polygamy. I now proceed to do it. -I quote Paul's words, 1st Corinthians, 7th chap., 2nd and 4th verses: -</p><blockquote> -<p> Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, - and let every woman have her own husband. -</p> -<p> The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise - also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. -</p></blockquote> -<p>Marriage is a remedy against fornication, and this is the subject of -the chapter. This is the opinion of Clark, Henry, Whitby, Langley and -others. One great evil prevailed at Corinth—a community of wives, -which the apostle here calls fornication. St. Paul strikes at the very -root of the evil and commands that every man have his own wife and that -every woman have her own husband: that is, let every man have his own -peculiar, proper and appropriate wife, and the wife her own proper, -peculiar and appropriate husband. In this there is mutual appropriation -and exclusiveness of right; and this command of Paul agrees with the -law of Moses in Leviticus xviii, 18: "Neither shalt thou take one wife -unto another," and the two are one statute, clear and unquestionable -for monogamy and against polygamy. The apostle teaches the reciprocal -duties of husband and wife, and the exclusive right of each. In verse -four it is distinctly affirmed that the husband has exclusive power -over the body of his wife, as the wife has exclusive power over the -body of her husband. It is universally admitted that this passage -proves the exclusive right of the husband to the wife, and by parity -it also proves the exclusive right of the wife to the husband. These -relations are mutual, and if the husband can claim a whole wife, the -wife can claim a whole husband. She has just as good a right to a whole -husband as he has a right to a whole wife. First Corinthians, 6th -chapter, 15th, 16th and 17th verses says: -</p><blockquote> -<p> Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then - take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot? God - forbid. -</p> -<p> What! know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? - for two (saith he) shall be one flesh. -</p> -<p> But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. -</p></blockquote> -<p>This passage is brought against the idea, but what are the facts? It -is objected that if one flesh is conclusively expressive of wedlock, -that St. Paul affirms that sexual commerce with a harlot is marriage. -For argument's sake I accept the assertion. The passage in question is: -"What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body?" -"For two," says he, "shall be one flesh, but he which is joined to the -Lord is one spirit." Now look at the facts of the position, showing -the true relation of the believer to Christ. It is illustrated under -the figure of marriage. The design of this figure is to show that the -believer becomes one with Christ; and the apostle further explains, in -reproof of the Corinthians mingling with idolaters and adulterers, that -by this mingling they become assimilated and identical. He brings up an -illustration that if a man is married to a harlot, not simply joined, -but cohabit with or married to a harlot, he becomes identical with her; -in other words, one flesh. -</p> -<p>There is a passage which declares that "a bishop must be blameless, the -husband of one wife." It is asserted that he must have one wife anyhow -and as many more as he pleases. It is supposed that this very caution -indicates the prevalence of polygamy in that day; but no proof can be -brought to bear that polygamy prevailed extensively at that time; on -the contrary I am prepared to prove that polygamists were not admitted -into the Christian Church, for Paul lays down the positive command: -"Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband;" -so that if you say the former applies to the priest, and the latter, -applies to the layman, what is good for the priest is good for the -layman, and vice versa. -</p> -<p>How often is it asserted here that monogamy has come from the Greeks -and Romans. But look at the palpable contradiction in the assertion. It -is asserted that monogamy came from those nations; it is also asserted -that polygamy was universal at the time of Christ and his apostles. -If monogamy came from the Greeks and Romans, then polygamy could not -have been universally prevalent, for it is admitted that at that time -the Romans held universal sway, and wherever they held sway their laws -prevailed, hence the two statements cannot be reconciled. -</p> -<p>Now we come to the words of the Savior, Matthew v, 27 and 28; and xix, -8 and 9, and Mark x, and 11 and 12. At that time, when the Savior was -discoursing with the Pharisees, as recorded in Matthew xix, the Jews -were divided as to the interpretation of the law of Moses touching -divorce: "when a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it comes -to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some -uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement." Upon -the meaning of the word uncleanness, the Jews differed: some agreed -with the school of Rabbi Hillel: that a man might dismiss his wife for -the slightest offence, or for no offence at all, if he found another -woman that pleased him better; but the school of Rabbi Shammai held -that the term uncleanness means moral delinquency. The Pharisees came -to Christ, hoping to involve him in this controversy; He declined, but -took advantage of the opportunity to give them a discourse on marriage, -and in doing so, he refers to the original institution, saying "have -ye not read that in the beginning God made them male and female?" Thus -He brings out the great law of monogamy. Grant that the allusion is -incidental, nevertheless, it is all-important as falling from the lips -of the Great Master. -</p> -<p>I was challenged to show that polygamy is adultery. The gentleman -challenged me, and I will now proceed to prove it. As adultery is -distinguished in Scripture from whoredom and fornication, it is proper -to ascertain the exact meaning of the words as used by the sacred -writers. The word translated whoredom is from the Hebrew verb Zanah -and the Greek pornica, and means pollution, defilement, lewdness, -prostitution and, in common parlance, whoredom, the prostitution of the -body for gain. The word translated fornication is from the same Hebrew -verb, and in general, signifies criminal, sexual intercourse without -the formalities of marriage. Adultery is from the Hebrew word Naaph and -the Greek word Moicheia, and is the criminal intercourse of a married -woman with another man than her husband, or of a married man with -any other woman than his wife. This is indicated by the philological -significance of the term adulterate, compounded of two words meaning -to another, as the addition of pure and impure liquors, or of an alloy -with pure metal. Adulterer is from the Hebrew Naaph and the Greek -Moichos, which mean as above. -</p> -<p>The material question to be settled is, Is the Hebrew word Naaph and -the Greek word Moichos or Moicheia confined to the criminal sexual -intercourse between a man, married or unmarried, with a married woman? -This is the theory of the Mormon polygamists; but I join issue with -them and assert that the Scriptures teach that adultery is committed by -a married man who has sexual intercourse with a woman other than his -wife, whether said woman is married or unmarried. It is conceded that -he is an adulterer who has carnal connection with a woman married or -betrothed. Thus far we agree. -</p> -<p>Now can it be proved that the sin of adultery is committed by a -married man having carnal connection with a woman neither married nor -betrothed! To prove this point I argue: -</p> -<p>First, that the Hebrew word Naaph, translated in the seventh -commandment, adultery, does include all criminal sexual intercourse. -It is a generic term and the whole includes the parts. It is like the -word kill in the sixth commandment, which includes all those passions -and emotions of the human soul which lead to murder, such as jealousy, -envy, malice, hatred, revenge. So this word Naaph includes whoredom, -fornication, adultery, and even salacial lust. Matthew v, 27, 29. -</p> -<p>Second. The terms adultery and fornication are used interchangeably by -our Lord, and mean the same thing. A married woman copulating with a -man other than her husband is admitted to be adultery, but the highest -authority we can bring forward calls the act fornication. Matthew v, 3, -2. Romans vii, 2, 3. 1st Corinthians vii, 1, 4. -</p> -<p>Third. The carnal connection of a man with an unmarried woman is -positively declared to be adultery in God's holy word. It is so -recorded in Job xxiv, from the 15th to the 21st verse; and in Isaiah -lvii and 3rd it is taught that the adulterer commits his sin with the -whore. Therefore I conclude that the term Naaph, as used in the seventh -commandment, comprehends all those modifications of that crime, down to -the salacial lust that a man may feel in his soul for a woman. -</p> -<p>But it may be asked: If this is so, why then, does the Mosiac law -mention a married woman? We deny that such a distinction is made. -We do admit, however, that special penalties were pronounced on -such an action with a married woman, but for special reasons. What -were they? To preserve the genealogy, parentage and birth of Christ -from interruption and confusion, which were in imminent danger when -intercourse with a married woman was had by a man other than her -husband. And no such danger could arise from the intercourse with -a married man with an unmarried woman. That law was temporary, and -was abolished and passed away when Christ came. Under the Jewish -dispensation he that cohabited with a woman other than his wife was -responsible to God for the violation of the seventh commandment; the -woman was also responsible to God for the violation of the seventh -commandment and this special law. But here you say if this be true, -then some great men in Bible times were guilty of the violation of -the seventh commandment. I say they were; but they were not all -polygamists: that I have demonstrated to you to-day. But take the -facts: Abraham, when convinced of his sin, put away Hagar; Jacob lived -several years out of the state of polygamy; David put away all his -wives eight years before he died; and if there is no account that -Solomon put away his, neither is there the assurance that he abandoned -his idolatry. -</p> -<p>This then, my friend, is the argument; and as a Christian minister, -desiring only your good, I proclaim the fact that polygamy is adultery. -I do it in all kindness, but I assert it as a doctrine taught in the -Bible. -</p> -<p>I am challenged again to prove that polygamy is no prevention of -prostitution. It has been affirmed time and time again, not only in -this discussion, but in the written works of these distinguished -gentlemen around me, that in monogamic countries prostitution, or -what is known as the social evil, is almost universally prevalent. I -perceive that I have not time to follow out this in arguments; but I -am prepared to prove, and I will prove it in your daily papers, that -prostitution is as old as authentic history; that prostitution has been -and is to-day more prevalent in polygamic countries than in monogamic -countries. I can prove that the figures representing prostitution in -monogamic countries are all overdrawn. They are overdrawn in regard to -my native city, that the gentleman brought up, New York, and of the -million and over of population he can not find six thousand recorded -prostitutes. I can go, for instance, to St. Louis, where they have just -taken the census of the prostitutes of that city, and with a population -of three hundred thousand, there are but 650 courtesans. You may go -through the length and breadth of this land, and in villages containing -from one thousand to ten thousand inhabitants, you cannot find a house -of prostitution. The truth is, my friends, they would not allow it for -a moment. Those men who assert that our monogamous country is full of -prostitutes put forth a slander upon our country. -</p> -<p>Our distinguished friend referred to religious liberty, and claimed -that he had a right under the Federal Constitution to enjoy religious -liberty and to practise polygamy. I am proud as he is that we have -religious liberty here. I rejoice that a man can worship God after -his own heart; but I affirm that the law of limitation is no less -applicable to religious liberty than it is to the revolution of the -heavenly bodies. The law of limitation is as universal as creation, and -religious liberty must be practised within the bounds of decency, and -the wellbeing of society; and civil authority may extend or restrict -this religious liberty within due bounds. Why, the Hindoo mother may -come here with her Shasta—with her Bible—and she may throw her babe -into your river or lake, and the civil authorities, according to your -theory, could not interpose and say to that mother, "You shall not do -it." That is the theory. You say it is murder, I say it is not. I say -the act is stripped of the attributes of murder; it is a religious act. -She turns to her bible or Shasta, and says: "I am commanded to do this -by my bible." What will you do? You will turn away from the Shasta and -say, "The interests of society demand that you shall not murder that -child." So civil government has the right to legislate in regard to -marriage, and restrict the number of wives to one, according to God's -law. But I am not an advocate of stringent legislation. I agree with -my friend, that the law should not incarcerate men, women and children -in dungeons! No, my friends, if I can say a word to induce humane and -kind legislation toward the people of Utah I shall do it, and do it -most gladly. But I assert this principle, that civil government has the -right to limit religious liberty within due bounds. -</p> -<p>There was another point that I desired to touch upon, and that is as -to the longevity of nations. We are told repeatedly here, in printed -works, that monogamic nations are short-lived, and that polygamic -nations are long-lived. I am prepared to go back to the days of Nimrod, -come down to the days of Ninus Sardanapalus, and down to the days of -Cyrus the Great, and all through those ancient polygamic nations, and -show that they were short-lived; while on the other hand I am prepared -to prove that Greece and Rome outlived the longest-lived polygamic -nations of the past. Greece, from the days of Homer down to the third -century of the Christian era; and Rome at from seven hundred and fifty -years before the coming of Christ down to the dissolution of the old -empire. But that old empire finds a resurrection in the Italians under -Victor Emanuel and Garibaldi; and England, Germany and France are all -proofs of the longevity of monogamic nations. Babylon is a ruin to-day, -and Babylon was polygamic. Egypt, to-day, is a ruin! Her massy piles -of ruin bespeak her former glory and her pristine beauty. And the last -edition of the polygamic nations—Turkey—is passing away. From the -Golden Horn and the Bosphorus, from the Danube, and the Jordan and the -Nile, the power of Mahommedanism is passing away before the advance of -the monogamic nations of the old world. Our own country is just in its -youth; but monogamic as it is, it is destined to live on, to outlive -the hoary past, to live on in its greatness, in its benificence, in its -power; to live on until it has demonstrated all those great problems -committed to our trust for human rights, religion, liberty and the -advancement of the race. -</p> -<p>My friends, these are the arguments in favor of Monogamy; and when they -can be overthrown, then it will be time enough for us to receive the -system of Polygamy as it is taught here. But until that great law that -we have quoted can be proved to be not a law: until it can be proved -that there is no distinction between law and practice; until it can be -proved that there is a positive command for polygamy; until it can be -proved that Christ did not refer to the original marriage; until it -can be proved that Paul does not demand that every man shall have his -own wife and every woman her own husband; until it can be proved that -polygamy is a prevention of prostitution; until it can be proved that -monogamic nations are not as long-lived as polygamous nations; until -it can be proved that monogamy is not in harmony with civil liberty; -until all these points can be demonstrated beyond a doubt; until then, -we can't give up this grand idea that God's law condemns polygamy, -and that God's law commends monogamy; that the highest interests of -man, that the dearest interests of the rising generation, that all -that binds us to earth and points us to heaven are not subserved and -promoted under the monogamic system. All these great interests demand -the practice of monogamy in marriage—one man and one wife. Then indeed -shall be realized the picture portrayed in Scripture of the happy -family—the family where the wife is one and the husband one, and the -two are equivalent; then, when father and mother, centered in the -family, shall bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of -the Lord—when the husband provides for his family—and it is said that -the man who does not is worse than an infidel—then indeed monogamy -stands forth as a grand Bible doctrine. -</p> - - -<h2><a name="DISCOURSEPratt"></a>DISCOURSE -<br>ON -<br>CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, -</h2> -<p class="centered">DELIVERED BY -</p> -<p class="centered">ELDER ORSON PRATT, -</p> -<p class="centered">IN THE -</p> -<p class="centered">NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 7th, 1869. -</p> -<p>It was announced at the close of the forenoon meeting that I would -address the congregation this afternoon upon the subject of Celestial -Marriage; I do so with the greatest pleasure. -</p> -<p>In the first place, let us enquire whether it is lawful and right, -according to the Constitution of our country, to examine and practise -this Bible doctrine? Our fathers, who framed the Constitution of our -country, devised it so as to give freedom of religious worship of the -Almighty God; so that all people under our Government should have the -inalienable right—a right by virtue of the Constitution—to believe in -any Bible principle which the Almighty has revealed in any age of the -world to the human family. I do not think however that our forefathers, -in framing that instrument, intended to embrace all the religions -of the world. I mean the idolatrous and pagan religions. They say -nothing about those religions in the Constitution; but they give the -express privilege in that instrument to all people dwelling under this -Government and under the institutions of our country, to believe in all -things which the Almighty has revealed to the human family. There is no -restriction or limitation, so far as Bible religion is concerned, on -any principle or form of religion believed to have emanated from the -Almighty; but yet they would not admit idolatrous nations to come here -and practise their religion, because it is not included in the Bible; -it is not the religion of the Almighty. Those people worship idols, the -work of their own hands; they have instituted rights and ceremonies -pertaining to those idols, in the observance of which they, no doubt, -suppose they are worshipping correctly and sincerely, yet some of them -are of the most revolting and barbarous character. Such, for instance, -as the offering up of a widow on a funeral pile, as a burnt sacrifice, -in order to follow her husband into the eternal worlds. That is no part -of the religion mentioned in the Constitution of our country, it is no -part of the religion of Almighty God. -</p> -<p>But confining ourselves within the limits of the Constitution, and -coming back to the religion of the Bible, we have the privilege to -believe in the Patriarchal, in the Mosaic, or in the Christian order of -things; for the God of the patriarchs, and the God of Moses is also the -Christians' God. -</p> -<p>It is true that many laws were given, under the Patriarchal or Mosaic -dispensations, against certain crimes, the penalties for violating -which, religious bodies, under our Constitution, have not the right to -inflict. The Government has reserved, in its own hands, the power, so -far as affixing the penalties of certain crimes is concerned. -</p> -<p>In ancient times there was a law strictly enforcing the observance -of the Sabbath day, and the man or woman who violated that law was -subjected to the punishment of death. Ecclesiastical bodies have the -right, under our government and Constitution, to observe the Sabbath -day, or to disregard it, but they have not the right to inflict -corporeal punishment for its non-observance. -</p> -<p>The subject proposed to be investigated this afternoon is that of -Celestial Marriage, as believed in by the Latter-day Saints, and which -they claim is strictly a Bible doctrine and part of the revealed -religion of the Almighty. It is well known by all the Latter-day Saints -that we have not derived all our knowledge concerning God, heaven, -angels, this life and the life to come, entirely from the books of the -Bible; yet we believe that all of our religious principles and notions -are in accordance with and are sustained by the Bible; consequently, -though we believe in new revelation, and believe that God has revealed -many things pertaining to our religion, we also believe that He has -revealed none that are inconsistent with the worship of Almighty -God, a sacred right guaranteed to all religious denominations by the -Constitution of our country. -</p> -<p>God created man, male and female. He is the author of our existence. -He placed us on this creation. He ordained laws to govern us. He gave -to man, whom he created, a help-meet—a woman, a wife to be one with -him, to be a joy and a comfort to him; and also for another very great -and wise purpose—namely, that the human species might be propagated -on this creation, that the earth might teem with population according -to the decree of God before the foundation of the world; that the -intelligent spirits whom He had formed and created, before this world -was rolled into existence, might have their probation, might have an -existence in fleshly bodies on this planet, and be governed by laws -emanating from their Great Creator. In the breast of male and female -he established certain qualities and attributes that never will be -eradicated—namely love towards each other. Love comes from God. The -love which man possesses for the opposite sex came from God. The same -God who created the two sexes implanted in the hearts of each love -towards the other. What was the object of placing this passion or -affection within the hearts of male and female? It was in order to -carry out, so far as this world was concerned, His great and eternal -purposes pertaining to the future. But He not only did establish this -principle in the heart of man and woman, but gave divine laws to -regulate them in relation to this passion or affection, that they might -be limited and prescribed in the exercise of it towards each other. -He therefore ordained the Marriage Institution. The marriage that was -instituted in the first place was between two immortal beings, hence it -was marriage for eternity in the very first case which we have recorded -for an example. Marriage for eternity was the order God instituted on -our globe; as early as the Garden of Eden, as early as the day when -our first parents were placed in the garden to keep it and till it, -they, as two immortal beings, were united in the bonds of the New and -Everlasting Covenant. This was before man fell, before the forbidden -fruit was eaten, and before the penalty of death was pronounced upon -the heads of our first parents and all their posterity, hence, when God -gave to Adam his wife Eve, He gave her to him as an immortal wife, and -there was no end contemplated of the relation they held to each other -as husband and wife. -</p> -<p>By and bye, after this marriage had taken place, they transgressed the -law of God, and by reason of that transgression the penalty of death -came, not only upon them, but also upon all their posterity. Death, -in its operations, tore asunder, as it were, these two beings who had -hitherto been immortal, and if God had not, before the foundation of -the world, provided a plan of redemption, they would perhaps have been -torn asunder forever; but inasmuch as a plan of redemption had been -provided, by which man could be rescued from the effects of the Fall, -Adam and Eve were restored to that condition of union, in respect to -immortality, from which they had been separated for a short season of -time by death. The Atonement reached after them and brought forth their -bodies from the dust, and restored them as husband and wife, to all the -privileges that were pronounced upon them before the Fall. -</p> -<p>That was eternal marriage; that was lawful marriage ordained by God. -That was the divine institution which was revealed and practised in -the early period of our globe. How has it been since that day? Mankind -have strayed from that order of things, or, at least, they have done -so in latter times. We hear nothing among the religious societies of -the world which profess to believe in the Bible about this marriage for -eternity. It is among the things which are obsolete. Now all marriages -are consummated until death only; they do not believe in that great -pattern and prototype established in the beginning; hence we never hear -of their official characters, whether civil or religious, uniting men -and women in the capacity of husband and wife as immortal beings. No, -they marry as mortal beings only, and until death does them part. -</p> -<p>What is to become of them after death? What will take place among all -those nations who have been marrying for centuries for time only? Do -both men and women receive a resurrection? Do they come forth with all -the various affections, attributes and passions that God gave them in -the beginning? Does the male come forth from the grave with all the -attributes of a man? Does the female come forth from her grave with -all the attributes of a woman? If so, what is their future destiny? -Is there no object or purpose in this new creation save to give them -life, a state of existence? or is there a more important object in view -in the mind of God, in thus creating them anew? Will that principle -of love which exists now, and which has existed from the beginning, -exist after the resurrection? I mean this sexual love. If that existed -before the Fall, and if it has existed since then, will it exist in -the eternal worlds after the resurrection? This is a very important -question to be decided. -</p> -<p>We read in the revelations of God that there are various classes of -beings in the eternal worlds. There are some who are kings, priests, -and Gods, others that are angels; and also among them are the orders -denominated celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. God, however, -according to the faith of the Latter-day Saints, has ordained that -the highest order and class of beings that should exist in the -eternal worlds should exist in the capacity of husbands and wives, -and that they alone should have the privilege of propagating their -species—intelligent, immortal beings. Now it is wise, no doubt, in -the Great Creator to thus limit this great and Heavenly principle to -those who have arrived or come to the highest state of exaltation, -excellency, wisdom, knowledge, power, glory and faithfulness, to dwell -in his presence, that they by this means shall be prepared to bring up -their spirit offspring in all pure and holy principles in the eternal -worlds, in order that they may be made happy. Consequently he does not -entrust this privilege of multiplying spirits with the terrestrial -or telestial, or the lower order of beings there, nor with angels. -But why not? Because they have not proved themselves worthy of this -great privilege. We might reason, of the eternal worlds, as some of -the enemies of polygamy reason of this state of existence, and say -that there are just as many males as females there, some celestial, -some terrestrial and some telestial; and why not have all these paired -off, two by two? Because God administers His gifts and His blessings -to those who are most faithful, giving them more bountifully to the -faithful, and taking away from the unfaithful that with which they had -been entrusted, and which they had not improved upon. That is the order -of God in the eternal worlds, and if such an order exist there, it may -in a degree exist here. -</p> -<p>When the sons and daughters of the Most High God come forth in the -morning of the resurrection, this principle of love will exist in -their bosoms just as it exists here, only intensified according to the -increased knowledge and understanding which they possess; hence they -will be capacitated to enjoy the relationships of husband and wife, of -parents and children a hundred fold degree greater than they could in -mortality. We are not capable, while surrounded with the weaknesses -of our flesh, to enjoy these eternal principles in the same degree -that will then exist. Shall these principles of conjugal and parental -love and affection be thwarted in the eternal worlds? Shall they be -rooted out and overcome? No, most decidedly not. According to the -religious notions of the world these principles will not exist after -the resurrection; but our religion teaches the fallacy of such notions. -It is true that we read in the New Testament that in the resurrection -they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels -in heaven. These are the words of our Savior when He was addressing -himself to a very wicked class of people, the Sadducees, a portion of -the Jewish nation, who rejected Jesus, and the counsel of God against -their own souls. They had not attained to the blessings and privileges -of their fathers, but had apostatized; and Jesus, in speaking to them, -says that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in -marriage but are as the angels of God. -</p> -<p>I am talking, to-day, to Latter-day Saints; I am not reasoning with -unbelievers. If I were, I should appeal more fully to the Old Testament -Scriptures to bring in arguments and testimonies to prove the divine -authenticity of polygamic marriages. Perhaps I may touch upon this for -a few moments, for the benefit of strangers, should there be any in our -midst. Let me say, then, that God's people, under every dispensation -since the creation of the world, have, generally, been polygamists. -I say this for the benefit of strangers. According to the good old -book, called the Bible, when God saw proper to call out Abraham from -all the heathen nations, and made him a great man in the world, He saw -proper, also, to make him a polygamist, and approbated him in taking -unto himself more wives than one. Was it wrong in Abraham to do this -thing? If it were, when did God reprove him for so doing? When did He -ever reproach Jacob for doing the same thing? Who can find the record -in the lids of the Bible of God reproving Abraham, as being a sinner, -and having committed a crime, in taking to himself two living wives? -No such thing is recorded. He was just as much blessed after doing -this thing as before, and more so, for God promised blessings upon the -issue of Abraham by his second wife the same as that of the first wife, -providing he was equally faithful. This was a proviso in every case. -</p> -<p>When we come down to Jacob, the Lord permitted him to take four wives. -They are so called in holy writ. They are not denominated prostitutes, -neither are they called concubines, but they are called wives, legal -wives; and to show that God approved of the course of Jacob in taking -these wives, He blessed them abundantly, and hearkened to the prayer of -the second wife just the same as to the first. Rachel was the second -wife of Jacob, and our great mother, for you know that many of the -Latter-day Saints by revelation know themselves to be the descendants -of Joseph, and he was the son of Rachel, the second wife of Jacob. -God in a peculiar manner blessed the posterity of this second wife. -Instead of condemning the old patriarch, He ordained that Joseph, the -first-born of this second wife, should be considered the first-born -of all the twelve tribes, and into his hands was given the double -birthright, according to the laws of the ancients. And yet he was -the offspring of plurality—of the second wife of Jacob. Of course, -if Reuben, who was indeed, the first-born unto Jacob, had conducted -himself properly, he might have retained the birthright and the greater -inheritance; but he lost that through his transgression, and it was -given to a polygamic child, who had the privilege of inheriting the -blessing to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills; the great -continent of North and South America was conferred upon him. Another -proof that God did not disapprove of a man having more wives than one, -is to be found in the fact that, Rachel, after she had been a long time -barren, prayed to the Lord to give her seed. The Lord hearkened to her -cry and granted her prayer; and when she received seed from the Lord by -her polygamic husband, she exclaimed—"the Lord hath hearkened unto me -and hath answered my prayer." Now do you think the Lord would have done -this if He had considered polygamy a crime? Would He have hearkened to -the prayer of this woman if Jacob had been living with her in adultery? -and he certainly was doing so if the ideas of this generation are -correct. -</p> -<p>Again, what says the Lord in the days of Moses, under another -dispensation? We have seen that in the days of Abraham, Isaac and -Jacob, He approved of polygamy and blessed His servants who practised -it, and also their wives and children. Now, let us come down to the -days of Moses. We read that, on a certain occasion, the sister of -Moses, Miriam, and certain others in the great congregation of Israel, -got very jealous. What were they jealous about? About the Ethiopian -woman that Moses had taken to wife, in addition to the daughter of -Jethro, whom he had taken before in the land of Midian. How dare the -great law-giver, after having committed, according to the ideas of the -present generation, a great crime, show his face on Mount Sinai when it -was clothed with the glory of the God of Israel? But what did the Lord -do in the case of Miriam, for finding fault with her brother Moses? -Instead of saying "you are right, Miriam, he has committed a great -crime, and no matter how much you speak against him," He smote her with -a leprosy the very moment she began to complain, and she was considered -unclean for a certain number of days. Here the Lord manifested, by the -display of a signal judgment, that He disapproved of any one speaking -against His servants for taking more wives than one, because it may not -happen to suit their notion of things. -</p> -<p>I make these remarks and wish to apply them to fault-finders against -plural marriages in our day. Are there any Miriams in our congregation -to-day, any of those who, professing to belong to the Israel of -the latter-days, sometimes find fault with the man of God standing -at their head, because he, not only believes in but practises this -divine institution of the ancients? If there be such in our midst, I -say, remember Miriam the very next time you begin to talk with your -neighboring women, or any body else against this holy principle. -Remember the awful curse and judgment that fell on the sister of Moses -when she did the same thing, and then fear and tremble before God, lest -He, in his wrath, may swear that you shall not enjoy the blessings -ordained for those who inherit the highest degree of glory. -</p> -<p>Let us pass along to another instance under the dispensation of Moses. -The Lord says, on a certain occasion, if a man have married two wives, -and he should happen to hate one and love the other, is he to be -punished—cast out and stoned to death as an adulterer? No; instead of -the Lord denouncing him as an adulterer because of having two wives, He -gave a commandment regulating the matter so that this principle of hate -in the mind of the man towards one of his wives should not control him -in the important question of the division of his inheritance among his -children, compelling him to give just as much to the son of the hated -wife as to the son of the one beloved; and, if the son of the hated -woman happened to be the first-born, he should actually inherit the -double portion. -</p> -<p>Consequently, the Lord approved, not only the two wives, but their -posterity also. Now, if the women had not been considered wives by -the Lord, their children would have been bastards, and you know that -He has said that bastards shall not enter into the congregation of -the Lord, until the tenth generation, hence you see there is a great -distinction between those whom the Lord calls legitimate or legal, and -those who were bastards—begotten in adultery and whoredom. The latter, -with their posterity, were shut out of the congregation of the Lord -until the tenth generation, while the former were exalted to all the -privileges of legitimate birthright. -</p> -<p>Again, under that same law and dispensation, we find that the Lord -provided for another contingency among the hosts of Israel. In order -that the inheritances of the families of Israel might not run into -the hands of strangers, the Lord, in the book of Deuteronomy, gives a -command that if a man die, leaving a wife, but no issue, his brother -shall marry his widow and take possession of the inheritance; and to -prevent this inheritance going out of the family a strict command -was given that the widow should marry the brother or nearest living -kinsman of her deceased husband. The law was in full force at the time -of the introduction of Christianity—a great many centuries after -it was given. The reasoning of the Sadducees on one occasion when -conversing with Jesus proves that the law was then observed. Said -they: "There were seven brethren who all took a certain woman, each -one taking her in succession after the death of the other," and they -inquired of Jesus which of the seven would have her for a wife in the -resurrection. The Sadducees, no doubt, used this figure to prove, as -they thought, the fallacy of the doctrine of the resurrection, but it -also proves that this law, given by the Creator while Israel walked -acceptably before Him, was acknowledged by their wicked descendants -in the days of the Savior. I merely quote the passage to show that -the law was not considered obsolete at that time. A case like this, -when six of the brethren had died, leaving the widow without issue, -the seventh, whether married or unmarried, must fulfill this law -and take the widow to wife, or lay himself liable to a very severe -penalty. What was that penalty? According to the testimony of the law -of Moses he would be cursed, for Moses says—"cursed be he that doth -not all things according as it is written in this book of the law, and -let all the people say Amen." There can be no doubt that many men in -those days were compelled to be polygamists in the fulfillment of this -law, for any man who would not take the childless wife of a deceased -brother and marry her, would come under tho tremendous curse recorded -in the book of Deuteronomy, and all the people would be obliged to -sanction the curse, because he would not obey the law of God and -become a polygamist. They were not all congressmen in those days, nor -Presidents, nor Presbyterians, nor Methodists, nor Roman Catholics; but -they were the people of God, governed by divine law, and were commanded -to be polygamists; not merely suffered to be so, but actually commanded -to be. -</p> -<p>There are some Latter-day Saints who, perhaps, have not searched these -things as they ought, hence we occasionally find some who will say that -God suffered these things to be. I will go further, and say that He -commanded them, and He pronounced a curse, to which all the people had -to say amen, if they did not fulfill the commandment. -</p> -<p>Coming down to the days of the prophets we find that they were -polygamists; also to the days of the kings of Israel, whom God -appointed Himself, and approbated and blessed. This was especially the -case with one of them, named David, who, the Lord said, was a man after -His own heart. David was called when yet a youth, to reign over the -whole twelve tribes of Israel; But Saul, the reigning king of Israel, -persecuted him, and sought to take away his life. David fled from city -to city throughout all the coasts of Judea in order to get beyond the -reach of the relentless persecutions of Saul. While thus fleeing, the -Lord was with him, hearing his prayers, answering his petitions, giving -him line upon line, precept upon precept; permitting him to look into -the Urim and Thummin and receive revelations, which enabled him to -escape from his enemies. -</p> -<p>In addition to all these blessing that God bestowed upon him in his -youth, before he was exalted to the throne, He gave him eight wives; -and after exalting him to the throne, instead of denouncing him for -having many wives, and pronouncing him worthy of fourteen or twenty-one -years of imprisonment, the Lord was with His servant David, and, -thinking he had not wives enough, He gave to him all the wives of his -master Saul, in addition to the eight He had previously given him. Was -the Lord to be considered a criminal, and worthy of being tried in a -court of justice and sent to prison for thus increasing the polygamic -relations of David? No, certainly not; it was in accordance with his -own righteous laws, and He was with His servant, David the king, and -blessed him. By and by, when David transgressed, not in taking other -wives, but in taking the wife of another man, the anger of the Lord -was kindled against him and He chastened him and took away all the -blessings He had given him. All the wives David had received from -the hand of God were taken from him. Why? Because he had committed -adultery. Here then is a great distinction between adultery and -plurality of wives. One brings honor and blessing to those who engage -in it, the other degradation and death. -</p> -<p>After David had repented with all his heart of his crime with the wife -of Uriah, he, notwithstanding the number of wives he had previously -taken, took Bathsheba legally, and by that legal marriage Solomon was -born; the child born of her unto David, begotten illegally, being a -bastard, displeased the Lord and He struck it with death; but with -Solomon, a legal issue from the same woman, the Lord was so pleased -that he ordained Solomon and set him on the throne of his father David. -This shows the difference between the two classes of posterity, the one -begotten illegally, the other in the order of marriage. If Solomon had -been a bastard, as this pious generation would have us suppose, instead -of being blessed of the Lord and raised to the throne of his father, -he would have been banished from the congregation of Israel and his -seed after him for ten generations. But, notwithstanding that he was -so highly blessed and honored of the Lord, there was room for him to -transgress and fall, and in the end he did so. For a long time the Lord -blessed Solomon, but eventually he violated that law which the Lord had -given forbidding Israel to take wives from the idolatrous nations, and -some of these wives succeeded in turning his heart from the Lord and -induced him to worship the heathen gods, and the Lord was angry with -him and, as it is recorded in the Book of Mormon, considered the acts -of Solomon an abomination in His sight. -</p> -<p>Let us now come to the record in the Book of Mormon, when the Lord led -forth Lehi and Nephi, and Ishmael and his two sons and five daughters -out of the land of Jerusalem to the land of America. The males and -females were about equal in number: there were Nephi, Sam, Laman and -Lemuel, the four sons of Lehi, and Zoram, brought out of Jerusalem. -How many daughters of Ishmael were unmarried? Just five. Would if -have been just under these circumstances, to ordain plurality among -them? No. Why? Because the males and females were equal in number and -they were all under the guidance of the Almighty, hence it would have -been unjust, and the Lord gave a revelation—the only one on record I -believe—in which a command was ever given to any branch of Israel to -be confined to the monogamic system. In this case the Lord, through His -servant Lehi, gave a command that they should have but one wife. The -Lord had a perfect right to vary His commands in this respect according -to circumstances, as He did in others, as recorded in the Bible. There -we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind -and will of God, and were varied according to circumstances, as He -thought proper. -</p> -<p>By and by, after the death of Lehi, some of his posterity began to -disregard the strict law that God had given to their father, and took -more wives than one, and the Lord put them in mind, through His servant -Jacob, one of the sons of Lehi, of this law, and told them that they -were transgressing it, and then referred to David and Solomon, as -having committed abomination in his sight. The Bible also tells us that -they sinned in the sight of God; not in taking wives legally but only -in those they took illegally, in doing which they brought wrath and -condemnation upon their heads. -</p> -<p>But because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of -Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there -are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the -Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's -domestic relations. The same God that commanded one branch of the -House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of -the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts -of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in -the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people -of the commandment delivered by Lehi, in regard to monogamy, the Lord -says—"For if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people, -otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;" that is, if I will -raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to -the law that exists among the tribes of Israel, I will give them a -commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they -shall hearken to the law which I give unto their father Lehi. That is -the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that -plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it -was authorized by Him. -</p> -<p>In the early rise of this church, February, 1831, God gave a -commandment to its members, recorded in the Book of Covenants, wherein -He says—"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave -unto her and to none else;" and then He gives a strict law against -adultery. This you have, no doubt, all read; but let me ask whether -the Lord had the privilege and the right to vary from this law. It was -given in 1831, when the one-wife system alone prevailed among this -people. I will tell you what the Prophet Joseph said in relation to -this matter in 1831, also in 1832, the year in which the law commanding -the members of this church to cleave to one wife only was given. Joseph -was then living in Portage County, in the town of Hyrum, at the house -of Father John Johnson. Joseph was very intimate with that family, and -they were good people at that time, and enjoyed much of the spirit of -the Lord. In the fore part of the year 1832, Joseph told individuals, -then in the Church, that he, had enquired of the Lord concerning the -principle of plurality of wives, and he received for answer that the -principle of taking more wives than one is a true principle, but the -time had not yet come for it to be practised. That was before the -Church was two years old. The Lord has His own time to do all things -pertaining to His purposes in the last dispensation. His own time for -restoring all things that have been predicted by the ancient prophets. -If they have predicted that the day would come when seven women would -take hold of one man saying—"We will eat our own bread and wear -our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name to take away our -reproach;" and that, in that day the branch of the Lord should be -beautiful and glorious and the fruits of the earth should be excellent -and comely, the Lord has the right to say when that time shall be. -</p> -<p>Now, supposing the members of this Church had undertaken to vary from -that law given in 1831, to love their one wife with all their hearts -and to cleave to none other, they would have come under the curse -and condemnation of God's holy law. Some twelve years after that -time the revelation on Celestial Marriage was revealed. This is just -republished at the Deseret News office, in a pamphlet entitled "Answers -to Questions," by President George A. Smith, and heretofore has been -published in pamphlet form and in the Millennial Star, and sent -throughout the length and breadth of our country, being included in our -works and published in the works of our enemies. Then came the Lord's -time for this holy and ennobling principle to be practised again among -His people. -</p> -<p>We have not time to read the revelation this afternoon; suffice it to -say that God revealed the principle through His servant Joseph in 1843. -It was known by many individuals while the Church was yet in Illinois; -and though it was not then printed, it was a familiar thing through all -the streets of Nauvoo, and indeed throughout all Hancock county. Did I -hear about it? I verily did. Did my brethren of the Twelve know about -it? They certainly did. Were there any females who knew about it? There -certainly were, for some received the revelation and entered into the -practice of the principle. Some may say, "Why was it not printed, and -made known to the people generally, if it was of such importance?" I -reply by asking another question: Why did not the revelations in the -book of Doctrine and Covenants come to us in print years before they -did? Why were they shut up in Joseph's cupboard years and years without -being suffered to be printed and sent broadcast throughout the land? -Because the Lord had again His own time to accomplish His purposes, and -He suffered the revelations to be printed just when He saw proper. He -did not suffer the revelation on the great American war to be published -until sometime after it was given. So in regard to the revelation -on plurality, it was only a short time after Joseph's death that we -published it, having a copy thereof. But what became of the original? -An apostate destroyed it; you have heard her name. That same woman, -in destroying the original, thought she had destroyed the revelation -from the face of the earth. She was embittered against Joseph, her -husband, and at times fought against him with all her heart: and then -again she would break down in her feelings, and humble herself before -God and call upon His holy name, and would then lead forth ladies and -place their hands in the hands of Joseph, and they were married to -him according to the law of God. That same woman has brought up her -children to believe that no such thing as plurality of wives existed -in the days of Joseph, and has instilled the bitterest principles of -apostasy into their minds, to fight against the Church that has come to -these mountains according to the predictions of Joseph. -</p> -<p>In the year 1844, before his death, a large company was organized -to come and search out a location, west of the Rocky Mountains. We -have been fulfilling and carrying out his predictions in coming here -and since our arrival. The course pursued by this woman shows what -apostates can do, and how wicked they can become in their hearts. When -they apostatize from the truth they can come out and swear before -God and the heavens that such and such things never existed, when -they know, as well as they know they exist themselves, that they are -swearing falsely. Why do they do this? Because they have no fear of -God before their eyes; because they have apostatized from the truth; -because they have taken it upon themselves to destroy the revelations -of the Most High, and to banish them from the face of the earth, and -the Spirit of God withdraws from them. We have come here to these -mountains, and have continued to practise the principle of Celestial -Marriage from the day the revelation was given until the present time; -and we are a polygamic people, and a great people, comparatively -speaking, considering the difficult circumstances under which we came -to this land. -</p> -<p>Let us speak for a few moments upon another point connected with this -subject—that is, the reason why God has established polygamy under -the present circumstances among this people. If all the inhabitants of -the earth, at the present time, were righteous before God, and both -males and females were faithful in keeping His commandments, and the -numbers of the sexes of a marriageable age were exactly equal, there -would be no necessity for any such institution. Every righteous man -could have his wife and there would be no overplus of females. But what -are the facts in relation to this matter? Since old Pagan Rome and -Greece—worshippers of idols—passed a law confining a man to one wife, -there has been a great surplus of females, who have had no possible -chance of getting married. You may think this a strange statement, but -it is a fact that those nations were the founders of what is termed -monogamy. All other nations, with few exceptions, had followed the -scriptural plan of having more wives than one. These nations, however, -were very powerful, and when Christianity came to them, especially the -Roman nation, it had to bow to their mandates and customs, hence the -Christians gradually adopted the monogamic system. The consequence -was that a great many marriageable ladies of those days, and of all -generations from that time to the present have not had the privilege -of husbands, as the one-wife system has been established by law among -the nations descended from the great Roman Empire—namely the nations -of modern Europe and the American States. This law of monogamy, or -the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and evils -and diseases of the most revolting nature and character, under which -modern Christendom groans, for as God has implanted, for a wise -purpose, certain feelings in the breasts of females as well as males, -the gratification of which is necessary to health and happiness, and -which can only be accomplished legitimately in the married state, -myriads of those who have been deprived of the privilege of entering -that state, rather than be deprived of the gratification of those -feelings altogether, have, in despair, given way to wickedness and -licentiousness; hence the whoredoms and prostitution among the nations -of the earth where the "Mother of Harlots" has her seat. -</p> -<p>When the religious Reformers came out, some two or three centuries ago, -they neglected to reform the marriage system—a subject demanding their -urgent attention. But leaving these Reformers and their doings, let us -come down to our own times and see whether, as has been often said by -many, the numbers of the sexes are equal; and let us take as a basis -for our investigations on this part of our subject, the censuses taken -by several of the States in the American Union. -</p> -<p>Many will tell us that the number of males and the number of females -born are just about equal, and because they are so it is not reasonable -to suppose that God ever intended the nations to practise plurality -of wives. Let me say a few words on that. Supposing we should admit, -for the sake of argument, that the sexes are born in equal numbers, -does that prove that the same equality exists when they come to a -marriageable age? By no means. There may be about equal numbers -born, but what do the statistics of our country show in regard to -the deaths? Do as many females as males die during the first year -of their existence? If you go to the published statistics you will -find, almost without exception, that in every State a greater number -of males die the first year of their existence than females. The -same holds good from one year to five years, from five years to ten, -from ten to fifteen, and from fifteen to twenty. This shows that the -number of females is greatly in excess of the males when they reach -a marriageable age. Let us elucidate still further, in proof of the -position here assumed. Let us take, for instance, the census of the -State of Pennsylvania in the year 1860, and we shall find that there -were 17,588 more females than males between the age of twenty and -thirty years, which may strictly be termed a marriageable age. Says -one, "Probably the great war made that difference." No, this was before -the war. Now let us go to the statistics of the State of New York, -before the war, and we find, according to the official tables of the -census taken in 1860, that there were 45,104 more females than males -in that one State, between the ages of twenty and thirty years—a -marriageable age recollect. Now let us go to the State of Massachusetts -and look at the statistics there. In the year 1865, there were 33,452 -more females than males between the age of twenty and thirty. We might -go on from State to State, and then to the census taken by the United -States, and a vast surplus would be shown of females over males of a -marriageable age. What is to be done with them? I will tell you what -Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York say: they say, virtually, "We -will pass a law so strict, that if these females undertake to marry a -man who has another wife, both they and the men they marry shall be -subject to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary." Indeed! Then -what are you going to do with these hundreds of thousands of females -of a marriageable age? "We are going to make them either old maids -or prostitutes, and we would a little rather have them prostitutes, -then we men would have no need to marry." This is the conclusion many -of these marriageable males, between twenty and thirty years of age, -have come to. They will not marry because the laws of the land have -a tendency to make prostitutes, and they can purchase all the animal -gratification they desire without being bound to any woman; hence many -of them have mistresses, by whom they raise children, and, when they -get tired of them, turn both mother and children into the street, -with nothing to support them, the law allowing them to do so, because -the women are not wives. Thus the poor creatures are plunged into -the depths of misery, wretchedness, and degradation, because at all -risks they have followed the instincts implanted within them by their -Creator, and not having the opportunity to do so legally have done so -unlawfully. There are hundreds and thousands of females in this boasted -land of liberty, through the narrow, contracted, bigoted state laws, -preventing them from ever getting husbands. That is what the Lord -is fighting against; we, also, are fighting against it, and for the -re-establishment of the Bible religion and the Celestial or Patriarchal -order of marriage. -</p> -<p>It is no matter according to the Constitution whether we believe in the -patriarchal parts of the Bible, in the Mosiac or in the Christian part; -whether we believe in one-half, two-thirds, or in the whole of it; that -is nobody's business. The Constitution never granted power to Congress -to prescribe what part of the Bible any people should believe in or -reject; it never intended any such thing. -</p> -<p>Much more might be said, but the congregation is large, and a speaker, -of course, will weary. Though my voice is tolerably good, I feel weary -in making a congregation of from eight to ten thousand people hear -me, I have tried to do so. May God bless you, and may He pour out His -Spirit upon the rising generation among us, and upon the missionaries -who are about to be sent to the United States, and elsewhere, that -the great principles, political, religious and domestic, that God has -ordained and established, may be made known to all people. -</p> -<p>In this land of liberty in religious worship, let us boldly proclaim -our rights, to believe in and practise any Bible precept, command or -doctrine, whether in the Old or New Testament, whether relating to -ceremonies, ordinances, domestic relations, or anything else, not -incompatible with the rights of others, and the great revelations of -Almighty God manifested in ancient and modern times. Amen. -</p> - - -<h2><a name="DISCOURSESmith"></a>DISCOURSE -<br>ON -<br>CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, -</h2> -<p class="centered">DELIVERED BY -</p> -<p class="centered">PRESIDENT GEO. A. SMITH, -</p> -<p class="centered">IN THE -</p> -<p class="centered">NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 8th, 1869. -</p> -<p>It is a difficult undertaking to address this immense audience. -If a man commences speaking loud, in a short time his voice gives -out; whereas, if he commences rather low, he may raise his voice by -degrees, and be able to sustain himself in speaking some length of -time. But with children crying, a few persons whispering, and some -shuffling their feet, it is indeed a difficult task to make an audience -of ten thousand persons hear. I have listened with pleasure to the -instructions of our brethren from the commencement of our Conference -to the present time. I have rejoiced in their testimonies. I have felt -that the Elders are improving in wisdom, in knowledge, in power and in -understanding; and I rejoice in the privilege, which we have at the -present day, of sending out to our own country, a few hundred of the -Elders who have had experience—who have lived in Israel long enough -to know, to feel and to realize the importance of the work in which -they are engaged—to understand its principles and comprehend the way -of life. They can bear testimony to a generation that has nearly grown -from childhood since the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. -</p> -<p>The Lord said in relation to those who have driven the Saints that he -would visit "judgment, wrath and indignation, wailing and anguish, -and gnashing of teeth upon their heads unto the third and fourth -generation, so long as they repent not and hate me, saith the Lord your -God." -</p> -<p>I am a native of Potsdam, St. Lawrence County, New York—a town -somewhat famous for its literary institutions, its learning and the -religion and morality of its inhabitants. I left there in my youth, -with my father's family, because we had received the Gospel of Jesus -Christ, as revealed through Joseph Smith; and followed with the Saints -through their drivings and trials unto the present day. -</p> -<p>I have never seen the occasion, nor let the opportunity slip, from -the time when I first came to a knowledge of the truth of the work -of the Lord in the last days, that I understood it was in my power -to do good for the advancement of this work, but what I have used my -utmost endeavors to accomplish that good. I have never failed to bear a -faithful testimony to the work of God, or to carry out, to all intents -and purposes, the wishes and designs of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I was -his kinsman; was familiar with him, though several years his junior; -knew his views, his sentiments, his ways, his designs, and many of -the thoughts of his heart, and I do know that the servants of God, -the Twelve Apostles, upon whom He laid the authority to bear off the -Kingdom of God, and fulfill the work which he had commenced, have done -according to his designs, in every particular, up to the present time, -and are continuing to do so. And I know, furthermore, that he rejoiced -in the fact that the law of redemption and Celestial Marriage was -revealed unto the Church in such a manner that it would be out of the -power of earth and hell to destroy it; and that he rejoiced in the fact -that the servants of God were ready prepared, having the keys, to bear -off the work he had commenced. Previous to my leaving Potsdam, there -was but one man that I heard of in that town who did not believe the -Bible. He proclaimed himself an atheist and he drowned himself. -</p> -<p>The Latter-day Saints believe the Bible. An agent of the American Bible -Society called on me the other day and wanted to know if we would aid -the Society in circulating the Bible in our Territory? I replied yes, -by all means, for it was the book from which we were enabled to set -forth our doctrines, and especially the doctrine of plural marriage. -</p> -<p>There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons—who suppose that -they believe the Bible—that Christ, when He came, did away with plural -marriage, and that He inaugurated what is termed monogamy; and there -are certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view of -the subject, one of which is found in Paul's first epistle to Timothy -(iii chap. 2 vs.), where Paul says: "A Bishop should be blameless, the -husband of one wife." The friends of monogamy render it in this way: "A -Bishop should be blameless, the husband of but one wife." That would -imply that any one but a bishop might have more. But they will say, -"We mean—a bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife only." -Well, that would also admit of the construction that other people might -have more than one. I understand it to mean that a bishop must be a -married man. -</p> -<p>A short time ago, the Minister from the King of Greece to the United -States called on President Young. I inquired of him in relation to the -religion of his country, and asked him if the clergy were allowed to -marry. It is generally understood that the Roman Catholic clergy are -not allowed to marry. How is it with the Greek clergy? "Well," said he, -"all the clergy marry except the Bishop." I replied, "you render the -saying of Paul differently from what we do. We interpret it to mean—"a -bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife at least;" and "we -construe it" said he "directly the opposite." -</p> -<p>Now this passage does not prove that a man should have but one wife. -It only proves that a bishop should be a married man. The same remark -is made of deacons, that they also should have wives. Another passage -is brought up where the Savior speaks of divorce. He tells us that it -is very wrong to divorce, and that Moses permitted it because of the -hardness of their (the children of Israel) hearts. A man should leave -his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and they twain -should be one flesh. That is the principal argument raised that a man -should have but one wife. -</p> -<p>In the New Testament, in various places, certain eminent men are -referred to as patterns of faith, purity, righteousness and piety. For -instance, if you read the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, the 11th -chap., you find therein selected those persons "who through faith -subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the -mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of -the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, -turning to flight the armies of the aliens;" and it is said that by -faith Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph, and that he conferred upon -them a blessing to the "uttermost bounds of the everlasting hills." -Who was Joseph? Why, Joseph was the son of Rachel. And who was Rachel? -Rachel was the second wife of Jacob, a polygamist. Jacob had four -wives; and after he had taken the second, (Rachel) she, being barren, -gave a third wife unto her husband that she might bear children unto -him for her; and instead of being displeased with her for giving her -husband another wife, God heard her prayer, blessed her, worked a -miracle in her favor, by opening her womb, and she bear a son, and -called his name Joseph, rejoicing in God, whom she testified would give -her another son. The question now arises—were not Rachel and Jacob -one flesh? Yes. Leah and Jacob were also one flesh. Jacob is selected -by the Apostle Paul as a pattern of faith for Christians to follow; he -blessed his twelve sons, whom he had by four wives. The law of God, as -it existed in those days, and as laid down in this book, (the Bible) -makes children born of adultery or of fornication bastards; and they -were prohibited from entering into the congregation of the Lord unto -the fourth generation. -</p> -<p>Now, instead of God blessing Rachel and Jacob and their offspring, -as we are told He did, we might have expected something entirely -different, had it not been that God was pleased with and approbated and -sustained a plurality of wives. -</p> -<p>While we are considering this subject, we will enquire, did the Savior -in any place that we read of, in the course of His mission on the -earth, denounce a plurality of wives? He lived in a nation of Jews; -the law of Moses was in force, plurality of wives was the custom, and -thousands upon thousands of people, from the highest to the lowest in -the land, were polygamists. The Savior denounced adultery; He denounced -fornication; He denounced lust; also, divorce; but is there a single -sentence asserting that plurality of wives is wrong? If so, where is -it? Who can find it? Why did He not say it was wrong? "Think not," said -He, "that I am come to destroy the law or the Prophets. I am not come -to destroy, but to fulfil. Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from -the law and the Prophets, but all shall be fulfilled." Of what does the -Savior speak when He refers to "the law?" Why, of the Ten Commandments, -and other rules of life commanded by God and adopted by the ancients, -and which Bro. Pratt referred to yesterday, showing you from the -sacred book that God legislated and made laws for the protection of a -plurality of wives, (Exod. 21, 10) and that He commanded men to take a -plurality under some circumstances. Brother Pratt further showed that -the Lord made arrangements to protect, to all intents and purposes, the -interests of the first wife; and to shield and protect the children -of a wife from disinheritance who might be unfortunate enough not to -have the affections of her husband. (Deut., 21.15.) These things were -plainly written in the law—that law of which the Savior says "not -one jot or one tittle shall pass away." Continuing our inquiry, we -pass on to the epistles of John the Evangelist, which we find in the -book of Revelations, written to the seven churches of Asia. In them we -find the Evangelist denounces adultery, fornication, and all manner -of iniquities and abominations of which these churches were guilty. -Anything against a plurality of wives? No; not a syllable. Yet those -churches were in a country in which plurality was the custom. Hundreds -of Saints had more wives than one; and if it had been wrong, what would -have been the result? Why, John would have denounced the practice, the -same as the children of Israel were denounced for marrying heathen -wives, had it not been that the law of plurality was the commandment of -God. -</p> -<p>Again, on this point, we can refer to the Prophets of the Old -Testament—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others. When God called those -men he warned them that if they did not deliver the message to the -people which He gave them concerning their sins and iniquities His -vengeance should rest upon their heads. These are his words to Ezekiel: -"Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: -therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. -When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him -not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to -save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his -blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he -turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in -his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul." (Ezek. iii.17.18.29.) -How do we find these Prophets of the Lord fulfilling the commandments -of the Almighty? We find them pouring out denunciations upon the heads -of the people—against adultery, fornication and every species of -wickedness. All this, too, in a country in which, from the King down to -the lowest orders of the people, a plurality of wives was practised. Do -they say anything against plurality of wives? Not one word. It was only -in cases where men and women took improper license with each other, in -violation of the holy law of marriage, that they were guilty of sin. -</p> -<p>If plurality of wives had been a violation of the seventh commandment -those prophets would have denounced it, otherwise their silence on the -matter would have been dangerous to themselves, inasmuch as the blood -of the people would have been required at their hands. The opposers of -Celestial Marriage sometimes quote a passage in the seventh chapter of -Romans, second and third verses, to show that a plurality of wives is -wrong; but when we come to read the passage it shows that a plurality -of husbands is wrong. You can rend the passage for yourselves. In -the forcible parable used by the Savior in relation to the rich man -and Lazarus, we find recorded that the poor man Lazarus was carried -to Abraham's bosom—Abraham the father of the faithful. The rich man -calls unto Father Abraham to send Lazarus, who is afar off. Who was -Abraham? He was a man who had a plurality of wives. And yet all good -Christians, even pious church deacons, expect when they die to go to -Abraham's bosom. I am sorry to say, however, that thousands of them -will be disappointed, from the fact that they cannot and will not go -where any one has a plurality of wives; and I am convinced that Abraham -will not turn out his own wives to receive such unbelievers in God's -law. One peculiarity of this parable is the answer of Abraham to the -application of the rich man, to send Lazarus to his five brothers "lest -they come into this place of torment," which was—"they have Moses and -the prophets, let them hear them; and if they hear not Moses and the -prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the -dead." Moses' law provided for a plurality of wives, and the prophets -observed that law, and Isaiah predicts its observance even down to the -latter-days. Isaiah, in his 4th chap. and 1st and 2nd verses, says -"seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own -bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name to -take away our reproach. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be -beautiful and glorious and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent." -</p> -<p>A reference to the Scriptures shows that the reproach of woman is to be -childless, Gen. c. 30, v. 23; Luke c. 1, v. 25. -</p> -<p>We will now refer to John the Baptist. He came as the forerunner of -Christ. He was a lineal descendant of the house of Levi. His father -was a priest. John the Baptist was a child born by miracle, God -having revealed to his father that Elizabeth, who had been many years -barren, should bear a son. John feared not the world, but went forth -preaching in the wilderness of Judea, declaiming against wickedness and -corruption in the boldest terms. He preached against extortion; against -the cruelty exercised by the soldiers and tax gatherers. He even was so -bold as to rebuke the king on his throne, to his face, for adultery. -Did he say anything against a plurality of wives? No: it cannot be -found. Yet thousands were believers in and practised this order of -marriage, under the law of Moses that God had revealed. -</p> -<p>In bringing this subject before you, we cannot help saying that God -knew what was best for His people. Hence He commanded them as He -would have them act. The law, regulating marriage previous to Moses, -recognized a plurality of wives. Abraham and Jacob and others had -a plurality. These are the men who are referred to in scripture as -patterns of piety and purity. David had many wives. The scripture says -that David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned -not aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, -save in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, 1 Kings, 15 chap. 5 vs. "I -have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart which -shall fulfill all my will. Of this man's seed hath God, according to -His promise, raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus." Acts 13 chap., 22 -and 23 vs. Did David sin in taking so many wives? No. In what, then, -did his sin consist? It was because he took the wife of Uriah, the -Hittite—that is, violated the law of God in taking her. The Lord had -given him the wives of Saul and would have given him many more; but -he had no right to take one who belonged to another. When he did so -the curse of adultery fell upon his head, and his wives were taken -from him and given to another. We will now inquire in relation to the -Savior himself. From whom did he descend? From the house of David, a -polygamist; and if you will trace the names of the familles through -which He descended you will find that numbers of them had a plurality -of wives. How appropriate it would have been for Jesus, descending as -he did from a race of polygamists, to denounce this institution of -plural marriage and show its sinfulness, had it been a sin! Can we -suppose, for one moment, if Patriarchal Marriage were wrong, that He -would, under the circumstances have been silent concerning it or failed -to denounce it in the most positive manner? Then if plural marriage be -adultery and the offspring spurious, Christ Jesus is not the Christ; -and we must look for another. -</p> -<p>All good Christians are flattering themselves with the hope that they -will finally enter the gates of the New Jerusalem. I presume this is -the hope of all denominations—Catholics, Protestants, Greeks, and all -who believe the Bible. Suppose they go there, what will they find? -They will find at the twelve gates twelve angels, and "names written -thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children -of Israel." The names of the twelve sons of Jacob, the polygamist. -Can a monogamist enter there? "And the walls of the city had twelve -foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb;" -and at the gates the names of the twelve tribes of Israel—from the -twelve sons of the four wives of Jacob. Those who denounce Patriarchal -Marriage will have to stay without and never walk the golden streets. -And any man or woman that lifts his or her voice to proclaim against a -plurality of wives under the Government of God, will have to seek an -inheritance outside of that city. For "there shall in no wise enter -into it, anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination -or maketh a lie, for without are sorcerers, whoremongers, and whosoever -loveth and maketh a lie." Is not the man that denounces Celestial -Marriage a liar? Does he not work abomination? "I, Jesus, have sent -mine Angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am -the root and offspring of [the polygamist] David, the bright and the -morning star." -</p> -<p>May God enable us to keep His law, for "blessed are they that do His -commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and may -enter in through the gate into the city." Amen. -</p> - - -<h2><a name="DISCOURSECannon"></a>DISCOURSE -<br>ON -<br>CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, -</h2> -<p class="centered">DELIVERED BY -</p> -<p class="centered">ELDER GEORGE Q. CANNON, -</p> -<p class="centered">IN THE -</p> -<p class="centered">NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 9th, 1869. -</p> -<p>I will repeat a few verses in the tenth chapter of Mark, commencing at -the twenty-eighth verse: -</p><blockquote> -<p> Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have - followed thee. -</p> -<p> And Jesus answered and said, verily I say unto you, There is no man - that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, - or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, -</p> -<p> But he shall receive an hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and - brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with - persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. -</p></blockquote> -<p>In rising to address you this morning, my brethren and sisters, I rely -upon your faith and prayers and the blessing of God. We have heard, -during Conference, a great many precious instructions, and in none -have I been more interested than in those which have been given to -the Saints concerning that much mooted doctrine called Patriarchal or -Celestial Marriage. I am interested in this doctrine, because I see -salvation, temporal and spiritual, embodied therein. I know, pretty -well, what the popular feelings concerning this doctrine are; I am -familiar with the opinions of the world, having traveled and mingled -with the people sufficiently to be conversant with their ideas in -relation to this subject. I am also familiar with the feelings of the -Latter-day Saints upon this point. I know the sacrifice of feeling -which it has caused for them to adopt this principle in their faith and -lives. It has required the revelation of God, our Heavenly Father, to -enable His people to receive this principle and carry it out. I wish, -here, to make one remark in connection with this subject—that while -there is abundant proof to be found in the scriptures and elsewhere -in support of this doctrine, still it is not because it was practised -four thousand years ago by the servants and people of God, or because -it has been practised by any people or nation in any period of the -world's history, that the Latter-day Saints have adopted it and made -it part of their practice, but it is because God, our Heavenly Father, -has revealed it unto us. If there were no record of its practice to -be found, and if the Bible, Book of Mormon and Book of Doctrine and -Covenants were totally silent in respect to this doctrine, it would -nevertheless be binding upon us as a people, God himself having given -a revelation for us to practise it at the present time. This should be -understood by us as a people. It is gratifying to know, however, that -we are not the first of God's people unto whom this principle has been -revealed; it is gratifying to know that we are only following in the -footsteps of those who have preceded us in the work of God, and that -we, to-day, are only carrying out the principle which God's people -observed, in obedience to revelation received from Him, thousands of -years ago. It is gratifying to know that we are suffering persecution, -that we are threatened with lines and imprisonment for the practice -of precisely the same principle which Abraham, the "friend of God," -practised in his life and taught to his children after him. -</p> -<p>The discourses of Brother Orson Pratt and of President George A. Smith -have left but very little to be said in relation to the scriptural -arguments in favor of this doctrine. I know that the general opinion -among men is that the Old Testament, to some extent, sustains it; but -that the New Testament—Jesus and the Apostles, were silent concerning -it. It was clearly proved in our hearing yesterday, and the afternoon -of the day previous, that the New Testament, though not so explicit -in reference to the doctrine, is still decidedly in favor of it and -sustains it. Jesus very plainly told the Jews, when boasting of being -the seed of Abraham, that if they were, they would do the works of -Abraham. He and the Apostles, in various places, clearly set forth that -Abraham was the great exemplar of faith for them to follow, and that -they must follow him if they ever expected to participate in the glory -and exaltation enjoyed by Abraham and his faithful seed. Throughout the -New Testament Abraham is held up to the converts to the doctrines which -Jesus taught, as an example worthy of imitation, and in no place is -there a word of condemnation uttered concerning him. The Apostle Paul, -in speaking of him says: -</p> -<p>"Know ye, therefore, that they which are of the faith, the same are the -children of Abraham. * * * * So then they which be of the faith are -blessed with faithful Abraham." -</p> -<p>He also says that the Gentiles, through adoption, became Abraham's -seed; that the blessing of Abraham, says he, might come upon the -Gentiles through Jesus Christ, shewing plainly that Jesus and all the -Apostles who alluded to the subject, held the deeds of Abraham to be, -in every respect, worthy of imitation. -</p> -<p>Who was this Abraham? I have heard the saying frequently advanced, that -in early life, being an idolater, it was an idolatrous, heathenish -principle which he adopted in taking to himself a second wife while -Sarah still lived. Those who make this assertion in reference to the -great patriarch, seem to be ignorant of the fact that he was well -advanced in life and had served God faithfully many years, prior to -making any addition to his family. He did not have a plurality of wives -until years after the Lord had revealed Himself to him, commanding him -to leave Ur, of the Chaldees, and go forth to a land which He would -give to him and his posterity for an everlasting possession. He went -forth and lived in that land many long years before the promise of God -was fulfilled unto him—namely, that in his seed should all the nations -of the earth be blessed; and Abraham was still without any heir, except -Eliezer, of Damascus, the steward of his house. At length, after living -thus for ten years, God commanded him to take to himself another wife, -who was given to him by his wife Sarah. When the offspring of this -marriage was born, Abraham was eighty-six years old. -</p> -<p>We read of no word of condemnation from the Lord for this -act—something which we might naturally expect if, as this unbelieving -and licentious generation affirm, the act of taking more wives than one -be such a vile crime, and so abominable in the sight of God; for if it -be evil in the sight of the Lord to-day it was then, for the scriptures -inform us that He changes not, He is the same yesterday, today and -forever, and is without variableness or the shadow of turning. But -instead of condemnation, God revealed himself continually to his friend -Abraham, teaching His will unto him, revealing all things concerning -the future which it was necessary for him to understand, and promising -him that, though he had been blessed with a son, Ishmael, yet in -Isaac, a child of promise, not yet born, should his seed be called. -Abraham was to have yet another son. Sarah, in her old age, because -of her faithfulness, because of her willingness to comply with the -requirements and revelations of God, was to have a son given unto her. -Such an event was so unheard of among women at her time of life that, -though the Lord promised it, she could not help laughing at the idea. -But God fulfilled His promise, and in due time Isaac was born, and was -greatly blessed of the Lord. -</p> -<p>Determined to try His faithful servant Abraham to the uttermost, the -Lord, some years after the birth of this son, in whom He had promised -that Abraham's seed should be called, required him to offer up this boy -as a burnt offering to Him; and Abraham, nothing doubting, but full of -faith and integrity, and of devotion to his God, proved himself worthy -of the honored title that had been conferred upon him, namely, "the -Friend of God," by taking his son Isaac, in whom most of his hopes for -the future centred, up the mountain, and there, having built the altar, -he bound the victim and, with knife uplifted, was about to strike the -fatal blow, when the angel of the Lord cried out of heaven, commanding -him not to slay his son. The Lord was satisfied, having tried him to -the uttermost, and found him willing even to shed the blood of his well -beloved son. -</p> -<p>The Lord was so pleased with the faithfulness of Abraham, that He gave -unto him the greatest promise He could give to any human being on the -face of the earth. What do you think was the nature of that promise? -Did He promise to Abraham a crown of eternal glory? Did He promise to -him that he should be in the presence of the Lamb, that he should tune -his harp, and sing praises to God and the Lamb, throughout the endless -ages of eternity? Let me quote it to you, and it would be well if all -the inhabitants of the earth would reflect upon it. Said the Lord: -</p> -<p>"In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy -seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea -shore: and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." -</p> -<p>This was the promise which God gave to Abraham, in that hour of -his triumph, in that hour when there was joy in heaven over the -faithfulness of one of God's noblest and most devoted sons. Think of -the greatness of this blessing! Can you count the stars of heaven, or -even the grains of a handful of sand? No, it is beyond the power of -earth's most gifted sons to do either, and yet God promised to Abraham -that his seed should be as innumerable as the stars of heaven or as the -sand on the sea-shore. -</p> -<p>How similar was this promise of God to Abraham to that made by Jesus as -a reward for faithfulness to those who followed Him! Said Jesus, "He -that forsakes brothers or sisters, houses or lands, father or mother, -wives or children, shall receive a hundred fold in this life with -persecution, and eternal life in the world to come." A very similar -blessing to that which God, long before, had made to Abraham, and -couched in very similar terms. -</p> -<p>It is pertinent for us to enquire, on the present occasion, how the -promises made by Jesus and His Father, in ages of the world separated -by a long interval the one from the other, could be realized under the -system which prevails throughout Christendom at the present day? In the -monogamic system, under which the possession of more than one living -wife is regarded as such a crime, and as being so fearfully immoral, -how could the promise of the Savior to his faithful followers, that -they should have a hundredfold of wives and children, in this present -life, ever be realized? There is a way which God has provided in a -revelation given to this Church, in which He says: -</p> -<p>"Strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the -exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find -it, because ye receive me not in this world, neither do ye know me." -</p> -<p>God revealed that strait and narrow way to Abraham, and taught him -how he could enter therein. He taught him the principle of plurality -of wives; Abraham practised it and bequeathed it to his children as -a principle which they were to practise. Under such a system it was -a comparatively easy matter for men to have a hundred fold of wives, -children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and everything else in -proportion; and in no other way could the promises of Jesus be realized -by His followers, than in the way God has provided, and which He has -revealed to His Church and people in these latter-days. -</p> -<p>I have felt led to dwell on these few passages from the sayings of -Jesus, to show you that there is abundance of scriptural proofs in -favor of this principle and the position this Church has assumed, in -addition to those previously referred to. -</p> -<p>It is a blessed thing to know that, in this as in every other doctrine -and principle taught by us as a Church, we are sustained by the -revelations God gave to His people anciently. One of the strongest -supports the Elders of this Church have had in their labors among the -nations was the knowledge that the Bible and New Testament sustained -every principle they advanced to the people. When they preached faith, -repentance, baptism for the remission of sins, the laying on of hands -for the reception of the Holy Ghost, the gathering of the people from -the nations, the re-building of Jerusalem, the second coming of Christ, -and every other principle ever touched upon by them, it was gratifying -to know that they were sustained by the scriptures, and that they could -turn to chapter and verse among the sayings of Jesus and His Apostles, -or among those of the ancient prophets, in confirmation of every -doctrine they ever attempted to bring to the attention of those to whom -they ministered. There is nothing with which the Latter-day Saints can, -with more confidence, refer to the scriptures for confirmation and -support, than the doctrine of plural marriage, which, at the present -time, among one of the most wicked, adulterous and corrupt generations -the world has ever seen, is so much hated, and for which mankind -generally, are so anxious to cast out and persecute the Latter-day -Saints. -</p> -<p>If we look abroad and peruse the records of everyday life throughout -the whole of Christendom, we find that crimes of every hue, and of -the most appalling and revolting character are constantly committed, -exciting neither surprise nor comment. Murder, robbery, adultery, -seduction and every species of villany known in the voluminous -catalogue of crime, in modern times, are regarded as mere matters of -ordinary occurrence, and yet there is a hue and cry raised, almost -as wide as Christendom, for the persecution, by fine, imprisonment, -proscription, outlawry or extermination, of the people of Utah because, -knowing that God, the Eternal Father, has spoken in these days and -revealed his mind and will to them, they dare to carry out His -behests. For years they have meekly submitted to this persecution and -contumely, but they appeal now, as ever, to all rational, reflecting -men, and invite comparison between the state of society here and in -any portion of this or any other country, knowing that the verdict -will be unanimous and overwhelming in their favor. In every civilized -country on the face of the earth the seducer plies his arts to envelop -his victim within his meshes, in order to accomplish her ruin most -completely; and it is well known that men holding positions of trust -and responsibility, looked upon as honorable and highly respectable -members of society, violate their marriage vows by carrying on their -secret amours and supporting mistresses; yet against the people of -Utah, where such things are totally unknown, there is an eternal and -rabid outcry because they practise the heaven-revealed system of a -plurality of wives. It is a most astonishing thing, and no greater -evidence could be given that Satan reigns in the hearts of the children -of men, and that he is determined, if possible, to destroy the work of -God from the face of the earth. -</p> -<p>The Bible, the only work accepted by the nations of Christendom, as a -divine revelation, sustains this doctrine, from beginning to end. The -only revelation on record that can be quoted against it came through -the Prophet Joseph Smith, and is contained in the Book of Mormon; and -strange to say, here in Salt Lake City, a day or or two since, one of -the leading men of the nation, in his eager desire and determination to -cast discredit on this doctrine, unable to do so by reference to the -Bible, which he no doubt, in common with all Christians, acknowledges -as divine, was compelled to have recourse to the Book of Mormon, a work -which on any other point, he would most unquestionably have scouted -and ridiculed, as an emanation from the brain of an impostor. What -consistency! A strange revolution this, that men should have recourse -to our own works, whose authenticity they most emphatically deny, to -prove us in the wrong. Yet this attempt, whenever made, cannot be -sustained, for Brother Pratt clearly showed to you, in his remarks the -other day, that instead of the Book of Mormon being opposed to this -principle, it contains an express provision for the revelation of the -principle to us as a people at some future time—namely that when the -Lord should desire to raise up unto Himself a righteous seed, He would -command His people to that effect. Plainly setting forth that a time -would come when He would command His people to do so. -</p> -<p>It is necessary that this principle should be practised under the -auspices and control of the priesthood. God has placed that priesthood -in the Church to govern and control all the affairs thereof, and this -is a principle which, if not practised in the greatest holiness and -purity, might lead men into great sin, therefore the priesthood is -the more necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this -principle. There might be circumstances and situations in which it -would not be wisdom in the mind of God for his people to practise -this principle, but so long as a people are guided by the priesthood -and revelations of God there is no danger of evil arising therefrom. -If we, as a people, had attempted to practise this principle without -revelation, it is likely that we should have been led into grievous -sins and the condemnation of God would have rested upon us; but the -Church waited until the proper time came, and then the people practised -it according to the mind and will of God, making a sacrifice of their -own feelings in so doing. But the history of the world goes to prove -that the practice of this principle even by nations ignorant of the -gospel has resulted in greater good to them than the practice of -monogamy or the one-wife system in the so-called Christian nations. -To-day, Christendom holds itself and its institutions aloft as a -pattern for all men to follow. If you travel throughout the United -States and through the nations of Europe in which Christianity -prevails, and talk with the people about their institutions, they -will boast of them as being the most permanent, indestructible and -progressive of any institutions existing upon the earth; yet it is a -fact well known to historians, that the Christian nations of Europe are -the youngest nations on the globe. Where are the nations which have -existed from time immemorial? They are not to be found in Christian -monogamic Europe, but in Asia, among the polygamic races—China, -Japan, Hindostan and the various races of that vast continent. Those -nations, from the most remote times, practised plural marriage handed -down to them by their forefathers. Although they are looked upon by -the nations of Europe as semi-civilized, you will not find among them, -woman prostituted, debased and degraded as she is through Christendom. -She may be treated coldly, and degraded, but among them, except where -the Christian element to a large extent prevails, she is not debased -and polluted as she is among the so-called Christian nations. It is a -fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have -record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences, and war-like -instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She -was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system -early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook -her. The strongest sayings of Jesus, recorded in the New Testament, -were levelled against the dreadful corruptions practised in Rome and -wherever the Romans held sway. The leaven of their institutions had -worked its way into the Jewish nation, Jewry or Palestine being then a -Roman province, and governed by Roman officers, who brought with them -their wicked institutions, and Jesus denounced the practices which -prevailed there. -</p> -<p>A few years before the birth of the Savior, Julius Caesar was First -Consul at Rome; he aimed at and obtained imperial power. He had four -wives during his life and committed numerous adulteries. His first -wife he married early; but, becoming ambitious, the alliance did not -suit him, and, as the Roman law did not permit him to retain her -and to marry another, he put her away. He then married the daughter -of a consul, thinking to advance his interests thereby. She died, -and a third was married. The third was divorced, and he married a -fourth, with whom he was living at the time he was murdered. His -grand-nephew, the Emperor Augustus Caesar, reigned at the time of the -birth of Christ. He is alluded to in history as one of the greatest of -the Caesars; he also had four wives. He divorced one after another, -except the last, who out-lived him. These men were not singular in -this practice; it was common in Rome; the Romans did not believe -in plurality of wives, but in divorcing them; in taking wives for -convenience and putting them away when they got tired of them. In our -country divorces are increasing, yet Roman-like, men expect purity -and chastity from their wives they do not practise themselves. You -recollect, doubtless, the famous answer of Caesar when his wife was -accused of an intrigue with an infamous man. Some one asked Caesar why -he had put away his wife. Said he, "The wife of Caesar must not only -be incorrupt but unsuspected." He could not bear to have the virtue of -his wife even suspected, yet his own life was infamous in the extreme. -He was a seducer, adulterer and is reported to have practised even a -worse crime, yet he expected his wife to possess a virtue which, in his -highest and holiest moments, was utterly beyond his conception in his -own life. -</p> -<p>This leaven was spreading itself over every country where the Roman -Empire had jurisdiction. It had reached Palestine in the days of the -Savior, hence by understanding the practices prevalent in those times -amongst that people, you will be better able to appreciate the strong -language used by Jesus against putting away, or divorcing wives. Rome -continued to practise corruption until she fell beneath the weight -of it, and was overwhelmed, not by another monogamic race, but by -the vigorous polygamic hordes from the north, who swept away Roman -imperialism, establishing in the place thereof institutions of their -own. But they speedily fell into the same habit of having one wife and -multitudes of courtesans, and soon, like Rome, fell beneath their own -corruptions. -</p> -<p>When courtesans were taught every accomplishment and honored with the -society of the leading men of the nation, and wives were deprived of -these privileges, is it any wonder that Rome should fall? or that the -more pure, or barbarous nations, as they were called, overwhelmed and -destroyed her? -</p> -<p>I have had it quoted to me many times that no great nations ever -practised plural marriage. They who make such an assertion are utterly -ignorant of history. What nations have left the deepest impress on the -history of our race? Those which have practised plurality of marriage. -They have prevented the dreadful crime of prostitution by allowing men -to have more wives than one. I know we are dazzled by the glory of -Christendom; we are dazzled with the glory of our own age. Like every -generation that has preceded it, the present generation thinks it is -the wisest and best, and nearer to God than any which has preceded it. -This is natural; it is a weakness of human nature. This is the case -with nations as well as generations. China, to-day, calls all western -nations "outside barbarians." Japan, Hindostan and all other polygamic -nations do the same, and in very many respects they have as much right -to say that of monogamic nations, as the latter have to say it of them. -</p> -<p>I heard a traveller remark a few days ago, while in conversation with -him, "I have travelled through Asia Minor and Turkey, and I have -blushed many times when contrasting the practices and institutions of -those people with those of my own country," the United States. He is a -gentleman with whom I had a discussion some years ago on the principle -of plural marriage. He has traveled a good deal since then, and he -remarked to me: "Travel enlarges a man's head and his heart. I have -learned a great many things since we had a discussion together, and -I have modified my views and opinions very materially with regard to -the excellence of the institutions, habits and morals which prevail in -Christendom." This gentleman told me that among those nations, which -we call semi-civilized, there are no drinking saloons, no brothels, -nor drunkenness, and an entire absence of many other evils which exist -in our own nation. I think this testimony, coming from a man who, -previously, had such strong prejudices, was very valuable. He is not -the only one who has borne this testimony, but all reliable travelers, -who have lived in Oriental nations, vouch for the absence of those -monstrous evils which flourish in and fatten and fester upon the vitals -of all civilized or Christian nations. -</p> -<p>In speaking of Utah and this peculiar practice amongst its people it -is frequently said, "Look at the Turks and other Oriental nations and -see how women are degraded and debased among them, and deprived of many -privileges which they enjoy among us!" But if it be true that woman -does not occupy her true position among those nations, is this not more -attributable to their rejection of the gospel than to their practice -of having a plurality of wives? Whatever her condition may be there, -however, I do not therefore accept, as a necessary conclusion, that -she must be degraded among us. We have received the gospel of the Lord -Jesus, the principles of which elevate all who honor them, and will -impart to our sisters every blessing necessary to make them noble and -good in the presence of God and man. -</p> -<p>Look at the efforts which are being made to elevate the sex among the -Latter-day Saints! See the privileges that are given them, and listen -to the teachings imparted to them day by day, week by week, and year by -year, to encourage them to press forward in the march of improvement! -The elevation of the sex must follow as a result of these instructions. -The practice in the world is to select a few of the sex and to elevate -them. There is no country in the world, probably, where women are -idolized to the extent they are in the United States. But is the entire -sex in the United States thus honored and respected? No; it is not. -Any person who will travel, and observe while he is travelling, will -find that thousands of women are degraded and treated as something very -vile, and are terribly debased in consequence of the practices of men -towards them. But the gospel of Jesus, and the revelations which God -has given unto us concerning Patriarchal Marriage have a tendency to -elevate the entire sex, and give all the privilege of being honored -matrons and respected wives. There are no refuse among us—no class to -be cast out, scorned and condemned; but every woman who chooses, can -be an honored wife and move in society in the enjoyment of every right -which woman should enjoy to make her the equal of man as far as she can -be his equal. -</p> -<p>This is the result of the revelations of the gospel unto us, and the -effect of the preaching and practice of this principle in our midst. -I know, however, that there are those who shrink from this, who feel -their hearts rebel against the principle, because of the equality which -it bestows on the sex. They would like to be the honored few—the -aristocrats of society as it were, while their sisters might perish on -every hand around them. They would not, if they could, extend their -hands to save their sisters from a life of degradation. This is wrong -and a thing which God is displeased at. He has revealed this principle -and commanded His servants to take wives. What for? That they may -obey his great command—a command by which Eternity is peopled, a -command by which Abraham's seed shall become as the stars of heaven for -multitude, and as the sand on the sea shore that cannot be counted. He -has given to us this command, and shall we, the sterner sex, submit to -all the difficulties and trials entailed in carrying it out? Shall we -submit to all the afflictions and labor incident to this life to save -our sisters, while many of you who are of the same sex, whose hearts -ought to beat for their salvation as strongly as ours do, will not -help us? I leave you all to answer. There is a day of reckoning coming -when you will be held accountable as well as we. Every woman in this -Church should join heart and hand in this great work, which has for its -result, the redemption of the sexes, both male and female. No woman -should slacken her hand or withhold her influence, but every one should -seek by prayer and faith unto God for the strength and grace necessary -to enable her to do so. "But," says one, "is not this a trial, and does -it not inflict upon us unnecessary trials?" There are afflictions and -trials connected with this principle. It is necessary there should be. -Is there any law that God reveals unattended with a trial of some kind? -Think of the time, you who are adults, and were born in the nations, -when you joined the Church! Think of the trials connected with your -espousal of the gospel. Did it not try you to go forth and be baptized? -Did it not try you, when called upon to gather, to leave your homes -and nearest and dearest friend, as many of you have done? Did it not -try you to do a great many things you have been required to do in the -gospel? Every law of the gospel has a trial connected with it, and -the higher the law the greater the trial; and as we ascend nearer and -nearer to the Lord our God we shall have greater trials to contend -with in purifying ourselves before Him. He has helped us this far. He -has helped us to conquer our selfish feelings, and when our sisters -seek unto Him He helps them to overcome their feelings; He gives them -strength to overcome their selfishness and jealousy. There is not a -woman under the sound of my voice to-day, but can bear witness of this -if she has tried it. You, sisters, whose husbands have taken other -wives, can you not bear testimony that the principle has purified your -hearts, made you less selfish, brought you nearer to God and given you -power you never had before? There are hundreds within the sound of my -voice to day, both men and women, who can testify that this has been -the effect that the practice of this principle has had upon them. -</p> -<p>I am speaking now of what are called the spiritual benefits arising -from the righteous practice of this principle. I am sure that through -the practice of this principle, we shall have a purer community, a -community more experienced, less selfish and with a higher knowledge of -human nature than any other on the face of the earth. It has already -had this effect to a great extent, and its effects in these directions -will increase as the practice of the principle becomes more general. -</p> -<p>A lady visitor remarked to me not long ago, in speaking upon this -subject: "Were I a man, I should feel differently probably to what -I do; to your sex the institution cannot be so objectionable." This -may be the case to some extent, but the practice of this principle is -by no means without its trials for the males. The difficulties and -perplexities connected with the care of a numerous family, to a man who -has any ambition, are so great that nothing short of the revelations -of God or the command of Jesus Christ, would tempt men to enter this -order; the mere increase of facilities to gratify the lower passions -of our natures would be no inducement to assume such an increase of -grave responsibilities. These desires have been implanted in both -male and female for a wise purpose, but their immoderate and illegal -gratification is a source of evil equal to that system of repression -prevalent in the world, to which thousands must submit or criminate -themselves. -</p> -<p>Just think, in the single State of Massachusetts, at the last census, -there were 63,011 females more than males. Brother Pratt, in his -remarks on this subject, truly remarked that the law of Massachusetts -makes these 63,011 females either old maids or prostitutes, for that -law says they shall not marry a man who has a wife. Think of this! And -the same is true to a greater or less degree throughout all the older -States, for the females preponderate in every one. -</p> -<p>Thus far I have referred only to the necessity and benefit of this -principle being practised in a moral point of view. I have said -nothing about the physiological side of the question. This is one of -if not the strongest sources of argument in its favor; but I do not -propose to enter into that branch of the subject to any great extent -on the present occasion. We are all, both men and women, physiologists -enough to know that the procreative powers of man endure much longer -than those of woman. Granting, as some assert, that an equal number -of the sexes exist, what would this lead to? Man must practise that -which is vile and low or submit to a system of repression; because if -he be married to a woman who is physically incapable, he must either -do himself violence or what is far worse, he must have recourse to -the dreadful and damning practice of having illegal connection with -women, or become altogether like the beasts. Do you not see that if -these things were introduced among our society they would be pregnant -with the worst results? The greatest conceivable evils would result -therefrom! How dreadful are the consequences of this system of which I -am now speaking, as witnessed at the present time throughout all the -nations of Christendom! You may see them on every hand. Yet the attempt -is being continually made to bring us to the same standard, and to -compel us to share the same evils. -</p> -<p>When the principle of plurality of wives was revealed I was but a -boy. When reflecting on the subject of the sealing power which was -then being taught, the case of Jacob, who had four wives, occurred to -me, and I immediately concluded that the time would come when light -connected with this practice would be revealed to us as a people. I -was therefore prepared for the principle when it was revealed, and I -know it is true on the principle that I know that baptism, the laying -on of hands, the gathering, and everything connected with the gospel -is true. If there were no books in existence, if the revelation itself -were blotted out, and there was nothing written in its favor, extant -among men, still I could bear testimony for myself that I know this -is a principle which, if practised in purity and virtue, as it should -be, will result in the exaltation and benefit of the human family; and -that it will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of -the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning. I -believe the correct practice of this principle will redeem woman from -the effects of that curse—namely, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, -and he shall rule over thee." All the evils connected with jealousy -have their origin in this. It is natural for woman to cleave to man; it -was pronounced upon her in the beginning, seemingly as a punishment. -I believe the time will come when, by the practise of the virtuous -principles which God has revealed, woman will be emancipated from that -punishment and that feeling. Will she cease to love man? No, it is not -necessary for her to cease to love. -</p> -<p>How is it among the nations of the earth? Why, women, in their yearning -after the other sex and in their desire for maternity, will do anything -to gratify that instinct of their nature, and yield to anything and be -dishonored even rather than not gratify it; and in consequence of that -which has been pronounced upon them, they are not held accountable to -the same extent that men are. Man is strong, he is the head of woman, -and God will hold him responsible for the use of the influence he -exercises over the opposite sex. Hence we were told by Brother Pratt -that there are degrees of glory, and that the faithful man may receive -the power of God—the greatest He has ever bestowed upon man—namely, -the power of procreation. It is a god-like power, but how it is -abused! How men debase themselves and the other sex by its unlawful -and improper exercise! We were told there is a glory to which alone -that power will be accorded in the life to come. Still there will be -millions of women saved in the kingdom of God, while men, through -the abuse of this precious gift, will not be counted worthy of such -a privilege. And this very punishment will, in the end, be woman's -salvation, because she is not held accountable to the same degree that -men are. -</p> -<p>This is a subject that we should all do well to reflect upon. There are -many points connected with the question physiologically, that might -be dwelt upon with great advantage. I have heard it said, and seen -it printed, that the children born here under this system are not so -smart as others; that their eyes lack lustre and that they are dull -in intellect; and many strangers, especially ladies, when arriving -here, are anxious to see the children, having read accounts which have -led them to expect that most of the children born here are deficient. -But the testimony of Professor Park, the principal of the University -of Deseret, and of other leading teachers of the young here, is that -they never saw children with a greater aptitude for the acquisition -of knowledge than the children raised in this Territory. There are no -brighter children to be found in the world than those born in this -Territory. Under the system of Patriarchal Marriage, the offspring, -besides being equally as bright and brighter intellectually, are much -more healthy and strong. Need I go into particulars to prove this? To -you who are married there is no necessity of doing so; you know what I -mean. You all know that many women are sent to the grave prematurely -through the evil they have to endure from their husbands during -pregnancy and lactation, and their children often sustain irremediable -injury. -</p> -<p>Another good effect of the institution here is that you may travel -throughout our entire Territory, and virtue prevails. Our young live -virtuously until they marry. But how is it under the monogamic system? -Temptations are numerous on every hand and young men fall a prey to -vice. An eminent medical professor in New York recently declared, while -delivering a lecture to his class in one of the colleges there, that if -he wanted a man twenty-five years of age, free from a certain disease, -he would not know where to find him. What a terrible statement to make! -In this community no such thing exists. Our boys grow up in purity, -honoring and respecting virtue; our girls do the same, and the great -mass of them are pure. There may be impurities. We are human, and it -would not be consistent with our knowledge of human nature to say that -we are entirely pure, but we are the most pure of any people within the -confines of the Republic. We have fewer unvirtuous boys and girls in -our midst than any other community within the range of my knowledge. -Both sexes grow up in vigor, health and purity. -</p> -<p>These, my brethren and sisters, are some of the results which I wanted -to allude to in connection with this subject. Much more might be said. -There is not a man or woman who has listened to me to-day, but he and -she have thoughts, reasons and arguments to sustain this principle -passing through their minds which I have not touched upon, or, if -touched upon at all, in a very hasty manner. -</p> -<p>The question arises, What is going to be done with this institution? -Will it be overcome? The conclusion arrived at long ago is that it is -God and the people for it. God has revealed it, He must sustain it, -we can not; we cannot bear it off, He must. I know that Napoleon said -Providence was on the side of the heaviest artillery, and many men -think that God is on the side of the strongest party. The Midianites -probably thought so when Gideon fell upon them with three hundred men. -Sennacherib and the Assyrians thought so when they came down in their -might to blot out Israel. But God is mighty; God will prevail; God will -sustain that which he has revealed, and He will uphold and strengthen -His servants and bear off His people. We need not be afflicted by a -doubt; a shadow of doubt need not cross our minds as to the result. We -know that God can sustain us: He has borne off His people in triumph -thus far and will continue to do so. -</p> -<p>I did intend, when I got up, to say something in relation to the -effects of the priesthood; but as the time is so far gone, I feel that -if I say anything it must be very brief. But in connection with the -subject of plural marriage, the priesthood is intimately interwoven. -It is the priesthood which produces the peace, harmony, good order, -and everything which make us as a people peculiar, and for which our -Territory has become remarkable. It is that principle—the priesthood, -which governs the heavenly hosts. God and Jesus rule through this -power, and through it we are made, so for as we have received it and -rendered obedience to its mandates, like our Heavenly Father and God. -He is our Father and our God. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus -Christ; He is the Father of all the inhabitants of the earth, and we -inherit His divinity, if we choose to seek for and cultivate it. We -inherit His attributes; we can, by taking the proper course, inherit -the priesthood by which He exercises control; by which the heavenly -orbs in the immensity of space are governed, and by which the earth -revolves in its seasons. It is the Holy Priesthood that controls all -the creations of the Gods, and though men fight against it, and, if -they could, would blot it out of existence, it will prevail and go -on increasing in power and strength until the sceptre of Jesus is -acknowledged by all, and the earth is redeemed and sanctified. -</p> -<p>That this day may be brought about speedily, is my prayer in the name -of Jesus, Amen. -</p> - - -<h2><a name="TRANSCRIBER'SNOTE:"></a>Transcriber's Note: -</h2> -<p>Some obvious typographical errors have been corrected as seemed reasonable. -Throughout the source text practice is spelled as both "practice" and -"practise." This inconsistency has been preserved in this electronic -edition. -</p> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Bible and Polygamy, by -Orson Pratt and J. P. Newman and George A. Smith and George Q. Cannon - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BIBLE AND POLYGAMY *** - -***** This file should be named 51140-h.htm or 51140-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/1/1/4/51140/ - -Produced by the Mormon Texts Project -(http://mormontextsproject.org), with thanks to Christopher -Dunn for proofreading. - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> - diff --git a/old/51140-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/51140-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 49309d4..0000000 --- a/old/51140-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/51140.txt b/old/51140.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 35566e3..0000000 --- a/old/51140.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5590 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Bible and Polygamy, by -Orson Pratt and J. P. Newman and George A. Smith and George Q. Cannon - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Bible and Polygamy - Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy? - -Author: Orson Pratt - J. P. Newman - George A. Smith - George Q. Cannon - -Release Date: February 6, 2016 [EBook #51140] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ASCII - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BIBLE AND POLYGAMY *** - - - - -Produced by the Mormon Texts Project -(http://mormontextsproject.org), with thanks to Christopher -Dunn for proofreading. - - - - - - - -THE - -BIBLE & POLYGAMY. - - -DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY? - - -A DISCUSSION - -BETWEEN - -PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT, - -One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day -Saints, - -AND - -REV. DOCTOR J. P. NEWMAN, - -Chaplain of the United States Senate, - -IN THE NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, - -August 12, 13, and 14, 1870. - - -TO WHICH IS ADDED - -THREE SERMONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT, - -BY - -PREST. GEORGE A. SMITH, - -AND - -ELDERS ORSON PRATT AND GEORGE Q. CANNON, - - -SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, - -1874. - - - - - -CORRESPONDENCE - -BETWEEN - -REVEREND DR. J. P. NEWMAN, - -Pastor of the Metropolitan Methodist Church, Washington, D. C., - -AND - -BRIGHAM YOUNG, - -President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, Aug. 6th, 1870. - -TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG: - -Sir:--In acceptance of the challenge given in your journal, "The Salt -Lake Daily Telegraph," of the 3rd of May last, to discuss the question, -"Does the Bible sanction polygamy?" I have hereby to inform you that I -am now ready to hold a public debate with you as the head of the Mormon -Church upon the above question, under such regulations as may be agreed -upon for said discussion; and I suggest for our mutual convenience -that, either by yourself or by two gentlemen whom you shall designate, -you may meet two gentlemen whom I will select for the purpose of making -all necessary arrangements for the debate, with as little delay as -possible. May I hope for a reply at your earliest convenience, and at -least not later than 3 o'clock to-day? - - Respectfully, etc., - - J. P. NEWMAN. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 6th, 1870. - -REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: - -Sir:--Yours of even date has just been received, in answer to which I -have to inform you that no challenge was ever given by me to any person -through the columns of the "Salt Lake Daily Telegraph," and this is the -first information I have received that any such challenge ever appeared. - -You have been mis-informed with regard to the "Salt Lake Daily -Telegraph;" it was not my journal, but was owned and edited by Dr. -Fuller, of Chicago, who was not a member of our church, and I was not -acquainted with its columns. - - Respectfully, - - BRIGHAM YOUNG. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870. - -TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG: - -Sir:--I confess my disappointment at the contents of your note in reply -to mine of this date. In the far East it is impossible to distinguish -the local relations between yourself and those papers which advocate -the interests of your Church; and when the copy of the "Telegraph" -containing the article of the 3rd of May last, reached Washington, the -only construction put upon it by my friends was that it was a challenge -to me to come to your city and discuss the Bible doctrine of polygamy. - -Had I chosen to put a different construction on that article, and -to take no further notice of it, you could then have adopted the -"Telegraph" as your organ and the said article as a challenge, which -I either could not or dared not accept. That I am justified in this -construction is clear from the following facts: - -1. The article in the "Telegraph," of May 3rd, contains these -expressions, alluding to my sermon as reported in the N. Y. "Herald," -it says: "The discourse was a lengthened argument to prove that the -Bible does not sustain polygamy. * * * * * * * * The sermon should have -been delivered in the New Tabernacle in this city, with ten thousand -Mormons to listen to it, and then Elder Orson Pratt, or some prominent -Mormon, should have had a hearing on the other side and the people been -allowed to decide. * * * * * Dr. Newman, by his very sermon, recognizes -the religious element of the question. * * * * Let us have a fair -contest of peaceful argument and let the best side win. * * * We will -publish their notices in the "Telegraph," report their discourses as -far as possible, use every influence in our power, if any is needed, -to secure them the biggest halls and crowded congregations, and we -are satisfied that every opportunity will be given them to conduct a -campaign. We base this last remark on a statement made last Sunday week -in the Tabernacle by President Geo. A. Smith, that the public halls -throughout the Territory have been and would be open to clergymen of -other denominations coming to Utah to preach. * * * Come on and convert -them by the peaceful influences of the Bible instead of using the means -now proposed. Convince them by reason and Scriptural argument and no -Cullom Bill will be required." - -2. I understand the article containing the above expressions, was -written by Elder Sloan, of the Mormon Church, and at that time -associate editor of the "Telegraph;" and that he was, and has since -been, in constant intercourse with yourself. The expressions of the -said article, as above cited, were the foundation of the impression -throughout the country, that a challenge had thus been given -through the columns of the "Telegraph," and as such, I myself, had -no alternative but so to regard and accept it. I may add that I am -informed that an impression prevailed here in Utah, that a challenge -had been given and accepted. Under this impression I have acted from -that day to this, having myself both spoken of and seen allusions to -the anticipated discussion in several prominent papers of the country. - -3. It was not till after my arrival in your city last evening, in -pursuance of this impression, that I learned the fact that the same -Elder Sloan, in the issue of the "Salt Lake Herald," of Aug. 3rd, -attempts for the first time to disabuse the public of the idea so -generally prevalent. Still acting in good faith and knowing that -you had never denied or recalled the challenge of the 3rd of May, I -informed you of my presence in your city and of the object of my visit -here. - -My note this morning with your reply, will serve to put the matter -before the public in its true light and dispel the impression of very -many in all parts of the country, that such a challenge had been given -and that such a discussion would be held. - -Feeling that I have now fully discharged my share of the responsibility -in the case, it only remains for me to subscribe myself, as before, - - Respectfully, - - J. P. NEWMAN. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870. - -REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: - -Sir:--It will be a pleasure to us, if you will address our congregation -to-morrow morning, the 7th inst., in the small Tabernacle at 10 a. m., -or, should you prefer it, in the New Tabernacle at 2 p. m., same inst., -or both morning and evening. - - Respectfully, - - BRIGHAM YOUNG. - -P. S. I hope to hear from you immediately. - - B. Y. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, Aug. 6, 1870, Eight o'clock, P.M. - -TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG: - -Sir:--In reply to your note just received to preach in the Tabernacle -to-morrow, I have to say that after disclaiming and declining, as you -have done to-day, the discussion which I came here to hold, other -arrangements to speak in the city were accepted by me, which will -preclude my compliance with your invitation. - - Respectfully, - - J. P. NEWMAN. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 6, 1870. - -REV. DR. NEWMAN: - -Sir:--In accordance with our usual custom of tendering clergymen of -every denomination, passing through our city, the opportunity of -preaching in our tabernacles of worship, I sent you, this afternoon, -an invitation tendering you the use of the small Tabernacle in the -morning, or the New Tabernacle in the afternoon, or both, at your -pleasure, which you have seen proper to decline. - -You charge me with "disclaiming and declining the discussion" which -you came here to hold. I ask you, sir, what right have you to charge -me with declining a challenge which I never gave you, or, to assume -as a challenge from me, the writing of any unauthorized newspaper -editor? Admitting that you could distort the article in question to -be a challenge from me, (which I do not believe you conscientiously -could) was it not the duty of a gentleman to ascertain whether I was -responsible for the so-called challenge before your assumption of such -a thing? And certainly much more so before making your false charges. - -Your assertion that if you had not chosen to construe the article -in question as a challenge from me, I "could then have adopted the -'Telegraph' as your [my] organ and the said article as a challenge," -is an insinuation, in my judgment, very discreditable to yourself, and -ungentlemanly in the extreme, and forces the conclusion that the author -of it would not scruple to make use of such a subterfuge himself. - -You say that Mr. Sloan is the author of the article; if so, he is -perfectly capable of defending it, and I have no doubt you will find -him equally willing to do so; or Professor Orson Pratt, whose name, it -appears, is the only one suggested in the article. I am confident he -would be willing to meet you, as would hundreds of our elders, whose -fitness and respectability I would consider beyond question. - -In conclusion I will ask, What must be the opinion of every candid, -reflecting mind, who views the facts as they appear? Will they -not conclude that this distortion of the truth in accusing me of -disclaiming and declining a challenge, which I never even contemplated, -is unfair and ungentlemanly in the extreme and must have been invented -with some sinister motive? Will they not consider it a paltry and -insignificant attempt, on your part, to gain notoriety, regardless of -the truth? This you may succeed in obtaining; but I am free to confess, -as my opinion, that you will find such notoriety more unenviable -than profitable, and as disgraceful, too, as it is unworthy of your -profession. - -If you think you are capable of proving the doctrine of "Plurality of -Wives" unscriptural, tarry here as a missionary; we will furnish you -the suitable place, the congregation, and plenty of our elders, any of -whom will discuss with you on that or any other scriptural doctrine. - - Respectfully, - - BRIGHAM YOUNG. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, Aug. 8th, 1870. - -TO PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG. - -Sir:--Your last note, delivered to me on Sunday morning, and to which, -of course, I would not on that day reply, does not at all surprise me. - -It will be, however, impossible for you to conceal from the public -the truth, that with the full knowledge of my being present in your -city for the purpose of debating with you or your representative the -question of polygamy, you declined to enter into any arrangements for -such a discussion; and after this fact was ascertained, I felt at -liberty to comply with a subsequent request from other parties, which -had been fully arranged before the reception of your note of invitation -to preach in your Tabernacles. - -I must frankly say that I regard your professed courtesy, extended -under the circumstances, as it was, a mere device to cover, if -possible, your unwillingness to have a fair discussion of the matter in -question in the hearing of your people. - -Your comments upon "disclaiming and declining the discussion" are -simply a reiteration of the disclaimer; while, in regard to your notice -of my construction of the article in the Telegraph of May last, I -have only to leave the representations you have seen fit to make to -the judgment of a candid public sure to discover who it is that has -been resorting to "subterfuge" in this affair. Your intimation that -Elder Sloan, Prof. Pratt, or hundreds of other Mormon elders, would -be willing to discuss the question of Polygamy with me from a Bible -standpoint, and your impertinent suggestion that I tarry here as a -missionary for that purpose, I am compelled to regard as cheap and safe -attempts to avoid the appearance of shrinking from such a discussion by -seeming to invite it after it had, by your own action, been rendered -impossible. As to the elders you speak of, including yourself, being -ready to meet me in public debate, I have to say that I came here -with that understanding and expectation, but it was rudely dispelled, -on being definitely tested. Were it possible to reduce these vague -suggestions of yours to something like a distinct proposition for a -debate, there is still nothing in your action, so far, to assure me -of your sincerity, but, on the contrary, every thing to cause me to -distrust it. - -I have one more point of remark. You have insinuated that my motive is -a thirst for "notoriety." I can assure you that if I had been animated -by such a motive, you give me small credit for good sense by supposing -that I would employ such means. Neither you, nor the system of which -you are the head, could afford me any "notoriety" to be desired. - -But, to show how far I have been governed by merely personal -aspirations, let the simple history of the case be recalled. - -You send your Delegate to Congress who, in the House of -Representatives, and in sight and hearing of the whole Nation, throws -down the gauntlet upon the subject of Polygamy as treated in the Bible. -Being Chaplain of the American Senate, and having been consulted by -several public men, I deemed it my duty to preach upon the subject. The -discourse was published in tho New York "Herald," and on this reaching -your city one of your Elders published an article which is generally -construed as a challenge to me to debate the question with you, or -some one whom you should appoint, here in your tabernacle. Acting upon -this presumption, I visit your city, taking the earliest opportunity -to inform you, as the head of the Mormon Church, of my purpose, and -suggesting the steps usual in such cases. You then reply, ignoring the -whole subject, but without a hint of your "pleasure" about my preaching -in the Tabernacle. - -Subsequently other arrangements were made which precluded my accepting -any invitation to speak in your places of worship. The day passed away, -and after sunset I received your note of invitation, my reply to which -will answer for itself. And this can intimate is an attempt on my part -to obtain an "unenviable notoriety." - -Sir, I have done with you--make what representation of the matter you -think proper you will not succeed in misleading the discriminating -people either of this Territory or of the country generally by any -amount of verbiage you may choose to employ. - - Respectfully, etc., - - J. P. NEWMAN. - ------ - -[The communication referred to in the letter below was addressed to Dr. -Newman by five persons, who asked him whether it was a fact that he -was unwilling to debate the question of polygamy now and here, as that -was the impression, they say, the Deseret Evening News and _Salt Lake -Herald_, conveyed.] - ------ - - Salt Lake City, Aug. 9th, 1870. - -TO MR. BRIGHAM YOUNG: - -Sir:--In view of the inclosed communications, received from several -citizens of this place asking whether I am ready now and here to debate -the question "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" with you, as the Chief -of the Church of Latter-day Saints, and in view of the defiant tone -of your Church journals of last evening and this morning; and in view -of the fact that I have been here now four days waiting to have you -inform me of your willingness to meet me in public discussion on the -above question, but having received no such intimation up to this time -of writing, therefore, I do now and here challenge you to meet me in -personal and public debate on the aforesaid question. I respectfully -suggest that you appoint two gentlemen to meet Rev. Dr. Sunderland and -Dr. J. P. Taggart, who represent me, to make all necessary arrangements -for the discussion. - -Be kind enough to favor me with an immediate reply. - - Respectfully, - - J. P. NEWMAN. - -Residence of Rev. Mr. Pierce. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, U. T., August 9th, 1870. - -REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: - -Sir:--Your communication of to-day's date, with accompanying enclosure, -was handed to me a few moments since by Mr. Black. - -In reply, I will say that I accept the challenge to debate the question -"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" Professor Orson Pratt or Hon. John -Taylor acting as my representative, and in my stead in the discussion. -I will furnish the place of holding the meetings, and appoint two -gentlemen to meet Messrs. Sunderland and Taggart, to whom you refer as -your representatives, to make the necessary arrangements. - -I wish the discussion to be conducted in a mild, peaceable, quiet -spirit, that the people may receive light and intelligence and all be -benefitted; and then let the congregation decide for themselves. - - Respectfully, - - BRIGHAM YOUNG. - ------ - - City, Aug. 9th, 1870 - -REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: - -Sir:--I have appointed Messrs A. Carrington and Jos. W. Young to meet -with Messrs Sunderland and Taggart, to arrange preliminaries for the -discussion. - - Respectfully, - - BRIGHAM YOUNG. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, Aug. 9th, 1870. - -TO MR. BRIGHAM YOUNG: - -Sir:--I challenged you to a discussion and not Orson Pratt or John -Taylor. You have declined to debate personally with me. Let the public -distinctly understand this fact, whatever may have been your reasons -for so declining. Here I think I might reasonably rest the case. -However, if Orson Pratt is prepared to take the affirmative of the -question, "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" I am prepared to take -the negative, and Messrs. Sunderland and Taggart will meet Messrs. -Carrington and Young to-night at 8 o'clock at the office of Mr. Taggart -to make the necessary arrangements. - - Respectfully, etc., - - J. P. NEWMAN. - ------ - - Salt Lake City, U. T., Aug. 10th, 1870. - -REV. DR. J. P. NEWMAN: - -Sir:--I am informed by Messrs. Carrington and Young that at their -meeting last evening with Drs. Sunderland and Taggart they were unable -to come to a decision with regard to the wording of the subject of -debate. - -Bearing in mind the following facts: Firstly, that you are the -challenging party. Secondly, That in a sermon delivered by you in the -city of Washington, before President Grant and his Cabinet, Members of -Congress and many other prominent gentlemen, you assumed to prove that -"God's law condemns the union in marriage of more than two persons," it -certainly seems strange that your representatives should persistently -refuse to have any other question discussed than the one "Does the -Bible sanction Polygamy?" It appears to the representatives of Mr. -Pratt that if Dr. Newman could undertake to prove in Washington that -"God's law condemns the union in marriage of more than two persons," -he ought not to refuse to make the same affirmation in Salt Lake City. -Mr. Pratt, I discover, entertains the same opinion, but rather than -permit the discussion to fall, he will not press for your original -proposition, but will accept the question as you now state it: "Does -the Bible sanction Polygamy?" - -I sincerely trust that none of the gentlemen forming the committee will -encumber the discussion with unnecessary regulations, which will be -irksome to both parties and unproductive of good, and that no obstacles -will be thrown in the way of having a free and fair discussion. - - Respectfully, - - BRIGHAM YOUNG. - - - -THE - -BIBLE AND POLYGAMY. - -DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY? - -DISCUSSION BETWEEN PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT AND DR. J. P. NEWMAN, CHAPLAIN -OF THE U. S. SENATE, IN THE NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, AUGUST 12, -13 AND 14, 1870. - - - -FIRST DAY. - -At two o'clock yesterday afternoon Professor Pratt and Dr. Newman, with -their friends and the umpires, met in the stand of the New Tabernacle: -the two former gentlemen prepared for the discussion of the question, -"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" An audience of three or four -thousand--at least half of which was of the gentler sex--assembled -to hear the discussion. At a few minutes past two, the audience was -called to order by Judge C. M. Hawley, the umpire of Dr. Newman, on the -negative, he (fortunately we presume) being absent from his district -at this juncture--and Elder John Taylor offered the opening prayer. -The same umpire, who somehow or other had got the idea that he was the -master of ceremonies on the occasion, and that he would relieve the -umpire of the affirmative side from all his duties, then introduced -Professor Pratt to the audience, which, as the professor was so well -known and the umpire almost unknown, created a slight titter, which, -however, speedily subsided, and the assemblage listened quietly to the - -ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR ORSON PRATT. - -I appear before this audience to discuss a subject that is certainly -important to us, and no doubt is interesting to the country at large, -namely: the subject of plurality of wives, or, as the question is -stated: "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" I would state, by way of -apology to the audience, that I have been unaccustomed, nearly all -my life, to debate. It is something new to me. I do not recollect of -ever having held more than one or two debates, in the course of my -life, on any subject. I think the last one was some thirty years ago, -in the city of Edinburgh. But I feel great pleasure this afternoon -in appearing before this audience for the purpose of examining the -question under discussion. I shall simply read what is stated in the -Bible, and make such remarks as I may consider proper upon the occasion. - -I will call your attention to a passage which will be found in -Deuteronomy, the 21st Chapter, from the 15th to the 17th verse: - - If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they - have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the - first-born be hers that was hated: Then it shall be when, he maketh - his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son - of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is indeed - the first-born: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the - first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he - is the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. - -Here is a law, in the words of the Great Law-giver himself, the Lord, -who spake to Moses; and it certainly must be a sanction of a plurality -of wives, for it is given to regulate inheritances in families of -that description, as well as in families wherein the first wife may -have been divorced, or may be dead; wives contemporary and wives that -are successive. It refers to both classes; and inasmuch as plurality -of wives is nowhere condemned in the law of God, we have a right to -believe from this law that plurality of wives is just as legal and -proper as that of the marriage of a single wife. This is the ground -we are forced to take until we can find some law, some evidence, some -testimony to the contrary. They are acknowledged as wives in this -passage, at least--"If a man have two wives." It is well known that -the House of Israel at that time practised both monogamy and polygamy. -They were not exclusively monogamists; neither were they exclusively -polygamists. There were monogamic families existing in Israel in those -days, and therefore in the Lord giving this He referred not only to -successive wives, where a man had married after the death of his first -wife, or if the first wife had been divorced for some legal cause, but -to wives who were contemporary, as there were many families in Israel, -which can be proved if necessary, that were polygamists. I might here -refer to the existence of this principle concerning the rights of the -first-born in monogamic and polygamic families prior to the date of -this law. This seems to have been given to regulate a question that had -a prior existence. I will refer, before I proceed from this passage, -to the monogamic family of Isaac, wherein we have the declaration that -Esau and Jacob, being twins, had a dispute, or at least there was -an ill feeling on the part of Esau, because Jacob at a certain time -had purchased the right of the first-born--that is, his birth-right. -The first-born, though twins, and perhaps a few moments intervening -between the first and second, or only a short time, had rights, and -those rights were respected and honored centuries before the days of -Moses. This was a monogamic family, so far as we are informed; for if -Isaac had more than one wife, the Bible does not inform us. We come -to Jacob, who was a polygamist, and whose first-born son pertained to -the father and not to the mother. There were not four first-born sons -to Jacob who were entitled to the rights of the first-born, but only -one. The first-born to Jacob was Reuben, and he would have retained -the birth-right had he not transgressed the law of heaven. Because -of transgression he lost that privilege. It was taken from him and -given to Joseph, or rather to the two sons of Joseph, as you will find -recorded in the fifth chapter of 1st Chronicles. Here then the rights -of the first-born were acknowledged, in both polygamic and monogamic -families, before the law under consideration was given. The House of -Israel was not only founded in polygamy, but the two wives of Jacob, -and the two handmaidens, that were also called his wives, were the -women with whom he begat the twelve sons from whom the twelve tribes of -Israel sprang; and polygamy having existed and originated as it were -with Israel or Jacob, in that nation, was continued among them from -generation to generation down until the coming of Christ; and these -laws therefore were intended to regulate an institution already in -existence. If the law is limited to monogamic families only, it will -devolve upon my learned opponent to bring forth evidence to establish -this point. - -We will next refer to a passage which will be found in Exodus 21st -chapter, 10th verse. It may be well to read the three preceding -verses, commencing with the 7th: "And if a man sell his daughter to be -a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men servants do. If she -please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he -let her be redeemed; to sell her into a strange nation he shall have -no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he hath -betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner -of daughters. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment and -her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." Also the following verse, -the 11th: "And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go -out free without money." I think from the nature of this passage that -it certainly does have reference to two lawful wives. It may be that -objection will be taken to the word "wife"--"another wife"--from the -fact that it is in Italics, and was so placed by the translators of -King James, according to the best judgment they could form, taking -into consideration the text. I do not intend at present to dwell at -any great length upon this passage, merely declaring that this does -sanction plurality of wives, so far as my judgment and opinion are -concerned, and so far as the literal reading of the Scripture exhibits -it does sanction the taking of another wife, while the first is still -living. If this word "wife" could be translated "woman," that perhaps -might alter the case, providing it can be proved that it should be so -from the original, which may be referred to on this point, and it may -not. We have the privilege, I believe, of taking the Bible according -to King James' translation, or of referring to the original, providing -we can find any original. But so far as the original is concerned, -from which this was translated, it is not in existence. The last -information we have of the original manuscripts from which this was -translated, is that they were made into the form of kites and used for -amusement, instead of being preserved. With regard to a great many -other manuscripts, they may perhaps agree with the original of King -James' translation, or they may not. We have testimony and evidence in -the Encyclopedia Metropolitana that the original manuscripts contained -a vast number of readings, differing materially one from the other. We -have this statement from some of the best informed men, and in several -instances it has been stated that there are 30,000 different readings -of these old original manuscripts from which the Bible was translated. -Men might dispute over these readings all the days of their lives and -there would be a difference of opinion, there were so many of them. -This, then, is another law, regulating, in my estimation, polygamy. - -I will now refer to another law on the subject of polygamy, in the -25th chapter of Deuteronomy--I do not recollect the verse, but I -will soon find it--it commences at the 5th verse. "If brethren dwell -together"--Now, it is well enough in reading this, to refer to the -margin, as we have the privilege of appealing to it, so you will find -in the margin the words "next kinsmen," or "brethren." "If brethren--or -next kinsmen--dwell together:" - - If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, - the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her - husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, - and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. - - And it shall be, that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed - in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out - of Israel. - - And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his - brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My - husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in - Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. - - Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if - he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; - - Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the - elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, - and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will - not build up his brother's house. - - And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his - shoe loosed. - -It may be asked, What has this to do with polygamy? I answer that as -the law is general, it is binding upon brethren and upon all near -kinsmen dwelling together. Not unmarried brethren or unmarried kinsmen, -but the married and unmarried. The law is general. If it can be proved -from the original, or from any source whatever, that the law is not -general, then the point will have to be given up. But if that cannot -be proven, then here is a law that not only sanctions polygamy, but -commands it; and if we can find one law where a command is given, -then plurality of wives would be established on a permanent footing, -equal in legality to that of monogamy. This law of God absolutely -does command all persons, whether married or unmarried, it makes no -difference--brethren dwelling together, or near kinsmen dwelling -together--which shows that it is not unmarried persons living in the -same house that are meant, but persons living together in the same -neighborhood, in the same country in Israel, as it is well known that -Israel in ancient days did so dwell together; and the law was binding -upon them. This was calculated to make a vast number of polygamists -in Israel from that day until the coming of Christ. And the Christian -religion must have admitted these polygamists into the Church, because -they would have been condemned if they had not observed this law. -There was a penalty attached to it, and they could not be justified -and refuse to obey it. Hence there must have been hundreds, perhaps -thousands, of polygamists in Israel, when Jesus came, who were living -in obedience to this law and who would have been condemned if they had -disobeyed it. When the gospel was preached to them, if they could not -have been admitted into the Christian Church without divorcing their -wives God would have been unjust to them, for if they, through their -obedience to God's law, should have been cut off from the gospel, would -it not have been both inconsistent and unjust? But as there is no law -either in the Old or New Testament against polygamy, and as we here -find polygamy commanded, we must come to the conclusion that it is a -legal form of marriage. We cannot come to any other conclusion, for -it stands on a par with the monogamic form of marriage; consequently, -wherever we find either righteous men or wicked men, whatever may be -their practices in the course of their lives, it does not affect the -legality of their marriage with one wife or with two wives. - -We may refer you to Cain, who had but one wife, so far as we are -informed. He was a monogamist. He was also a very wicked man, having -killed his own brother. We find he was driven out into the land of -Nod. Of course, as the Lord had not created any females in the land of -Nod, Cain must have taken his wife with him, and there was born a son -to him in that land. Shall we condemn monogamy and say it was sinful -because Cain was a murderer? No; that will never do. We can bring no -argument of this kind to destroy monogamy, or the one-wife system, and -make it illegal. We come down to the days of Lamech. He was another -murderer. He happened to be a polygamist; but he did not commit his -murder in connection with polygamy, so far as the Scriptures give any -information. There is no connection between the law of polygamy and -the murder he committed in slaying a young man. Does that, therefore, -invalidate the marriage of two persons to Lamech? No; it stands on just -as good ground as the case of Cain, who was a monogamist and a murderer -also. - -Adam was a monogamist. But was there any law given to Adam to prevent -him taking another wife? If there was such a law, it is not recorded in -King James' translation. If there be such a law recorded, perhaps it is -in some of the originals that differed so much from each other. It may -be argued, in the case of Adam, that the Lord created but one woman to -begin the peopling of this earth. If the Lord saw proper to create but -one woman for that purpose, he had a perfect right to do so. - -The idea that that has any bearing upon the posterity of Adam because -the Lord did not create two women would be a very strange idea indeed. -There are a great many historical facts recorded concerning the days -of Adam that were not to be examples to his posterity. For instance, -he was ordered to cultivate the garden of Eden--one garden. Was that -any reason why his posterity should not cultivate two gardens? Would -any one draw the conclusion that, because God gave a command to Adam -to cultivate the garden of Eden, to dress it and keep it, that his -posterity to the latest time should all have one garden each, and -no more? There is no expression of a law in these matters; they are -simply historical facts. Again, God gave him clothing on a certain -occasion, the Lord himself being the tailor--clothing to cover the -nakedness of Adam and of Eve his wife; and this clothing was made from -the skins of beasts. This is a historical fact. Will any one say that -all the posterity of Adam shall confine their practice in accordance -with this historical fact? Or that it was an expression of law from -which they must not deviate? By no means. If the posterity of Adam see -fit to manufacture clothing out of wool, or flax, or cotton, or any -other material whatever, would any one argue in this day that they -were acting in violation of the law of the Divine Creator, of a law -expressed and commanded in the early ages? Why, no. We should think -a man had lost all powers of reason who would argue this way. As our -delegate remarked in his speech, Adam had taken all the women in the -world, or that were made for him. If there had been more, he might have -taken them: there was nothing in the law to limit him. - -I would like to dwell upon this longer, but I have many other passages -to which I wish to draw your attention. The next passage to which I -will refer, you will find in Numbers, 31st chapter, 17th and 18th -verses. This chapter gives us a history of the proceedings of this -mixed race of polygamists and monogamists called Israel. At a certain -time they went out to battle against the nation of Midianites; and -having smote the men, they took all the women captives, as you will -find in the 9th verse. Commencing at the 15th verse, we read: - - And Moses said unto them have ye saved all the women alive? Behold - these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to - commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was - a plague among the congregation of the Lord. - -You will recollect the case of some Midianitish women being brought -into the camp of Israel contrary to the law of God, not being wives; -and Israel with them sinned and transgressed the law of heaven, and the -Lord sent an awful plague into their midst for this transgression. Now, -here was a large number of women saved, and Moses, finding they were -brought into camp, said these had caused the children of Israel to sin; -and he gave command: "Now, therefore, kill every male among the little -ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But -all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, -keep alive for yourselves." How many were there of this great company -that they were to keep alive for themselves? There was something very -strange in this. If they had caused Israel to sin why spare them? Or -why keep them alive for themselves? That they might have them lawfully. -Some may say to have them as servants, not as wives. Some might have -been kept as servants and not as wives, but would there not have been -great danger of Israel sinning again with so many thousand servants, -as they were the same women who had brought the plague into the camp -of Israel before? How many were there of these women? Thirty-two -thousand, as you will find in another verse of the same chapter. And -these were divided up as you will also find, in the latter part of the -same chapter, among the children of Israel. Those who stayed at home -from the war took a certain portion--sixteen thousand in number; those -who went to the war, including the Levites, took the remaining sixteen -thousand. - -Now to show that polygamy was practised among the children of Israel in -taking captive women, let me refer you to another passage of Scripture, -in Deuteronomy, 21st chapter, commencing at the 10th verse. - - When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy - God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them - captive; - - And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto - her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; - - Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her - head, and pare her nails; - - And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall - remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full - month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, - and she shall be thy wife. - - And it shall be. If thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let - her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, - thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. - -Now, this law was given to a nation, as I have already shown, which -practised polygamy as well as monogamy; and consequently if a -polygamist saw a woman, a beautiful woman, among the captives; or if a -monogamist saw a beautiful woman among the captives; or if an unmarried -man saw a beautiful woman among the captives, the law being general, -they had an equal right to take them as wives. This will explain the -reason why the Lord told Israel to save thirty-two thousand Midianitish -women alive for themselves. It will be recollected that the Israelites -had a surplus of women. I have no need to refer to the destruction -of the males that had been going on for a long period of time--about -eighty years, until Moses went to deliver Israel from Egypt. During -this time females were spared alive, making a surplus of them in the -midst of Israel; but the Lord saw there was not enough, and He made -provision for more by commanding them to spare these captive women and -keep them alive for themselves. If my opponent, who will follow me, -can bring forth any evidence from the law of God, or from the passage -under consideration, to prove that this law was limited to unmarried -men, all right; we will yield the point, if there can be evidence -brought forward to that effect. "When you go forth to war if you see a -beautiful woman"--not you unmarried men alone, but all that go forth to -war. - -The next passage to which I will refer you, where God absolutely -commands polygamy, will be found in Exodus, 22nd chapter, 16th and 17th -verses: - - And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he - shall surely endow her to be his wife. - - If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money - according to the dowry of virgins. - -There is the law of Exodus; now let us turn to the law of Deuteronomy, -22nd chapter, 28th and 29th verses, on the same subject: - - If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and - lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; - - Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father - fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath - humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. - -Does this mean an unmarried man? The law was given to a nation wherein -both forms of marriage were recognized, and wherein single men existed. -If it does mean single men alone, we would like to hear the proof. The -law is general. Whether married or unmarried, whether a monogamist -or polygamist, if he committed this crime, if he found a maid and -committed the crime there specified, of seduction, there is the law; -he shall marry her, and shall not only marry her, but shall pay a fine -of fifty shekels of silver to the father. This was the penalty; not -that they were justified in the act. It mattered not whether he was a -polygamist, a monogamist, or an unmarried man, he must comply with the -law as a penalty. That was another command establishing and sanctioning -polygamy, sanctioning it by Divine command. If this law could have -been put in force in modern times, among modern Christian nations, -what a vast amount of evil would have been avoided in the earth. It -is proverbial that among all the nations of modern Europe, as well as -in our own great nation--Christian nations--there is a vast amount of -prostitution, houses of ill-lame, and prostitutes of various forms; -now, if this law, which God gave to Israel, had been re-enacted by the -law-makers and legislatures and parliaments of these various nations, -what would have been the consequence? In a very short time there would -not have been a house of ill-fame in existence. Their inmates would -have all been married off to their seducers, or their patrons; for who -does not know that females would far rather be married than prostitute -themselves as they do at the present time? And they would lie in wait -to entrap this man and that man, and the other man, to get out of these -brothels, and, as the law is general, if the same law had existed in -our day, it would soon have broken up houses of ill-fame. There might -have been some secret evils; but it would have broken up the "social -evil." - -The next passage to which I will refer you is in 2nd Chronicles, 24th -chapter, 2nd, 3rd, 15th and 18th verses: - - And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the - days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives, and - he begat sons and daughters. - -According to the ideas of monogamists, Jehoiada must have been a very -wicked man, and Joash "a beastly polygamist" for taking two wives. We -will take the man who received the wives first. Joash, who received the -wives from the highest authority God had on the earth, did "right in -the sight of the Lord, all the days of Jehoiada the priest." What! Did -he do right when Jehoiada took two wives for him and gave them to him? -Yes; so says the word of God, the Bible, and you know the question is -"Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" But what a dreadful priest that man -must have been, according to the arguments of monogamists! Let us see -what kind of a character he appears. In this same chapter, 28th verse, -if I recollect aright: (looking). No, in the 15th and 16th verses we -read: - - But Jehoiada waxed old, and was full of days when he died; a hundred - and thirty years old was he when he died. And they buried him in the - city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, - both toward God, and toward his house. - -"Because he had done good in Israel, both toward God and towards his -house," they buried him among the kings, honored him in that manner; -and the reason why they did bestow this great honor upon him was -because he had done good. In the first place he had given two wives -to Joash, which was a very good act, for he was the highest authority -God had upon the earth at that time; and God sanctioned polygamy by -lengthening out the age of this man to 130 years, a very long age in -those days. - -But I shall have to hasten on, although there are many passages which I -have not time to quote. The next will be found in Hosea, 1st chapter, -2nd and 3rd verses: "The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea." -This was the introduction of Hosea as a prophet. No doubt he brought -the evidence as a prophet; and in the beginning of the word of God -through Hosea, to the world, he must have come with great proof. The -first thing the Lord said to him, was "Go take unto thee a wife of -whoredoms." In the 3rd verse it says: "So he went and took Gomer, the -daughter of Diblain." If such a thing had occurred in our day; if a -man had come forth, professing to be a prophet, and the first thing he -said as a prophet was that the Lord had revealed to him that he was -to go and take a wife of such a character, what would be thought of -him? Yet he was a true prophet. Was this the only wife God commanded -Hosea to take? No. The Lord said--"Go yet, love a woman beloved of -her friends, yet an adulteress"--See chapter 3rd. What, love a woman, -an adulteress, when he already had a wife of very bad character! Take -wives of such disgraceful reputation! Yet God commanded this, and he -must be obeyed. This did not justify any other prophet in doing so. -Jeremiah would not have been justified in doing the same. But this was -a command of God, given to Hosea alone. It was not given as a pattern -for any other man to follow after, or for the people of this generation -to observe. Yet it was given in this instance. "But," inquires one, -"does not the Lord require such characters to be put to death?" Yes; -but in this instance, it seems, the Lord deviated from this law; for -He commanded a holy prophet to go and marry two women. This recalls -to my mind the law given to Israel, recorded in Deuteronomy, where -the Lord commanded the law of consanguinity to be broken. You will -recollect that in two different chapters the Lord pointed out who -should not marry within certain degrees of consanguinity; yet in the -25th chapter of Deuteronomy he commanded brethren, who dwell together, -and near kinsmen, to break that law, which was a justification in -part to not regard the law of consanguinity. God has the right to -alter his commands as he pleases. Go back to the days of Noah, and -the command was given: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his -blood be shed;" yet the same God commanded Abraham, that good man who -is up yonder in the kingdom of God, according to the New Testament, to -take his son Isaac and slay him and offer him up as a burnt offering. -Here is one command in opposition to another. Consequently, God does -sometimes give a command in opposition to another, but they are not -examples for you or me to follow. Supposing I should prove by ten -thousand examples from the Bible that polygamy was practised in ancient -Israel, is that a reason why you and I should practise it. No; we must -have a command for ourselves. God sometimes repeats a command. The -Latter-day Saints in this Territory practise polygamy; not because God -commanded it in ancient times, not because Moses gave laws to regulate -it; not because it was practised by good men of ancient times-- - -(At this point the umpires said the time was up.) - -Judge C. M. Hawley then introduced Dr. J. P. Newman, who proceeded to -deliver the following - -ARGUMENT. - -Honorable Umpires and - -Ladies and Gentlemen: - -The question for our consideration is "Does the Bible sanction -Polygamy?" It is of the utmost importance that we proceed to the -discussion of this question and the unfolding of its elements at -once; and therefore, that we lose no time, we propose to analyze the -question. I had desired nine hours to speak on this great subject; -but by mutual consent the time has been reduced to three. In view of -this fact I, therefore, proceed at once to the consideration of the -elements of the question "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" Every word -is emphatic. Does the Bible--the Bible--God's word, whether in the -original text or in the translation which is accepted by Christendom, -as the revealed will of God; this old book which has come down from the -hoary past; this old book written by different men, under different -circumstances, yet for one great and grand object; this book that comes -to us under the authority of plenary inspiration, no matter what has -become of the manuscripts, whether lost in the flood or consumed in the -flame that burned the doomed Persepolis, no matter what has been their -destiny, we have the original, the Hebrew, the Septuagint and the Greek -translations; in the New Testament the Greek, which have been and are -accepted by the most eminent Biblical scholars; therefore the point -the gentleman makes that so many manuscripts are lost, is a bagatelle. -I throw it away, as useless as a rush. Would he have me infer that -because some manuscripts are lost, therefore that book is not the -authentic word of God and the revealed will of High Heaven? No; for him -to assume that is to assume that that book is not God's will. Supposing -that the original revelation, the pretended revelation, that you, here, -were to practise polygamy, was consumed in the flames by the wife of -Joseph Smith, does that invalidate the preserved copy which Mr. Joseph -Smith had in his bosom? Certainly not. I hold therefore that that old -book comes to us with authority; and that whatever has become of the -manuscripts which have been furnished, formed, arranged and handed down -to us, that is our standard. - -I am here to speak to the people, and I will be an organ to you in the -name of the Lord. - -But let us look at this book. It is a book of history and of biography, -of prophecy and precepts; of promises and of miracles; of laws and -precepts; of promises and threatenings; of poetry and of narrative. -It is to be judged by the ordinary rules of grammar, of rhetoric and -of logic. It is written in human language. There is a language spoken -by the persons in the Godhead, and had God revealed himself in that -language we could not have understood the terms. There is a language -spoken by the angels that blaze before the throne; had God spoken to -us in angelic language we could not have understood the terms. But -he took human language, with all its poverty and imperfections, and -with all its excellencies. He has spoken to us in terms by which we -can understand his pleasure concerning us. But it is a great fact, my -friends, that all that is written in the Bible is neither approved -by the Almighty, nor was it written for our imitation. Achan stole a -Babylonish garment and a wedge of gold. God did not approve the theft, -nor are those acts recorded in the Bible for our imitation. We are to -read Bible history as we read Xenophon, Tacitus, and Herodotus, and, in -modern times, Hume, Gibbon and Bancroft, with this distinction--when we -take down Herodotus, Tacitus, or others I have not mentioned, we are -not always sure that what we read is true, but we are sure that what is -recorded in the Bible is true, whether it be prophetic truth, mandatory -truth or historic truth. We should therefore make a distinction, -according to the kind of composition we are reading. If we are reading -history, read it as history, and make a distinction between what is -simply recorded as part and parcel of the record of a great nation, or -part and parcel of the record or biography of some eminent man, and -that which is recorded there for our imitation, for which we shall -have to give an account at God's bar. So take the poetry of the Bible. -Scriptural poetry is subject to the same rules as the poetry in Homer, -Virgil, Milton or Young, with this exception--that the poetry of the -Bible is used to convey a grand thought, and there is no redundancy of -thought or imagery in Bible poetry. - -We come to biography, and to my mind it is a sublime fact, and one -for which I thank God, that the inspired writers were impartial in -recording biographical history. They recorded the virtues and the -vices of men; they did not disguise the faults even of their eminent -friends, nor did they always stop to pronounce condemnation upon such; -but they recorded one and the other, just as they came along the stream -of time. It is this book, therefore, that is my standard in this -discussion, and it is composed of the Old and New Testament. The New -Testament holds the relation to the Old Testament of a commentary, in -a prominent sense. Christ comes along and gives an exposition of the -law of Moses; comes and gives an exposition of some of those grand -principles which underlie Christianity: and then his references to the -law of Moses simply prove this--that what Moses has said is true. Take -his exposition of the Ten Commandments, as they were given amid the -thunders of Mount Sinai, and you find that he has written a commentary -on the Decalogue, bringing out its hidden meaning, showing to us that -the man is an adulterer who not only marries more women than one, but -who looks on a woman with salacial lust. Such is the commentary on the -law, by the Lord Jesus Christ. - -Now does this book, the Old Testament and the New? Not what revelation -has been made to the Latter-day Saints; that is not to be brought -into this controversy; that is not the question in dispute. Whether -Joseph Smith or any other member of the Church of Latter-day Saints -has had a revelation from God; whether the holy canon was closed by -the apocalyptic revelations to John on the Isle of Patmos--even that -question is not to be dragged into this controversy. Neither the Mormon -Bible, nor the Book of Covenants, nor the revelations of yesterday or -to-day, or any other day; but the grand question is, Does that old -book--read in old England, read in Wales, read in Ireland, read in -Norway and Sweden, and read in this land of liberty--does that book -sanction polygamy? - -We now come to another important word--namely, does the Bible -sanction? Sanction! By the term sanction we mean command, consequently -the authority of positive, written, divine law, or whatever may be -reasonably held as equivalent to such law. It follows, therefore, that -toleration is not sanction. Sufferance is not sanction. Municipal -legislation is not sanction. An historical statement of prevailing -customs is not sanction. A faithful narrative of the life and example -of eminent men is not sanction. The remission of penalty is not -sanction. A providential blessing, bestowed upon general principles, -for an ulterior purpose, is not sanction. The only adequate idea of -sanction is the divine and positive approbation, plainly expressed, -either in definite statute or by such forms of conformation as -constitute a full and clear equivalent. It is in this sense that we -take the term sanction in the question before us. - -The next word in the question is, "Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?" -By which we mean, as it (the Bible) now stands. Not as it once was, -but as it now is; that is, the Bible taken as a whole. The question -is not, Did the Bible formerly sanction Polygamy? But rather, Does -it, at the present day, authorize and establish and approve it? Just -as we may say of the Constitution of the United States, not, Did it -sanction slavery? but, does it now sanction it? For it is a well known -principle of jurisprudence that if any thing have been repealed in -the supreme law of the land, which that law once authorized, then it -no longer sanctions the matter in question. It is so here, precisely; -for let us suppose for a moment that it could be proved that the -Bible once sanctioned polygamy, in the sense excepted, and that this -sanction has never been withdrawn, then we are bound to admit that the -affirmative has been sustained; but supposing, on the other hand, that -the Bible, as it is now, to-day, does not sanction polygamy, then we -have sustained the negative of the question. - -There is another word, and one of importance, and that is the term -polygamy. There are three words in this connection which should be -referred to. The first is polygamy, which is from the the Greek polus, -and gamos, the former meaning "many," and the latter "marriage" and -signifies a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time. When a -man has more wives than one, or a woman more husbands than one, at -the same time, the offender is punishable for polygamy. Such is the -fact in Christian countries. Polygamy is allowed in some countries, -as in Turkey. Turn to Webster's Dictionary, page 844, and we shall -find the word "polyandry," from polus, many and aner, man, meaning the -practice of females having more husbands than one at the same time, or -a plurality of husbands. Then there is another word--polygyny, from -the Greek polus, and gune, woman or female, the practice of having -more wives than one at the same time. The word, therefore, to be used, -is not polygamy, but polygyny, for polygamy signifies a man with more -wives than one, or a woman with more husbands than one; and it seems -to me that if a man can have more wives than one a woman has the same -right to have more husbands than one. Then the true word is polygyny, -and hereafter we will scout the word polygamy, and use the true word -polygyny. - -This question involves or supposes two systems of marriage: What is -commonly called polygamy and what is known as monogamy. On the one -hand a man with more than one wife; and on the other, a man with only -one wife. You observe therefore that these are two systems essentially -and radically different and distinct, the one from the other, and -especially so in this controversy. The material question to be decided -is, which is the authorized system of marriage, polygamy, or a -plurality of wives, or monogamy, or what it termed the one-wife system? - -Let us glance for a moment at some of the grand features of monogamy; -and we shall thereby see the distinction between the two systems of -marriage. Take, for instance, the design of marriage, as originally -established by the Almighty in the garden of Eden, in the time of man's -innocency. That design was three-fold: companionship, procreation and -prevention. Companionship is first: the soul is more than the body. -The union of two loving hearts is more than the union of two bodies. -Ere Eve was created or she beheld the rosy sky or breathed its balmy -atmosphere, God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will -make for him a helpmeet." The animals had passed in review before -Adam; but neither among the doves that plumed their pinions in the air -of Paradise; nor amid the fish of the deep, the beasts of the field, -nor the reptiles of the earth could a companion be found for man. -But a special exertion of divine power had to be put forth that this -companion should be made. And how was she made? A deep sleep is caused -to come upon the first man. There lies Adam upon the ambrosial floor of -Paradise, and out of his side a rib is taken, and out of that rib woman -was created. And when some one asked old Martin Luther--"Why did not -God Almighty make the woman out of some other bone of a man than out -of a rib?" The answer was: "He did not make woman out of man's head, -lest she should rule over him; He did not make her out of the bone of -man's foot, lest he should trample upon her; but He made her out of his -side, that she might be near his heart; from under his arm, that he -might protect her." The grand primary object of marriage, therefore, is -companionship--the union of two loving hearts. - -The next design is procreation. It has pleased Almighty God to people -the earth by the offspring coming from those united in marriage. This -was his wisdom: this was his plan. It is an old saying that history -repeats itself; and after the flood had swept away the antediluvians, -and after that terrible storm had subsided, there, in the ark, was Noah -and his sons and their wives--four men and four women. If Almighty -God sanctioned polygamy in the beginning, and intended to sanction it -afterwards, why did not He save in the ark a dozen wives for Noah and -a dozen for each of his sons? But one wife for Noah, and one wife for -each of his sons; and thus the Almighty repeats history. - -The next design is prevention--namely to prevent the indiscriminate -intercourse of the sexes. God loves chastity in man and in woman, -and therefore he established marriage, it is a divine institution, -lifting man above the brutes. He would not have man as the male of the -brute creation--mingling indiscriminately with the females; but he -establishes an institution holy as the angels--bearing upon its brow -the signet of His approval, and sanctioned by the good and great of all -ages. He establishes this institution that the lines may be drawn, and -that the chastity of male and female may be preserved. - -On passing from this question of design, let us go to the consideration -of the very nature of marriage. It is two-fold. It is an institution, -not a law; it is a state, not an act; something that has been -originated, framed, built up and crowned with glory. It is not an act -of mere sexual intercourse, but it is a state to run parallel with the -life of the married pair, unless the bonds of marriage are sundered -by one crime--that is adultery. Then consider the grand fact that -there are solemn obligations in this institution of marriage. Nay, -more than this, the very essential elements of marriage distinguish it -in its monogamic, from the institution of marriage in its polygamic, -condition. There is choice, preference of one man for one woman, and -when we come to the question of the census that will demonstrate it -clear as the sunlight; when we come to that question we will prove the -equality of the sexes; we will prove that there is not an excess of -marriageable women either in this or any other country. Therefore the -grand advice of Paul: "Let every man have his own wife, and every woman -have her own husband." - -Now, if the equality of the sexes be a fact, and every man is to -have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, then I say that -this great idea of choice is fully sustained, of preference on the -part of a man, and also preference on the part of woman. And around -this institution God has thrown guards to protect it; indeed, he has -surrounded it with muniments which seem to be as high as heaven; and -whenever the obligations, or so long as the obligations of marriage -are observed, then these defenses stand impregnable and the gates of -hell shall not prevail against marriage. First, there is its innocency: -the union of a man with his wife, is an act as pure as the devotion -of angels in heaven. Then comes the nobleness of marriage: the bed -undefined is honorable in all; but whoremongers and adulterers will God -judge. Then notice the sanction of divine and human law that surrounds -this institution; the law that was given amid the awful thunderings -of Mount Sinai is a grand muniment of this monogamic institution. In -all civilized Christian countries civil legislation has extended the -arm of the law to protect marriage. Then recall the affinities of the -sexes; the natural desire of man for woman; and the natural desire of -woman for man. There may be some exceptions. Now and then we find an -old bachelor in the world; but a man without a wife is only half a man. -Now and then we find a woman in the world who is styled an "old maid;" -but a woman without a husband is only half a humanity. Adam, in the -beginning, was a perfect humanity, possessing the strength, dignity and -courage of man, with the grace, gentleness and beauty of woman. After -Eve's creation he retained the strength, dignity and courage; but lost, -with Eve, the grace, beauty and gentleness; so that it now takes the -union of one man, with the sterner qualities, with one woman, with the -gentler graces, to produce one perfect humanity, and that is the type -of marriage, as instituted by Almighty God, and as is approved by His -divine law. - -And, now, I desire to run the parallel between the two systems, -showing how the one is destructive of the other. Take, for instance, -the element, namely, the design, and see how polygamy strikes at the -institution of marriage in that regard. I now refer to companionship, -the union of two loving hearts to the exclusion of a third. A man may -love three or more friends; he may love three or more children; he may -love three or more brothers or sisters; but God has so ordained the law -of affinities between the man and the woman that companionship can only -be secured to the exclusion of a third person. Ah! what a pleasure it -is for a man when away from home to know, "I shall soon return to the -bosom of my wife, and my little children will climb upon my knee and -lisp the child's welcome at my return." And he hastens from afar to -the embraces of that wife. And then what an almost infinity of joy it -is on the part of the woman, whose husband is far away, to know that -he is coming. Says she, "I will stand in the door-way and will watch -his returning footsteps. He is coming to me, to my embrace, to my home -prepared for him!" And with what pride and care the busy housewife -arranges for his return! How neat and beautiful everything is! The -bouquet of flowers is on the table, the best viands are spread on the -board, and everything in the house is prepared with the utmost care! -But oh! what a gloom comes down upon the poor woman's soul when she -knows that he returns not to her, but returns to one, two, three, four, -twelve, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty. - -Then see how the system works against the next design--namely, -procreation. It is a fact that in polygamous countries one sex or -the other has preponderance in numbers. Some good authorities say -the females preponderate, others say the males. I do not know, I do -not care a rush which preponderates: all that I say is this, that -good, reliable authorities say that in polygamic--mark you, polygamic -countries, there is a preponderance of one or the other; while in -monogamic nations the great law of equality is brought out. According -to some authorities the tendency of polygamy is to make all males; -according to other authorities to make all females; and if either -follow, then comes the destruction of the race, and within a hundred -years the earth is depopulated and is a howling wilderness. - -Take the influence of polygamy upon what may be properly called the -rights of marriage, and these rights are two-fold:--authority on the -part of the man, and protection on the part of the woman. The man is -the head of the family; the man is the high priest of the family; -the man is the legislator and executive of the family. He is to have -reverence from his wife; she is to obey him; and I never performed the -marriage ceremony without including that word when I address the woman, -"Wilt thou obey the man?" That is God's authority, and every true and -loving wife will obey her husband in the Lord as readily as she obeys -the Lord Jesus Christ. But while man is the legislator and executive; -while he is endowed with authority as his right, so, on the other hand, -protection belongs to and is the natural and inalienable right of the -woman. See that ivy as it entwines around the oak! That grand old oak -has sent down its roots and takes hold of the very foundations of the -earth, and its branches tower up towards the sky. See that ivy how it -entwines itself gently, sweetly and beautifully around the oak? - - "A thing of beauty is a Joy forever." - -So woman entwines herself, the tendrils of her affection go out and -they entwine themselves around the man; and what must be the depth -of the depravity to which that man has fallen who ruthlessly tears -asunder these gentle tendrils of affection! What the ivy is to the -oak, the woman is to the man; and it is for man, in his pride and -glory, in his strength and energy, with his strong arm to protect -her; and it is woman's right to go to man for protection. But how is -it possible under the system of polygamy for these great rights to be -preserved? It is true that the man retains his right and authority; -this system augments and multiplies that authority. This system is -one of usurpation, extending a right over the larger number that is -not included in God's law. But, on the other hand, where is the right -of woman to protection? A whole soul for a whole soul! A whole body -for a whole body, and a whole life for a whole life! Just like the -shells of the bivalve; they correspond with each other! Just like the -two wings of a bird, male and female. So precisely this great idea of -reciprocity, mutual affection and reciprocal love is developed in this -idea of monogamous marriage. But polygamy, it seems to me, strikes down -this right of woman; in other words, it divides the protecting power -of man in proportion to the number of wives he possesses; and it seems -to me that in view of the distribution of worldly goods in this life a -man can support and protect but one family. Kings, who can tax a whole -people; kings, who can build palaces and rear pyramids; kings, who can -marshal their armies on the banks of the Rhine and go to war, may have -their harems--their plurality of wives; but the poor man, doomed to -toil, with the sweat of labor on his brow, how is it possible for him -to provide for more than one family? Yet if the king in his glory has -the right to have a plurality of wives, so also has the poor man, who -is doomed to toil, the same right; and God Almighty, in making this -law for a plurality of wives, if He has made it, which I, of course, -question, yet, if He has made it, then He has not made provision -for the execution of that law; or, in other words, He has not made -provision for its immunities to be enjoyed by the common people. It is -a law exclusively for nabobs, kings and high priests; for men in power, -for men possessing wealth, and not for me, a poor man, or for you, -[pointing to audience] a poor laborer. God Almighty is just, and a king -is no more before him than a peasant. The meanest of His creatures, -as well as the highest, are all alike unto Him. I ask you, therefore, -to-day, Would He enact a law sanctioning--commanding a plurality of -wives, without making a provision that every man should be in such -financial circumstances as to have a plurality of wives and enjoy them? -See, therefore, how these two systems of marriage are antagonistic one -against the other! And, after hearing this exposition of the nature and -the elements and the rights and the muniments of marriage, it is for -you to infer which is the system which God ordained in the beginning. - -My distinguished friend has hastily reviewed many passages of -Scripture, all of which, my friends, I shall notice. I will sift -them to the bottom. My only regret is that my distinguished friend, -for whose scholarship I have regard, did not deliberately take up -one passage and exhaust that passage, instead of giving us here a -passage and there a passage, simply skimming them over without going -to the depths, and showing their philological relation and their -entire practical bearing upon us. When my friend shall give us such -an exegesis and analysis, whether he quotes Hebrew, Greek or Latin, I -will promise him that I will follow him through all the mazes of his -exposition and I will go down to the very bottom of his argument. - -I feel bound, to-day, my friends, in my opening speech to give this -analysis of the question and to present to you my ideas of marriage in -contradistinction to the idea of marriage held here as polygamous. - -Now I presume that I will pass to the consideration of a few of the -salient points which my distinguished friend threw out. - -Let us see in relation to the text he quoted, "If brethren dwell -together," though he wanders back, and it was difficult for me to see -what relation the antediluvians, and what relation old Adam had to -this passage; but he referred to the antediluvians and to Adam, and he -also referred to Lamech. Who was Lamech? He is the first polygamist -on record, the first mentioned in the first two hundred years of the -history of the world. He had two wives; and what else did he have? -He had murder in his heart and blood on his hand, and I aver that -whoever analyzes the case of Lamech, will find that the murder which he -committed grew out of his plurality of wives; in other words, it grew -out of the polygamy which he attempted to introduce into the world. -Said he to his wives, "I have slain a man;" and the inference is that -this man had come to claim his rights. - -My friend says that Cain was a murderer, and went down to the land of -Nod; he don't exactly know the geography, but it was somewhere. And -there he found a woman and married her. Now I affirm this, that when -Cain killed his brother Abel he was not married, and he didn't go down -to the land of Nod, then, therefore the murder he committed didn't -grow out of monogamy, and seems to have had no relation to monogamy; -but it grew out of this fact: these two brothers came before the Lord -to present their offerings. Cain was a deist, a moralist as we may -say, that is, he had no sins to repent of. He therefore did not bring -the little lamb as a sacrificial offering, but he came with the first -fruits of the earth as a thank offering. He comes before God Almighty -and says: "I have no sins to atone for, none at all; but here, I am -conscious that thou hast created me and that I am dependent upon thee, -therefore I present to thee the first fruits of the soil." Abel comes -with his thank offering. He brings his lamb and lays it upon the altar, -and that lamb pre-intimated the coming of Jesus Christ, who is "the -lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world;" and if there is -any record that Abel brought a thank offering, it is a principle in -theology and in scriptural exposition that the whole includes the -part, just as Saint Paul says: "I beseech you, by the mercies of God, -to present your bodies a living sacrifice to God." Do you think that -he excluded the soul? No, he speaks of one as including the other. So -the offering which Abel presented was an offering, sacrificial in its -nature, pointing to Christ. Now, perhaps by sending down fire from -heaven, or at all events in some significant manner, God recognized the -righteousness of Abel, and expressed a preference for his offering, and -Cain was wroth, and his pride belched forth and he slew his brother. -The murder, therefore, had no reference, directly or indirectly, to -marriage, while the murder which the first polygamist mentioned in -history committed grew out of the marriage relation. - -Then my friend goes back to Adam, and says our first parents wore -clothes made of skins, and therefore we must wear similar ones. Well, -let us see. Our first parents were placed in a garden and were driven -out of a garden, therefore we must be placed in a garden and driven -out of a garden. The first man was created out of the dust of the -earth, therefore all subsequent men must be created out of the same -material. The first woman was created out of man's rib, therefore all -subsequent women must be made so. They would make very nice women, no -doubt about that! Such is the logic of my friend! So you may follow on -his absurdities. He has failed to make a distinction between what is -essential to marriage and what is accidental to marriage; or in other -words, he has failed to make a distinction between the creation and -the fall of man, and between the institution and characteristics of -marriage. One, therefore, is surprised at such arguments, and drawn -from such premises! - -Now, my friends, that first marriage in the garden of Eden is the great -model for all subsequent marriages: one man and one woman. My friend -says that God could have made more if He had chosen; but He did not -do so, and it seems to me, if God Almighty had designed that all us -men should be polygamists, and that polygamy should be the form of -marriage, that in the very beginning He would have started right, that -is, He would have made a number of women for the first man. Ah! what a -grand sanction that would be; but instead of that He makes one man and -one woman, and says--"For this cause shall a man leave his father and -mother and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." - -This is not merely an historical fact; were it so I think the argument -would be with my friend. But as I come along the stream of time I find -this fact referred to as expressing a great law. I hear old Malachi -repeating the same words, referring to this institution of marriage -in the garden of Eden, reproving the Jews for their practice of -polygamy, putting the pungent question to their conscience--"Why have -ye dealt treacherously with the wife of your youth?"--your first wife, -the one with whom you went to the bridal altar and swore before high -Heaven that you would forsake all others and cleave unto her so long -as you both live. "Ah!" that old prophet asks, "why have you dealt -thus treacherously with the wife of your youth and the wife of your -covenant?" God hates this putting away, says the prophet, and then -he refers to Eden as a reason for his reproof. The reason is purely -monogamous, and that in the beginning God created one woman for one -man, and one man for one woman. - -When the Pharisees propounded a question to the Lord Jesus Christ, -touching divorce, he refers to the same grand idea spoken of by the -Prophet Malachi: "Have ye not read that in the beginning God created -them male and female?" Thus re-enacting, as it were, the marriage law; -thus lifting marriage, which had been stained by polygamy, from its -degradation, and re-establishing it in its monogamic purity. And then -St. Paul, corroborating the words of Jesus, [at this time the umpires -said the time was up] refers to the marriage in Eden, and says, "God -created them, male and female, one flesh." This is the great truth -brought out in the Bible. - - - -SECOND DAY. - -After opening with religious exercises Prof. Pratt commenced: - -Ladies and Gentlemen: - -We again come before you this afternoon, being the second session of -our discussion, to examine the question: "Does the Bible Sanction -Polygamy?" I will here remark, that yesterday afternoon I occupied one -hour upon the subject, and brought forth numerous evidences from the -Bible to show that polygamy was a divine institution sanctioned by the -Bible, and sanctioned by the Almighty, who gave the laws contained in -the Bible. Here let me observe that it is of the utmost importance to -clearly understand the point under discussion. I perceive that in the -arguments that followed me yesterday the subject is dwelt upon somewhat -lengthily with regard to the meaning of the term polygamy--that it -included both a plurality of wives and a plurality of husbands. Hence a -new term was introduced by the reverend Doctor, who followed me, namely -polygyny, if I recollect the term, having reference to the plurality of -wives. This seems to be the question under discussion: Does the Bible -Sanction Polygamy? and as the word polygamy appears to be discarded -and scouted, it would be: Does the Bible Sanction Polygyny? Perhaps -I may not have the term aright; that is, Does the Bible sanction -plurality of wives? It was was said by the speaker who followed me, -in relation to the plurality of wives--perhaps I had better refer to -some of his remarks from print, lest my memory should not serve me on -the occasion. The first remark to which I will call your attention is -in regard to the original of the Bible. I admit in this discussion the -Bible called King James' translation as authority. I admit the Bible -in the original Hebrew, if it can be found. Of course we have Hebrew -Bibles at the present day. I hold one in my hand; that is, a Bible in -the Hebrew language. But there is no such thing in existence as the -original copies of the Bible; neither secondary copies; and copies that -might come in as the hundreth copy, I presume, cannot be found, as, for -instance, of the original law of Moses, written on tables of stone. -Such tables and such original law have not been in existence to our -knowledge for the last eighteen hundred years. We cannot refer to them; -we cannot refer to any copies only those that have been multiplied in -modern times--that is, comparatively modern times. And inasmuch as -these copies disagree one with the other, so much so that it is said -there are thirty thousand different readings in the various manuscripts -and copies, who is to decide whether this Hebrew Bible, translated -from one of a number of manuscripts, is translated from the original -or not? Certainly it would not do for me as an individual to set up my -judgment in the matter; nor for any other learned man to set up his -judgment. I would far rather take the translation known as King James', -made by the able translators chosen in his day; men of great learning, -who had studied the original languages, the Hebrew and the Greek, and -had become extensively acquainted with manuscripts in existence; I say -I would far rather take their judgment than one that might be advanced -by myself, or by any other learned man, however deeply he might be -versed in the Hebrew or Greek. I do not by these remarks disparage the -Bible, or set it aside. By no means. I accept it as proof that it was -translated by those men who were chosen for the purpose. And hundreds -of thousands, I may say scores of millions, of copies of this Bible -have been circulated among all nations in various languages. They have -been sent forth by millions among the inhabitants of the earth for -their information. - -We will pass along after having decided upon the nature of the Bible -that is to be admitted as evidence and proof in regard to polygamy. -It was stated in the course of the remarks of the reverend gentleman -in relation to polygamy, or polygyny, whichever term we feel disposed -to choose, that marriage with more than one woman is considered -adultery. I will read one or two of Mr. Newman's sentences: "Take his -exposition"--that is the Savior's--"Take his exposition of the ten -commandments as they were given amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and -you find he has written a commentary on the Decalogue, bringing out its -hidden meaning, showing to us that the man is an adulterer who not only -marries more women than one, but who looks on a woman with salacial -lust. Such is the commentary on the law by the Lord Jesus Christ." - -With part of this I agree most perfectly. If a man, according to the -great commentary of our Savior, looks upon a woman with a lustful heart -and lustful desire, he commits adultery in his heart, and is condemned -as an adulterer. With the other part I do most distinctly disagree. It -is merely an assertion of the reverend gentleman. No proof was adduced -from the New Testament Scriptures; no proof was advanced as the words -of the great commentator, the Lord Jesus Christ, to establish the -position that a man who marries more than one woman is an adulterer. If -there is such a passage contained within the lids of the New Testament, -it has not come under my observation. It remains to be proved, -therefore. - -We will now pass on to another item, that is, the meaning of the word -"sanction:" "Does the Bible sanction polygamy?" I am willing to admit -the full force and meaning of the word sanction. I am willing to take -it in all of its expositions as set forth in Webster's unabridged -edition. I do not feel like shirking from this, nor from the definition -given. Let it stand in all its force. The only adequate idea of -sanction, says Mr. Newman, is a divine and positive approbation, -plainly expressed; or stated so definitely and by such forms of -expression as to make a full and clear equivalent. It is in this way -that we take the term sanction in the question before us. Admit that -it must be expressed in definite terms, these terms were laid before -the congregation yesterday afternoon. From this Bible, King James' -translation, passage after passage was brought forth to prove the -divine sanction of polygamy; direct commands in several instances, -wherein the Israelites were required to be polygamists; and in one -instance, especially, where they were required under the heaviest curse -of the Lord: "Cursed be he that continueth not in all things written -in this book of the law; and let all the people say Amen," was the -expression. I say, under this dreadful curse and the denunciations of -the Almighty, the people were commanded to be polygamists. Did this -give authority and sanction to practise that divine institution? It -certainly is sanction, or I do not understand the meaning of the word -as defined by Webster, and the meaning of the arguments presented by -my opponent. I waited in vain yesterday afternoon for any rebutting -evidence and testimony against this divine sanction. I was ready -with my pencil and paper to record anything like such evidence, any -passage from the Bible to prove that it was not sanctioned. I heard -a remarkable sermon, a wonderful flourish of oratory. It certainly -was pleasing to my ears. It fell upon me like the dews of heaven, as -it were, so far as oratorical power was concerned. But where was the -rebutting testimony? What was the evidence brought forth? Forty-nine -minutes of the time were occupied before it was even referred to; -forty-nine minutes passed away in a flourish of oratory, without -having the proofs in rebuttal and the evidence examined which I had -adduced. Then eleven minutes were left. I did expect to hear something -in those eleven minutes that would in some small degree rebut the -numerous evidences brought forth to establish and sanction polygamy. -But I waited in vain. To be sure, one passage, and only one that had -been cited, in Deuteronomy, was merely referred to; and then, without -examining the passage and trying to show that it did not command -polygamy, another item that was referred to by myself with regard to -Lamech and Cain was brought up. Instead of an examination of that -passage, until the close of the eleven minutes, the subject of Abel's -sacrifice and Cain's sacrifice, and Cain's going to the Land of Nod -and marrying a wife, and so on, occupied the time. All these things -were examined, and those testimonies that were brought forth by me were -untouched. - -Now, then, we will proceed to the fourth, or rather to the fifth -position he took; that is the first great form of marriage established -in the beginning--"one woman created for one man." However, before I -dwell upon this subject, let me make a correction with regard to Cain -and Lamech; then we will commence on this argument. I did not state -yesterday afternoon, as it was represented by the speaker who followed -me, that Cain went to the land of Nod and there married a wife, for -there is no such thing in the Bible. I stated that Cain went to the -land of Nod, after having murdered his brother Abel. I stated that we -were not to suppose that God had created any woman in the Land of Nod, -and that Cain took his wife in the land of Nod. We are not to suppose -this; but we are to suppose that he took his wife with him. He went to -and arrived in the land of Nod, and begat a child. So says the Bible. -But what has all this to do with regard to the form of marriage? Does -it prove anything? No. The murder that Cain committed in slaying his -brother Abel does not prove anything against the monogamic form of -marriage, nor anything in favor of it. It stands as an isolated fact, -showing that a wicked man may be a monogamist. How in regard to Lamech? -Lamech, so far as recorded in the Bible, was the first polygamist; the -first on record. There may have been thousands and tens of thousands -who were not recorded. There were thousands and tens of thousands of -monogamists, yet, I believe, we have only three cases recorded from -the creation to the flood, a period of some sixteen hundred years or -upwards. The silence of Scripture, therefore, in regard to the number -cf polygamists in that day, is no evidence whatever. - -But it has been asserted before this congregation that this first case -recorded of a polygamist brought in connection with it a murder; and -it has been indicated or inferred that the murder so committed was -in defence of polygamy. This I deny; and I call upon the gentleman -to bring forth one proof from that Bible, from the beginning to the -end of it, to prove that murder had anything to do in relation to the -polygamic form of marriage of Lamech. It is true he revealed his crime -to his wives, but the cause of the crime is not stated in the book. -What, then, had it to do with the divinity of the great institution -established called polygamy? Nothing at all. It does not condemn -polygamy nor justify it, any more than the murder by Cain does not -condemn the other form of marriage nor justify it. - -Having disposed of these two cases, let me come to the first -monogamist, Adam. Let us examine his character, and the character of -his wife. Lamech "slew a young man to his wounding, a young man to his -hurt." That was killing one, was it not? How many did Adam kill? All -mankind; murdered the whole human race! How? by falling in the garden -of Eden. Would mankind have died if it had not been for the sin of -this monogamist? No. Paul says "that as in Adam all die, so in Christ -shall all be made alive." It was by the transgression of this first -monogamist and his monogamic wife, that all mankind have to undergo -the penalty of death. It was the cause, and I presume it will be -acknowledged on the part even of monogamists that it was a great crime. -What can be compared with it? Was Cain's crime, or Lamech's crime to -be compared with the crime of bringing death and destruction, not only -upon the people of the early ages, but upon the whole human race? -But what has all that to do with regard to the divinity of marriage? -Nothing at all. It does not prove one thing or the other. But when -arguments of this kind are entered into by the opponents of polygamy, -it is well enough to examine them and see if they will stand the test -of scripture, and sound reason, of sound argument and sound judgment. -Moreover, Adam was not only guilty of bringing death and destruction -upon the whole human race, but he was the means of introducing fallen -humanity into this world of ours. Why did Cain slay Abel? Because he -was a descendant of that fallen being. He had come forth from the loins -of the man who had brought death into the world. When we look abroad -and see all the various crimes, as well as murder, that exist on the -face of the globe; when we see mankind committing them; see all manner -of degradation and lust; see the human family destroying one another, -the question might arise, What has produced all these evils among men? -They exist because a monogamic couple transgressed the law of heaven. - -The learned gentleman referred us to a saying of that great man, Martin -Luther, concerning the relationship that exists between husband and -wife. It was a beautiful argument. I have no fault whatever to find -with it. And it is just as applicable to polygamy as to monogamy. The -answer of Martin Luther to the question put to him--Why God took the -female from the side of man, is just as appropriate, just as consistent -with the plural form of marriage as it is with the other form. He did -not take the woman from the head. Why? The argument wad that the man -should be the head, or as Paul says--"Man is the head of the woman," -and that is his position. I believe my learned opponent agrees with me -perfectly in this, so there is no dispute upon this ground. Why did not -He take the woman from the foot? Because man is not to tyrannize over -his wife, nor tread her under foot. Why did He take her from his side? -Because the rib lies nearest the heart, showing the position of woman. -Not only one woman but two women, five women, ten women, twenty women, -forty women, fifty women, may all come under the protecting head. Jesus -says: "No man can serve two masters," because he may love the one and -hate the other, cleave unto the one and turn away from the other; but -it is not so with women under the protecting head. - -Now let us examine polyandry, for that was referred to yesterday; and -the reverend gentleman could not see why, if a man has the privilege of -taking more wives than one, a woman should not have the same privilege. -If that is expressed in the Bible we have not found it; the other is -expressed there, and we have proved it, and call upon the reverend -gentleman to show the opposite. When we come to polyandry, or the woman -having more husbands than one, there is no sanction for it in the -Scriptures. What is the object of marriage? Companionship, we are told. -I agree with the gentleman. Another object he says is procreation. -I agree with the gentleman also in the second object. Another was -prevention. Here I agree with him so far as the argument is carried out -in a true light. Let us examine the second, namely procreation. The -Lord instituted marriage--the sacred bond of marriage--for the purpose -of multiplying the human species here on the earth. Does polyandry -assist in the multiplying of the human species, the woman having four, -or five, or ten, or fifty, or sixty husbands? Does it tend to rapidly -increase the race? I think monogamists as well as polygamists, when -they reflect, will say that a woman having more than one husband -would destroy her own fruitfulness. Even if she did have offspring, -there would be another great difficulty in the way, the father would -be unknown. Would it not be so? All knowledge of the father would be -lost among the children. Is this the case with a plurality of wives? -No, by no means. If a man have fifty wives the knowledge of the father -is as distinct as the knowledge of the mother. It is not destroyed, -therefore. The great principle of parentage on the part of the -husband, on the part of the father, is preserved. Therefore it is more -consistent, more reasonable, first for procreation, and secondly for -obtaining a knowledge of parentage, that a man should have a plurality -of wives than that a woman should have a plurality of husbands. - -Again; a man with a plurality of wives is capable of raising up a -very numerous household. You know what the Scriptures have said about -children: "Children are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the -womb is his reward." This being the case, a faithful, righteous, holy -man, who takes, according to the great, divine institution of polygamy, -a plurality of wives, is capable of multiplying his offspring ten or -twenty-fold more than he could by one wife. Can one wife do this by -polyandry? No. Here then is a great distinction between the male and -the female. Look at that great and good and holy man, called Gideon -in the Scriptures; a man to whom the angel of God was sent, and who, -among all the hosts of Israel was chosen to go forth as the servant -of the Most High. For what purpose? To deliver Israel from their -enemies, the Midianites and others that had gathered against them. -Was he a polygamist? Yes. He had many wives. He had seventy-two sons. -How many daughters he had I do not know. Could any woman in polyandry -conceive or bring forth seventy-two sons and perhaps an equal number of -daughters? I do not know but there might be some efficacy in that herb -called "mandrake," or in some other miraculous herb that would give -power and strength for one woman to bring forth seventy-two sons. Who -knows, in a day of wonders like this! But a man has the ability, a man -has the power to beget large families and large households. Hence we -read of many of the great and notable men who judged Israel, that one -man had thirty sons--his name was Jair; you will find it recorded in -the Judges of Israel; and another had thirty sons and thirty daughters; -while another Judge of Israel had forty sons. And when we come to the -Gideon we have named, he had seventy-two. Now, we have nothing to do -with the righteousness of these men, or their unrighteousness, in this -connection. That has nothing to do with the marriage institution. -God has established it by divine command. God has given it his own -sanction, whether it be the polygamic or the monogamic form. If Gideon -afterwards fell into idolatry, as the reverend gentleman may argue, -that has nothing to do with the matter. He had the power to beget -seventy-two sons, showing he had a superior power to that of the female. - -Right here, I may say, God is a consistent Being; a Being who is -perfectly consistent, and who delights in the salvation of the human -family. A wicked man may take unto himself a wife, and raise unto -himself a posterity. He may set before that wife and her posterity a -very wicked example. He may lead those children by his drunkenness, by -his blasphemy, by his immoralities, down to destruction. A righteous -man may take fifty wives, or ten, as you choose; and he will bring -up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; he will -instruct them in the great principles of righteousness and truth, -and lead them along and bring them up by his example and by his -teachings to inherit eternal life at the right hand of God, with -those polygamists of ancient times, Abraham and Jacob of old, who are -up yonder in the kingdom of God. Which of the two is the Lord most -pleased with? The man who has five, or ten, or twenty wives, bringing -up his children, teaching them, instructing them, training them so -that they may obtain eternal life with the righteous in the Kingdom -of God; or the monogamist that brings up his children in all manner -of wickedness, and finally leads them down to hell? Which would you -prefer with your limited wisdom when compared with that of the great -Creator? Who among you would not prefer to entrust your offspring with -your friends instead of your enemies? Would not God, therefore, upon -the same principle, do the same? Does God delight in the marriages that -exist among the wicked? Go to the antediluvian race. They married and -were given in marriage until the day that Noah entered into the ark. -They were not righteous men nor righteous women; and their children -were taught in the wicked precepts of their fathers, who committed all -manner of wickedness until all flesh had corrupted itself before the -Lord. Therefore the Lord had to destroy those evil workers of iniquity -that had received wives, but did not honor nor regard the Lord. Instead -of those marriages consummated before the flood, the marriages and -intermarriages among the sons of God and the daughters of men, being -acceptable to the Most High, He was obliged to destroy those that were -married and their offspring from the face of the earth. How much better -it would have been had they been righteous polygamists who would have -brought forth a pure offspring that the Lord could have exalted to -eternal life. Consequently, when we examine the subject of polygamy -in regard to this matter, we must acknowledge, from these scriptures, -and from various other testimonies, that the marriages of the wicked -are not approved by the Heavens. There are many passages of scripture -to support me in what I have now said. The Lord in one place commands -the destruction of a people, parents and children, "lest they should -fill the world with cities," lest all the world should be filled with -people who had married contrary to His law. No person can pretend that -a marriage consummated between an unrighteous man and an unrighteous -woman, is a marriage in which God has joined the parties together. You -might as well take the ordinance of baptism, and say that Simon Magus, -when he went forward and was baptized, had complied with the ordinance -of Heaven, while he yet remained in a condition of hardened sinfulness; -and that because he had passed through the outward observance of the -ordinance it was acceptable in the sight of Heaven. God never had -anything to do with the marriages of the wicked only to permit them, -perhaps for a wise purpose, as he permitted Joseph to be sold into -Egypt by his brethren. He permitted the deed for his own wise purposes, -but He did not justify the instruments who did the deed. So he permits -these unauthorized marriages between wicked men and wicked women, to -perpetuate the human race, because they will not hearken to Him, until -the time shall come when he can have a pure people who will obey his -laws, educating their posterity to honor and serve him. He permits, but -He does not sanction such marriages. - -If we should argue with the reverend gentleman that the census shows an -equality of males and females, this argument that I have now advanced -will rebut the idea thus sought to be established. The idea is that -because there may be made to appear an equality in numbers, therefore, -every man must be confined to one wife and every woman must have one -husband. Is that the way God dispenses his gifts and blessings to the -human family? Does he give the same amount of blessings to the wicked -that He does to the righteous? In some respects He does. He sends the -rain from heaven upon the just and the unjust. But there are many -great and important blessings that are bestowed more abundantly upon -the righteous than upon the wicked. God has holy designs to accomplish -when He makes a distinction between the righteous and the wicked in -dispensing His blessings. Therefore if the wicked take wives without -their being joined together by divine authority, those wives have -allied themselves to their husbands without the Lord's sanction. -Because the Lord permits this it does not prove that He sanctions -it; and He would prefer that a people should be like Israel of old, -a nation of polygamists as well as monogamists, and the blessings -be dispensed between them, rather than have this so-called perfect -equality between the males and females, and a wicked generation be -the result. To prove this I will refer you to the 37th Psalm. God in -that Psalm has expressly said, and repeated again and again, that -the seed of the evil-doers should he rooted out of the earth, while -the righteous should inherit it and should prosper. He bestows His -blessings upon the one and His curses upon the other. - -I shall expect this afternoon to hear some arguments to refute those -passages brought forward to sustain polygamy as well as monogamy; and -if the gentleman can find no proof to limit the passages I have quoted -to monogamic households, if there is no such evidence contained in the -passages, and there is nothing in the original Hebrew as it now exists -to invalidate them, then polygamy as a divine institution stands as -firm as the throne of the Almighty. And if he can find that this form -of marriage is repealed in the New Testament; if he can find that God -has in any age of the world done away with the principle and form of -plural marriage, perhaps the argument will rest with the other side. -I shall wait with great patience to have some arguments brought forth -on this subject. We are happy, here in this Territory, to have the -learned come among us to teach us. We have embraced the Bible as a -rule of faith; and if we misunderstand it, if we are acting contrary -to its precepts, how very happy we should be to have the learned come -from abroad--people who are acquainted with the original languages--to -correct us and set us right. I think this is generous on the part -of those gentlemen; much more so than it would be to enact laws and -incarcerate in dungeons those who practice a form of marriage laid down -in this book; to send them for three, or four, or five years to prison, -tearing them from their poor wives and children, while their families -would suffer hardship and hunger, being robbed of their natural -protectors. We thank Mr. Newman and those who have come with him with -their hearts full of philanthropy to enlighten us here in this mountain -Territory, and if possible convince us of our errors. - -I have many arguments that I have not drawn upon, not only to reason -upon, but testimonies as well in favor of polygamy; but I am informed -that only seven minutes of the time remains to me. I cannot, therefore, -pretend on this occasion to enter into these arguments and examine -them with that justice that should be expected before the people. Mr. -Newman has said he would like nine hours to bring forth his arguments -and his reasonings for the benefit of the poor people of Utah. I wish -he would not only take nine hours, but nine weeks and nine months, and -be indeed a philanthropist and missionary in our midst; and try and -reclaim this poor people from being the "awful beastly" people they are -represented abroad. We are very fond of the Scriptures. We do not feel -free to comply with a great many customs and characteristics of a great -many of those who call themselves Christians. Much may be said upon -this subject; much, too, that ought to crimson the faces of those who -call themselves civilized, when they reflect upon the enormities, the -great social evils, that exist in their midst. Look at the great city -of New York, the great metropolis of commerce. That is a city where we -might expect some of the most powerful, and learned theologians to hold -forth, teaching and inculcating principles and lessons of Christianity. -What exists in the midst of that city? Females by the tens of -thousands, females who are debauched by day and by night; females who -are in open day parading the streets of that great city! Why, they are -monogamists there! It is a portion of the civilization of New York -to be very pious over polygamy; yet harlots and mistresses by the -thousands and tens of thousands walk the streets by open day, as well -as by night. There is sin enough committed there in one twenty-four -hours to sink the city down like Sodom and Gomorrah. - -We read that there was once a case of prostitution among the children -of Benjamin in ancient days. Some men came and took another man's wife, -or concubine, whichever you please to call her; some men took her and -abused her all night; and for that one sin they were called to account. -They were called upon to deliver up the offenders but they would not do -it, and they were viewed as confederates. And what was the result of -that one little crime--not a little crime--a great one; that one crime -instead of thousands? The Lord God said to the rest of the tribes of -Israel, Go forth and fight against the tribe of Benjamin. They fought -against Benjamin; and the next day they were again commanded to go -forth and fight against Benjamin. They obeyed; and the next day they -were again so commanded; and they fought until they cut off the entire -tribe except six hundred men. The destruction of nearly the whole tribe -of Benjamin was the punishment for one act of prostitution. - -Compare the strictness that existed in ancient Israel with the -whoredoms, the prostitution and even the infanticide practised in all -the cities of this great nation; and then because a few individuals -in this mountain Territory are practising Bible marriage a law must -be threatened to inflict heavy penalties upon us; our families must -be torn from us and be driven to misery, because of the piety of a -civilization in which the enormities I have pointed out exist. - -To close this argument I now call upon the reverend gentleman, whom I -highly respect for his learning, his eloquence and ability, to bring -forth proof to rebut the passages laid down in yesterday's argument in -support of the position that the Bible sanctions polygamy. I ask him to -prove that those laws were limited. If they were limited-- - -(Here the umpires announced that the time was up.) - -Dr. NEWMAN Rose and Said: - -Messrs. Umpires and Ladies and Gentlemen: - -I understand the gentleman to complain against me that I did not -answer his Scriptural arguments adduced yesterday. If I did not the -responsibility is upon him. He, being in the affirmative, should have -analyzed and defined the question under debate; but he failed to do -that. It therefore fell to me, not by right, but by his neglecting to -do his duty; and I did it to the best of my ability. It was of the -utmost importance that this audience, so attentive and so respectable, -should have a clear and definite understanding of the terms of the -question; and I desire now to inform the gentleman, that I had the -answers before me to the passages which he adduced, and had I had -another hour, I would have produced them then. I will do it to-day. -Now, my learned friend will take out his pencil, for he will have -something to do this afternoon. - -A passing remark--a word in regard to the original manuscripts, written -by Moses, or Joshua, or Samuel, or the prophets. You sit down to -write a letter to a friend; you take it into your head to copy that -letter; you copy that letter; the original draft you care nothing -about--whether it is given to the winds or the flames. What care I -about the two tables of stone on which the original law was written, -so that I have a true copy of this law? A passing remark in regard to -Mother Eve. I will defend the venerable woman! If the Fall came by the -influence of one woman over one man, what would have happened to the -world if Adam had had more wives than one? More, if one woman, under -monogamy, brought woe into the world, then a monogamist, the blessed -virgin Mary, brought the Redeemer into the world, so I think they are -even. - -My friend supposes that the Almighty might have created more women than -one out of Adam's ribs; but Adam had not ribs enough to create fifty -women. My friend speaks against polyandry, or the right of woman to -have more husbands than one. He bases his argument upon the increase -of progeny. Science affirms that where polygamy or polygyny, or a -plurality of wives prevails, there is a tendency to a preponderance or -predominance of one sex over the other, either male or female, which -amounts to an extermination of the race. - -I will reply, in due time, to the gentleman's remarks in regard to -Gideon and other Scriptural characters, and especially in regard to -prostitution, or what is known as the social evil. But first, what was -the object of the gentleman yesterday? It was to discover a general -law for the sanction of polygamy. Did he find that law? I deny it. -What is law? Law is the expression of the legislative will; law is -the manner in which an act is performed. It is the law of gravitation -that all things tend to a common centre. It is the law in botany that -the flowers open their fan-like leaves to the light, and close them -beneath the kisses of night. What is the civil law? Simply defining -how the citizens should act. What is the moral law? Simply defining -the conduct of God's moral subjects. Laws are mandatory, prohibitory -and permissive: commanding what should be done; prohibiting what -should not be done, and permitting what may be done. And yet, where -has the gentleman produced this general law which he spent an hour in -searching for yesterday? And then remember, that this law must sanction -polygamy! Perhaps it is not necessary to repeat our definition of the -word "sanction." My learned friend, for whom I have respect, agrees -with me as to the definition of that term, therefore we need not spend -a solitary moment further touching these two points. - -There is another vital point in reference to the nature of law. In -legislating upon any subject there must be a great, organic central -principle, mandatory or prohibitory, in reference to that subject; and -all other parts of the particular law as well as of the general code -must be interpreted in harmony therewith. - -Now I propose to produce a law this afternoon, simple, direct and -positive, that polygamy is forbidden in God's holy word. In Leviticus -xviii and 18 it is written: "Neither shalt thou take one wife to -another, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in -her life time." There is a law in condemnation of polygamy. It may be -said that what I have read is as it reads in the margin, but that in -the body of the text it reads: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her -sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her -lifetime." Very well, argumentum ad hominem, I draw my argument from -the speech of the gentleman yesterday. Mr. Pratt said, in his comments -upon the text, "If brethren dwell together,"--Now it is well enough in -the reading of this to refer to the margin, as we have the liberty, -I believe, to do so, and you will find that in the margin the word -brother is translated "near kinsmen." I accept his mode of reasoning: -he refers to the margin, and I refer to the margin; it is a poor rule -that will not work both ways; it is a poor rule that will not favor -monogamy if it favor polygamy. Such then is the fact stated in this law. - -Now it is necessary for us to consider the nature of this law and -to expound it to your understanding, it may be proper for me to say -that this interpretation, as given in the margin, is sustained by -the most eminent biblical and classical scholars in the history of -Christendom--by Bishop Jewell, by the learned Cookson, by the eminent -Dwight, and other distinguished biblical scholars. It is an accepted -canon of interpretation that the scope of the law must be considered -in determining the sense of any portion of the law, and it is equally -binding upon us to ascertain the mind of the legislator, from the -preface of the law, when such preface is given. The first few verses of -the xviii chapter of Leviticus are prefatory. In the 3rd verse it is -stated that-- - - After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not - do and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, - shall ye no do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. - -Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites practised incest, idolatry -sodomy, adultery and polygamy. From verse 6 to verse 17, inclusive, the -law of consanguinity is laid down, and the blood relationship defined. -Then the limits within which persons were forbidden to marry, and in -verse 18 the law against polygamy is given--"neither shalt thou take a -wife to her sister," but as we have given it, "neither shalt thou take -one wife to another," etc. - -According to Dr. Edwards, the words which are translated as "wife" or -"sister," are found in the Hebrew but eight times, and in each passage -they refer to inanimate objects, such as the wings of the cherubim, -tenons, mortises, etc., and signify the coupling together one _to -another, the same as thou shalt not take one wife to another_. - -Such then is the law. Such were the ordinances forbidden which the -Egyptians and the Canaanites practised. Now we propose to push this -argument a little further. If it is said that this passage does not -prohibit a man marrying two sisters at the same time then such a -marriage is nowhere in the Bible pronounced incestuous. That is the -objection of my friend. To which I reply that such a marriage is -forbidden by sequence and analogy. As for example where the son, in -the 7th verse, is prohibited from marrying his mother, it follows -that the daughter shall not marry her father; yet it is not so given -and precisely stated. In verse 14 it is said--"thou shalt not uncover -the nakedness of thy father's brother;" so I infer that it would be -equally criminal to uncover the nakedness of a mother's brother, -though it is not so stated. In verse 16 it is said--"thou shalt not -uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife," so I infer that a man -shall not uncover the nakedness of his wife's sister that is, if two -brothers shall not take the same woman, then two women shall not take -the same man, for between one man and two sisters, and one woman and -two brothers is the same degree of proximity, and therefore both are -forbidden by the law of God. Furthermore, if for argument's sake, we -consider this means two literal sisters, then this prohibition is -not a permission for a man to take two wives who are not sisters; -for all sound jurists will agree that a prohibition is one thing and -a permission is another thing. Nay, more, the Mormons do or do not -receive the law of Moses as binding. That they do not is clear from -their own practices. For instance, in Leviticus, xx chap. and 14 verse -it is said-- - - And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall - be burnt with fire, both he and they. - -Yet Mr. John Hyde, jr., page 56 of his work called "Mormonism," states -that a Mr. E. Bolton married a woman and her daughter; that Captain -Brown married a woman and her two daughters. These are illustrations -of the violation of the law. More than this Leviticus xviii, 18, -prohibits a man from marrying two sisters; yet Mr. Hyde informs us that -a Mr. Davis married three sisters, and a Mr. Sharkey married the same -number. If the question is, Is the law of Moses obeyed here or not? -and supposing this gentleman can prove that the text means two literal -sisters, and two literal sisters are married here, then I affirm that -you do not keep God's law, or that which you say is God's law, as given -through his servant Moses. Nay, more than this: if it here means two -literal sisters, and, whereas, Jacob married two sisters; and, whereas, -the great Mormon doctrine that God worked a miracle on Leah and Rachel -that they might have children; and, whereas, it is here said that said -miracles were an approval of polygamy, so also were such miracles -an approval of incest; if it be true that God did not express this -approval at Jacob having two wives, neither did he express disapproval -of his having two sisters; therefore the Divine silence in the one case -is an offset to the Divine silence in the other case. Even you are -driven to this conclusion, either my interpretation of this passage is -correct,--neither shall a man take another wife,--two wives, or you -must admit that this passage means two literal sisters, and in either -case you live in violation of God's law. It is for my distinguished -friend to choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases. I thank him -for the compliment he paid me--that I came here as a philanthropist. -I have only kindness in my heart for these dear men and women; and -had not this kindness filled my heart; had I believed in a crushing, -iron, civil law, I could have remained in Washington. But I came here -believing the truth as it is in Jesus, and I am glad to say that I have -the privilege of speaking what I believe to be God's truth in your -hearing. - -The gentleman quoted Deuteronomy xxi, 15-17, which is the law of -primogeniture, and is designed to preserve the descent of property: - - If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they - have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the - first-born son be hers that was hated; - - Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he - hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before - the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born: - - But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, - by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the - beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. - -How did he apply this law? Why he first assumed the prevalence of -polygamy among the Jews in the wilderness, and then said the law -was made for polygamous families as well as for monogamous. He -says--"inasmuch as polygamy is nowhere condemned in the law of God, we -are entitled to construe this law as applying to polygamists." But I -have shown already that Leviticus xviii, 18, is a positive prohibition -of this law, and therefore this passage must be interpreted by that -which I have quoted. I propose to erect the balance to-day, and try -every scriptural argument which he has produced in the scales of -justice. - -I have recited to you God's solemn law--"Neither shall a man take one -wife unto another:" and I will try every passage by this law. My friend -spent an hour here yesterday in seeking a general law; in a minute I -gave you a general law. How natural is the supposition, where a man -has two wives in succession, that he may love the last a little better -than the first! and I believe it is common out here to love the last -a little better than the first. And how natural it is for the second -wife to influence the father in the disposition of his property so -that he will confer it upon her child! while the children of the first -wife, poor woman, perhaps dead and gone, are deprived of their property -rights. But supposing the meaning of this passage is two wives at the -same time, this cannot be construed, by any of the accepted rules of -interpretation, into a sanction of polygamy; if it can, I can prove -that sheep stealing is just as divinely authorized. For it is as if -Moses had said: "for in view of the prevalence of polygamy, and that -you have so far forgotten and transgressed God's law of monogamy as -to take two wives at the same time, therefore this shall not work the -abrogation of the law of primogeniture, the first-born son shall not -thereby be cheated out of his rights." Now it is said: "if a man have -two wives:" very well, if that is a privilege so also are these words: -"If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it and sell it, he -shall restore five oxen for the ox he stole, and four sheep for the -sheep." If the former assertion is a sanction of polygamy, then the -latter assertion is a sanction of sheep stealing, and we can all go -after the flocks this afternoon. - -The second passage, in Exodus xxi, 7th to 11th verses, referring to the -laws of breach of promise, Mr. Pratt says proves or favors polygamy, in -his opinion; but he did not dwell long upon this text. He indulged in -an episode on the lost manuscripts. Now let us inquire into the meaning -of this passage. - - And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go - out as the men-servants do. - - If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then - shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he - shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. - - And if he hath betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her - after the manner of daughters. - - If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of - marriage, shall he not diminish. - - And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free - without money. - -What are the significant points in this passage? They are simply -these--According to the Jewish law a destitute Jew was permitted to -apprentice his daughter for six years for a pecuniary consideration; -and to guard the rights of this girl there were certain conditions: -First, the period of her indenture should not extend beyond six years; -she should be free at the death of her master, or at the coming of the -year of jubilee. The next condition was that the master or his son -should marry the girl. What, therefore, are we to conclude from this -passage? Simply this, that neither the father nor the son marry the -girl, but simply betrothed her; that is, engaged her, promised to marry -her: but before the marriage relation was consummated the young man -changed his mind, and then God Almighty, to indicate his displeasure -at a man who would break the vow of engagement, fixes the following -penalties, namely that he shall provide for this woman, whom he has -wronged, her food, her raiment and her dwelling, and these are the -facts: and the gentleman has not proved, the gentleman cannot prove, -that either the father or the son marry the girl. He says the honored -term "wife" is there. Honored term! God bless that term! It is an -honored term, sacred as the nature of angels. Yet I have to inform my -distinguished friend that the word wife is neither in the Hebrew nor -in the Greek, but simply "if he take another," that is if he betroth -another, and then change his mind he shall do thus and so. Where then -is the gentleman's general law in approval of polygamy? - -The next passage is recorded in Deuteronomy xxv chap., and from the 5th -to the 10th verses, referring to the preservation of families: - - If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, - the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her - husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her unto him to wife, - and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. - - And it shall be, that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed - in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out - of Israel. - - And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his - brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My - husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in - Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother: - - Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if - he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; - - Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the - elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, - and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will - not build up his brother's house. - - And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his - shoe loosed. - -What is the object of this law! Evidently the preservation of families -and family inheritances. And now I challenge the gentleman to bring -forward a solitary instance in the Bible where a married man was -compelled to obey this law. Take the case of Tamar! Certainly the -brother that was to have married her could not have been a married man, -because she had to wait until he grew up. Then take the case of Ruth. -You know how she lost her noble Mahlon afar off beyond Jordan, and -how she returned to Bethlehem, and goes to Boaz, a near kinsman, and -demands that he shall marry her. Boaz says--"there is another kinsman. -I will speak to him." It is asked--"Didn't Boaz know whether the nearer -kinsman was married?" but yet that was not the business of Boaz. The -divine law required that this man should appear at the gate of the -city before the elders, and there either marry her or say that he was -disqualified because he was already a married man; and there is no -proof in the Bible that Boaz had been married; nay, more than this, old -Josephus, the Jewish historian, asserts that the reason why the near -kinsman did not marry Ruth was that he had a wife and children already, -so I judge that this law, which is said to be general, is that that I -laid down--"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another," etc. He -refers me to Numbers xxxi, 17th and 18th verses. - - Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every - woman that hath known man by lying with him. - - But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, - keep alive for yourselves. - -This passage has nothing whatever to do with polygamy. It is an -account of the results of a military expedition of the Jews against -the Midianites; their slaughter of a portion of the people, and their -reduction of the remainder to slavery--namely the women for domestics. -My friend dwells upon thirty-two thousand women that were saved! What -were these among the Jewish nation--a people numbering two and a half -millions? - -He quotes Deuteronomy xxi, 10th and 13th verses: - - When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy - God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them - captive; - - And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto - her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; - - Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her - head, and pare her nails; - - And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall - remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full - mouth: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband - and she shall be thy wife. - -This passage is designed to regulate the treatment of a captive woman -by the conqueror who desires her for a wife, and has no more to do with -polygamy than it has to do with theft or murder. Not a solitary word -is said about polygamy, no mention is made that the man is married, -therefore every jurist will agree with me that where we find a general -law we may judge a special enactment by the organic, fundamental -principle. - -He quoted Exodus xxii chap., 16 and 17, and Deuteronomy xxii, and 28 -and 29: - - And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he - shall surely endow her to be his wife. - - If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money - according to the dowry of virgins. - -In Deuteronomy it is said: - - If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and - lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; - - Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father - fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath - humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. - -My friend appeared to confound these two laws, as if they had reference -to the same crime; but the first is the law of seduction, while the -second was the law of rape. In both cases the defiler was required to -marry his victim; but in the case of seduction, if the father of the -seduced girl would not consent to the marriage, then the sum usual -for the dowry of a virgin should be paid him and the offense was -expiated. But what was the penalty of rape? In that case there is no -ambiguity--the ravisher married his victim and paid her father fifty -pieces of silver besides. But what has this to do with polygamy? He -says it is a general law and applies to married men. This cannot be so, -because it is in conflict with the great law of Leviticus xviii, 18. - -I tell you, my friends, these are simple downright assumptions. The -position is first taken, and therefore these passages are adduced to -sustain that position; and this gentleman goes on to assume that all -these men are married men. It is a tremendous fact, that if a man -seduced a girl or committed a rape upon her, he was bound to marry that -girl. It is a tremendous fact that the same law gives to the father -the right of the refusal of his daughter, therefore the father has the -power to annul God's law of marriage. - -The next passage is the 2nd Chronicles, xxiv and 3rd, &c. It is the -case of Joash the king, and when he began to reign Jehoiada was high -priest. He was more than that--he was regent. My friend in portraying -the character of this great man said that because he took two wives for -King Joash, he was so highly honored that when he died he was buried -among the kings. But the fact is, he was regent, and there was royalty -in his regency, and this royalty entitled him to be interred in the -royal mausoleum. All that is said in Chronicles is simply an epitome--a -summing up, that King Joash had two wives. It does not say that he had -them at the same time; he might have had them in succession. I give -you an illustration: John Milton was born in London in 1609. He was -an eminent scholar, a great statesman and a beautiful poet; and John -Milton had three wives. There I stop. Are you to infer that John Milton -had these three wives simultaneously? Why you might according to the -gentleman's interpretation of this passage. But John Milton had them in -succession. But more than this, for argument's sake grant the position -assumed by my friend, then the numerical element of the argument must -come out, and a man can only have two wives and no more. Do you keep -that law here? And yet that is the argument and that is the logical -conclusion. - -The last passage my friend referred to was the 1st chapter of Hosea, -and 2nd verse: - - The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said - to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of - whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredoms, departing from - the Lord. - -That is, says Newcomb, a wife from among the Israelites, who were -remarkable for spiritual fornication. My friend is so determined on a -literal interpretation that he gives a literal interpretation, whereas -this distinguished biblical scholar says that it was not literal -fornication, but rather spiritual; in other words, idolatry; for in the -Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, idolatry is mentioned -under the term fornication. God calls himself the husband of Israel, -and this chosen nation owed him the fidelity of a wife. Exodus the -xxxiv Chapter and 15th verse: - - Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they - go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and - one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice. - -The 14th verse of the same chapter says: - - For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is - jealous, is a jealous God. - -He therefore sees thee with indignation join thyself in marriage to -one of those who had committed fornication or spiritual idolatry, lest -they should raise up children, who, by the power of example, might -lay themselves under the terribleness of idolatry. The prophet is -directed to get a wife of whoredoms; and, after this, he is directed -to go and love an adulterous woman. My friend cites these as examples -where God makes an exception to a general law. He also cites the case -of Abraham offering up his son Isaac, and the case of consanguinity, -in Deuteronomy xxv, from 5th to 10th verse. Now the first three -cases were merely typical; the first two were designed to set forth -more impressively the relations between God and His people. The -case of consanguinity has nothing to do with polygamy. It is only a -modification or exception in special cases for the preservation of the -families of Israel from extinction. Where, therefore, I ask, is the -general law? - -But my friend has forgotten this fact, that after having divorced the -first wife for adultery, as he had a right to do, in chapter ii, 2nd -and 5th verses, he is then directed to go and take another wife. This -is not polygamy. It was represented to us here, yesterday, that this -prophet, Hosea, was first commanded to take a woman guilty of adultery -or fornication, and then to take an adulteress, and the representation -was made that he took them and had them at the same time; whereas, -if Mr. Pratt had read a little further, he would have found that the -prophet divorced the first wife for adultery, and he had a right to do -it; and after he divorced her, then he went and took a second wife. - -Professor Pratt admits, mark you, admits that none of these passages, -nor all of them together, can afford in this day a warrant for the -practice of polygamy. Gives it up! Turns the Bible aside! I will read -to you from his own words: - - Supposing that we should prove by a thousand evidences from the Bible - that polygamy was practised by ancient Israel, and was sanctioned by - God in ancient days, would that be any reason that you and I should - practise it? By no means. We must get a command independent of that, - which we have received. God frequently repeats His commands, and His - servants are required to obey His commands when they are given. The - Latter-day Saints in this Territory practise polygamy not because the - law of Moses commands it; not because it was extensively practised - by the best of men we know of, mentioned in the Bible, the old - patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob and others, who are saved in the kingdom - of God. We have no right to practise it because they did it. - -Then he yields the point! I respectfully ask him, if this is his -position, why does he attempt, in all his writings, and to establish it -in that clever book the Seer? Why did he, in his controversy with me in -the New York Herald? Why has he from this stand attempted to prove that -the practice of polygamy was right from the Bible? Why not, like a man, -come out and say that we practise this system here, not because the -Jews did it; not because the Divine law sanctioned it years ago; but -because a certain man of the name of Smith received a revelation that -this form of marriage was to be practised? You, my friends, can see the -logical conclusion, or in other words the illogical bearing. - -Now, I come to the assumptions by the gentleman. First, that there is -no law condemning or forbidding polygamy. Has he proved that? Second, -that the Hebrew nation, as it was in the wilderness, when the Mosaic -code was given, was polygamous. Has he proved that? Can he find in -the whole history of the Jewish nation, from the time they left Egypt -to the time they entered the land of Canaan, can he find more than -one instance of polygamy? Perhaps he may find two. I will be glad to -receive that information, for I am a man seeking light, and to-day -I throw down a challenge to your eminent defender of the faith, to -produce more than two instances of polygamy, from the time the Jews -left the land of Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. I will assist -him in his research and tell him one, and that was Caleb. Now supposing -that a murder should be committed in your city, would it be fair for -Eastern papers to say that the Mormons are a murderous people? No, -I would rise up in defence of you; I would say that that is a crime -and an injury to the people here! Yet, during a period of forty years -we find one man out of two millions and a half of people practising -polygamy, and my friend comes forward and assumes that the Israelites -were polygamists. - -Third, that these laws were given to regulate among them an institution -already existing. Has he proved that? Supposing he could prove that -Moses attempted, or did legislate for the regulation of polygamy, as -it did exist in Egypt and elsewhere, would such legislation establish -a sanction? Why in Paris they have laws regulating the social evil; -is that an approval of the social evil? There are laws in most of the -States regulating and controling intemperance. Do excise laws sanction -intemperance? Nothing of the kind. For argument's sake I would be -willing to concede that Moses did legislate in regard to polygamy, -that is to regulate it, to confine its evils; and yet my friend is too -much of a legislator to stand here and assert that laws regulating and -defining were an approval of a system. - -Fourth, that these laws were general, applying to all men, married and -unmarried. Has he proved that? I have proved to the contrary to-day, -showing that in the passages which he quoted there is not a solitary or -remote intimation that the men were married. - -Now let us, in opposition to these assumptions, remember that monogamy -was established by God in the innocence of the human race, and that -polygamy, like idolatry, and slavery, blood revenge, drunkenness and -murder came into existence after the apostasy of the human family, and -that neither of these evils have any other origin so far as appears -from the Bible than in the wickedness of man. We admit that polygamy -existed among the corrupt nations, just as any other evil, or vice, -or crime existed, and now when God had chosen the Hebrews for His own -people, to separate them from the heathen, He gives them for the first -time a code of laws, and especially on the subject of the commerce -of the sexes. And what is the central principle of that code on this -subject? Read Leviticus xviii, 18--"Neither shall a man take one wife -unto another." - -In this code the following things are forbidden: Incest, polygamy, -fornication, idolatry, beastliness, &c.; we therefore deny that -the nation was polygamous at that time, deny it definitely, deny it -distinctly, and on another occasion I will give you the character of -the monogamists and polygamists of Bible times. The Jews had been four -hundred years in slavery, and they were brought out with a strong hand -and an outstretched arm. - -We, to-day, then challenge for the proof that as a nation the Jews -were polygamous. One or two instances, as I have already remarked, can -be adduced. We may say again that if, as he assumes, these laws were -given to regulate the existing system, this does not sanction it any -more than the same thing sanctions sheep-stealing or homicide. He said -these laws were general, applying to all men, married or unmarried. Has -he proved it? This is wholly gratuitous. There is no word in either of -these passages which permits or directs a married man to take more than -one wife at a time. I challenge the gentleman for the proof. It is no -evidence of the sanction of polygamy to bring passage after passage, -which he knows, if construed in favor of polygamy, polygamy must be in -direct conflict with the great organic law recorded in Leviticus xviii, -18. - -[At this point the umpires announced that the time was up.] - - - -THIRD AND CLOSING DAY. - -PROF. ORSON PRATT. - -Ladies and Gentlemen: - -We have assembled ourselves in this vast congregation in the third -session of our discussion, to take into consideration the Divinity of -a very important institution of the Bible. The question, as you have -already heard, is "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" Many arguments -have already been adduced, on the side of the affirmative, and also -on the side of the negative. This afternoon one hour is allotted to -me in the discussion, to bring forth still further evidences, which -will close the debate, so far as the affirmative is concerned; then to -be followed by the Reverend Dr. Newman, which will finally close the -discussion. - -Polygamy is a question, or in other words, is an institution of the -Bible; an institution established, as we have already shown, by Divine -authority; established by law--by command; and hence, of course, must -be sanctioned by the great Divine Law-Giver, whose words are recorded -in the Bible. - -Yesterday I was challenged by the Reverend Dr. Newman, to bring forth -any evidence whatever to prove that there were more than two polygamist -families in all Israel during the time of their sojourn in the -wilderness. At least this is what I understood the gentleman 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 of age, Numbers 1st chapter, 49 verse: - - Even all they that were numbered, were six hundred thousand and three - thousand, and five hundred and fifty. - -It was admitted, yesterday afternoon, by Dr. Newman, that there were -two and a half millions of Israelites. Now I shall take the position -that the females among the Israelites were far more numerous than the -males; I mean that portion of them that were over twenty years of -age. I assume this for this reason, that from the birth of Moses down -until the time that the Israelites were brought out of Egypt, some -eighty years had elapsed. The destruction of the male children had -commenced before the birth of Moses; how many years before I know not. -The order of King Pharaoh was to destroy every male child. All the -people, subject to this ruler, were commanded to see that they were -destroyed and thrown into the river Nile. How long a period this great -destruction continued is unknown, but if we suppose that one male child -to every two hundred and fifty persons was annually destroyed, it would -amount to the number of ten thousand yearly. This would soon begin to -tell in the difference between the numbers of males and females. Ten -thousand each year would only be one male child to each two hundred -and fifty persons. How many would this make from the birth of Moses, -or eighty years? It would amount to 800,000 females above that of the -males. But I do not wish to take advantage in this argument by assuming -too high a number. I will diminish it one half, which will still leave -400,000 more females than males. This would be one male destroyed each -year out of every five hundred persons. The females, then, over twenty -years of age would be 603,550, added to 400,000 surplus women, making -in all 1,003,550 women over twenty years of age. The children, then, -under twenty years of age, to make up the two and a half millions, -would be 892,900, the total population of Israel being laid down at -2,500,000 people. - -Now, then, for the number of families constituting this population. -The families having first-born males over one month old, see Numbers -iii chapter and 43rd verse, numbered 22,273. Families having no male -children over one month old we may suppose to have been in the ratio -of one-third of the former class of families, which would make 7,424 -additional families. Add these to the 22,273 with first-born males -and we have the sum total of 20,697 as the number of the families in -Israel. Now, in order to favor the monogamists' argument, and give them -all the advantage possible, we will still add to this number to make -it even--303 families more, making thirty thousand families in all. -Now comes another species of calculation founded on this data: Divide -twenty-five hundred thousand persons by 22,273 first-born males, and we -find one first-born male to every 112 persons. What a large family for -a monogamist! But divide 2,500,000 persons by 30,000 and the quotient -gives eighty-three persons in a family. Suppose these families to have -been monogamic, after deducting husband and wife, we have the very -respectable number of eighty-one children to each monogamic wife. If we -assume the numbers of the males and females to have been equal, making -no allowance for the destruction of the male infants, we shall then -have to increase the children under twenty years of age to keep good -the number of two and a half millions. This would still make eighty-one -children to each of the 30,000 monogamic households. Now let us examine -these dates in connection with polygamy. If we suppose the average -number of wives to have been seven, in each household, though there may -have been men who had no wife at all, and there may have been some who -had but one wife; and there may have been others having from one up to -say thirty wives, yet if we average them at seven wives each, we would -then have one husband, seven wives and seventy-five children to make -up the average number of eighty-three in the family, in a polygamic -household. This would give an average of over ten children apiece to -each of the 210,000 polygamic wives. When we deduct the 30,000 husbands -from the 605,550 men over twenty years old we have 573,550 unmarried -men in Israel. If we deduct the 210,000 married women from the total of -1,005,550 over twenty years of age, we have 793,550 left. This would -be enough to supply all the unmarried men with one wife each, leaving -still a balance of 220,000 unmarried females to live old maids or enter -into polygamic households. - -The law guaranteeing the rights of the first-born, which has been -referred to in other portions of our discussion, includes those 22,273 -first-born male children in Israel, that is, one first born male child -to every 112 persons in Israel; taking the population as represented by -our learned friend, Mr. Newman, at two and a half millions. Thus we see -that there was a law given to regulate the rights of the first-born, -applying to over 22,000 first-born male children in Israel, giving them -a double portion of the goods and inheritances of their fathers. - -Having brought forth these statistics, let us for a few moments examine -more closely these results. How can any one assume Israel to have -been monogamic, and be consistent? I presume that my honored friend, -notwithstanding his great desire and earnestness to overthrow the -Divine evidences in favor of polygamy, would not say to this people -that one wife could bring forth eighty-one children. We can depend -upon these proofs--upon these biblical statistics. If he assumes -that the males and females were nearly equal in number, that Israel -was a monogamic people, then let Mr. Newman show how these great and -wonderful households could be produced in Israel, if there were only -two polygamic families in the nation. It would require something more -wonderful than the herb called "mandrake," referred to by Dr. Newman -in his rejoinder to my reply to him in the New York Herald. I think he -will not be able to find, in our day, an herb with such wonderfully -efficacious properties, which will produce such remarkable results. - -I have therefore established that Israel was a polygamic nation when -God gave them the laws which I have quoted, laws to govern and regulate -a people among whom were polygamic and monogamic families. The nation -was founded in polygamy in the days of Jacob, and was continued in -polygamy until they became very numerous, very great and very powerful, -while here and there might be found a monogamic family--a man with -one wife. Now if God gave laws to a people having these two forms of -marriage in the wilderness, He would adapt such laws to all. He would -not take up isolated instances here and there of a man having one wife, -but He would adapt His laws to the whole; to both the polygamic and -monogamic forms of marriage throughout all Israel. - -But we are informed by the reverend Doctor that the law given for the -regulation of matters in the polygamic form of marriage bears upon the -face of it the condemnation of polygamy. And to justify his assertion -he refers to the laws that have been passed in Paris to regulate the -social evil; and to the excise laws passed in our own country to -regulate intemperance; and claims that these laws for the regulation -of evils are condemnatory of the crimes to which they apply. But when -Parisians pass laws to regulate the social evil they acknowledge -it as a crime. When the inhabitants of this country pass laws to -regulate intemperance, they thereby denounce it as a crime. And when -God gives laws, or even when human legislatures make penal laws, they -denounce as crimes the acts against which these laws are directed, -and attach penalties to them for disobedience. When the law was -given of God against murder, it was denounced as a crime by the very -penalty attached, which was death; and when the law was given against -adultery its enormity was marked by the punishment--the criminal was -to be stoned to death. It was a crime, and was so denounced when the -law was given. God gave laws to regulate these things in Israel; but -because He has regulated many great and abominable crimes by law, has -He no right to regulate that which is good and moral as well as that -which is wicked and immoral? For instance, God introduced the law of -circumcision and gave commands regulating it; shall we, therefore -say, according to the logic of the gentleman, that circumcision was -condemned by the law of God, because it was regulated by the law of -God? That would be his logic, and the natural conclusion according to -his logic. Again, when God introduced the Passover. He gave laws how it -should be conducted. Does that condemn the Passover as being immoral -because regulated by law? But, still closer home, God gave laws to -regulate the monogamic form of marriage. Does that prove that monogamy -is condemned by the law of God, because thus regulated? On, that kind -of logic will never do! - -Now, then, we come to that passage in Leviticus, the xviii chapter, -and the 18th verse; the passage that was so often referred to in -the gentleman's reply yesterday afternoon. I was very glad to hear -the gentleman refer to this passage. The law, according to King -James' translation, as we heard yesterday afternoon, reads thus: -"Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover -her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time." That was the -law according to King James' translation. My friend, together with -Doctors Dwight and Edwards, and several other celebrated commentators, -disagree with that interpretation; and somebody, I know not whom, some -unauthorized person, has inserted in the margin another interpretation: -recollect, in the margin and not in the text. It is argued that this -interpretation in the margin must be correct, while King James' -translators must have been mistaken. Now, recollect that the great -commentators who have thus altered King James' translation were -monogamists. So were the translators of the Bible; they, too, were -monogamists. But with regard to the true translation of this passage, -it has been argued by my learned friend that the Hebrew--the original -Hebrew--signifies something a little different from that which is -contained in King James' translation. These are his words, as will be -found in his sermon preached at Washington, upon this same subject: -"But in verse 38 the law against polygamy is given, 'Neither shalt -thou take a wife to her sister;' or, as the marginal reading is, 'Thou -shalt not take one wife to another.' And this rendering is sustained by -Cookson, by Bishop Jewell and by Drs. Edwards and Dwight," four eminent -monogamists, interested in sustaining monogamy. According to Dr. -Edwards, the words which we translate 'a wife to her sister' are found -in the Hebrew but eight times. Now we have not been favored with these -authorities, we have had no access to them. Here in these mountain -wilds it is very difficult to get books. In each passage they refer to -inanimate objects; that is, in each of the eight places where the words -are found. We have searched for them in the Hebrew and can refer you -to each passage where they occur. And each time they refer to objects -joined together, such as wings, loops, curtains, etc., and signify -coupling together. The gentleman reads the passage "Thou shalt not take -one wife to another," and understands it as involving the likeness of -one thing to another, which is correct. But does the language forbid, -as the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife to another? No; we -have the privilege, according to the rules or articles of debate, which -have been read this afternoon, to apply to the original Hebrew. What -are the Hebrew words--the original--that are used? _Veishah el-ahotah -lo tikkah:_ this, when literally translated and transposed is, "neither -shalt thou take a wife to her sister," veishah being translated by -King James' translators "a wife," el-ahotah being translated "to her -sister;" lo is translated "neither;" while tikkah is translated by -King James' translators "shalt thou take." They have certainly given a -literal translation. Appeal to the Hebrew and you will find the word -ishah occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "wife." -The word "ahotah", translated by King James' translators "a sister," -occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "sister." But -are these the only translations--the only renderings? Ishah, when it is -followed by ahot has another rendering. That is when "wife" is followed -by "sister" there is another rendering. - -Translators have no right to give a double translation to the same -Hebrew word, in the same phrase; if they translate veishah one, they -are not at liberty to translate the same word in the same phrase over -again and call it wife. This Dr. Edwards, or some other monogamist, has -done, and inserted this false translation in the margin. What object -such translator had in deceiving the public must be best known to -himself: he probably was actuated by a zeal to find some law against -polygamy, and concluded to manufacture the word "wife," and place it -in the margin, without any original Hebrew word to represent it. Ahot, -when standing alone, is rendered sister; when preceded by ishah, is -rendered another; the suffix ah, attached to ahot, is translated "her;" -both together (ahot-ah) are rendered "her sister," that is sister's -sister; when ahot is rendered "another," its suffix ah represents "her" -or more properly the noun sister, for which it stands. The phrase will -then read: Veishah (one) el-ahotah (sister to another) lo (neither) -tikkah (shalt thou take) which, when transposed, reads thus: _Neither -shalt thou take one sister to another_. This form of translation agrees -with the rendering given to the same Hebrew words or phrase in the -seven other passages of Scripture, referred to by Dr. Newman and Dr. -Edwards. (See Exodus xxvi, 3, 5; Ezekiel i, 9, 11, 23; also iii, 13.) - -It will be seen that the latter form of translation gives precisely -the same idea as that given by the English translators in the text. It -also agrees with the twelve preceding verses of the law, prohibiting -intermarriages among blood relations, and forms a part and parcel of -the same code; while the word "wife," inserted in the margin, is not, -and cannot, by any possible rule of interpretation, be extorted from -the original connection with the second form of translation. - -Why should King James' literal translation "wife" and "sister" be -set aside for "one to another?" Because they saw a necessity for it. -There is this difference: in all the other seven passages where the -words Veishah el-ahotah occur, there is a noun in the nominative case -preceding them, denoting something to be coupled together. Exodus 26th -chapter, 3rd verse contains ishah el-ahotah twice, signifying to couple -together the curtains one to another, the same words being used that -are used in this text. Go to the fifth verse of the same chapter, and -there we have the loops of the curtains joined together one to another, -the noun in the nominative case being expressed. Next go to Ezekiel, -1st chapter, 9th, 11th and 23rd verses, and these three passages give -the rendering of these same words, coupling the wings of the cherubim -one to another. Then go again to the 3rd chapter of Ezekiel and 13th -verse, and the wings of the living creatures were joined together one -to another. But in the text under consideration no such noun in the -nominative case occurs; and hence the English translators concluded to -give each word its literal translation. - -The law was given to prevent quarrels, which are apt to arise among -blood relations. We might look for quarrels on the other side between -women who were not related by blood; but what are the facts in relation -to quarrels between blood relations? Go back to Cain and Abel. Who was -it spilled the blood of Abel? It was a blood relation, his brother. -Who was it that cast Joseph into the pit to perish with hunger, and -afterwards dragged him forth from his den and sold him as a slave to -persons trading through the country? It was blood relations. Who slew -the seventy sons of Gideon upon one stone? It was one of their own -brothers that hired men to do it. Who was it that rebelled against -King David, and caused him with all his wives and household, excepting -ten concubines, to flee out of Jerusalem? It was his blood relation, -his own son Absalom. Who quarrelled in the family of Jacob? Did Bilhah -quarrel with Zilpah? No. Did Leah quarrel with Bilhah or Zilpah? -No such thing is recorded. Did Rachel quarrel with either of the -handmaidens? There is not a word concerning the matter. The little, -petty difficulties occurred between the two sisters, blood relations, -Rachel and Leah. And this law was probably given to prevent such -vexations between blood relations--between sister and sister. - -Having effectually proved the marginal reading to be false, I will -now defy not only the learned gentleman, but all the world of Hebrew -scholars to find any word in the original to be translated "wife" if -ishah be first translated "one." - -I am informed I have only fifteen minutes. I was not aware I had spoken -a quarter of the time. I shall have to leave this subject and proceed -to another. - -The next subject to which I will call your attention is in regard to -the general or unlimited language of the laws given in the various -passages which I have quoted. If a man shall commit rape, if a man -shall entice a maid, if a man shall do this, or that, or the other, is -the language of these passages. Will any person pretend to say that a -married man is not a man? And if a married person is a man, it proves -that the law is applicable to married men, and if so it rests with my -learned friend to prove that it is limited. Moreover, the passage from -the margin in Leviticus was quoted by Dr. Newman as a great fundamental -law by which all the other passages were to be overturned. But it has -failed; and, therefore, the other passages quoted by me, stand good -unless something else can be found by the learned gentleman to support -his forlorn hope. - -Perhaps we may hear quoted in the answer to my remarks the passage -that the future king of Israel was not to multiply wives to himself. -That was the law. The word multiply is construed by those opposed to -polygamy to mean that twice one make two, and hence that he was not -to multiply wives, or, in other words, that he was not to take two. -But the command was also given that the future king of Israel was not -to multiply horses anymore than wives. Twice one make two again. Was -the future king of Israel not to have more than one horse? The idea is -ridiculous! The future king of Israel was not to multiply them; not to -have them in multitude, that is, only to take such a number as God saw -proper to give him. - -We might next refer you to the uncle of Ruth's dead husband, old Boaz, -who represented himself as not being the nearest kin. There was another -nearer who had the Divine right to take her, and this other happened -to be the brother of Boaz, perhaps a little older. Josephus tells us, -according to the learned gentleman, that this oldest brother was a -married man. Suppose we admit it. Did Boaz not know that his brother -was married when he represented him as the nearest of kin and had the -right before him? And even the brother acknowledges his right, and says -to Boaz: "Redeem thou my right to thyself." He had the right to marry -her. This, then, we arrive at by the assistance of Josephus; and it -proves that married men were required to comply with the law. I have -no further time to remark on this passage. I wish now to examine a -passage that is contained in Matthew, in regard to divorces, and also -in Malachi, on the same subject. Malachi, or the Lord by the mouth -of Malachi, informs the people that the Lord hated putting away. He -gave the reason why a wife should not be put away. Not a word against -polygamy in either passage. - -But there is certain reasoning introduced to show that a wife should -not be put away. In the beginning the Lord made one, that is a wife -for Adam, that he might not be alone. Woman was given to man for a -companion, that he might protect her, and for other holy purposes, but -not to be put away for trivial causes; and it was cause of condemnation -in those days for a man to put away his wife. But there is not a word -in Malachi condemnatory of a man marrying more than one wife. Jesus -also gives the law respecting divorces, that they should not put away -their wives for any other cause than that of fornication; and he that -took a wife that was put away would commit adultery. Jesus says, in the -5th chapter, that he that putteth away his wife for any other cause -than fornication causes her to commit adultery. Then the husband is a -guilty accomplice, and if he puts away his wife unjustly he is guilty -of adultery himself, the same as a confederate in murder is himself -a murderer. As an adulterer he has no right to take another wife; he -has not the right to take even one wife. His right is to be stoned -to death; to suffer the penalty of death for his sin of adultery. -Consequently, if he has no right to even life itself, he has no right -to a wife. But the case of such a man, who has become an adulterer -by putting away his wife, and has no right to marry another, has no -application, nor has the argument drawn from it any application, to the -man who keeps his wife and takes another. The law referred to by my -learned opponent, in Leviticus xviii and 18, shows that polygamy was in -existence, but was to be kept within the circle of those who were not -blood relations. - -Concerning the phrase "duty of marriage," occurring in the passage, -"If a man take another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of -marriage shall he not diminish." The condition here referred to is -sometimes more than mere betrothal. It is something showing that the -individual has been not merely previously betrothed, but is actually -in the married state, and the duty of marriage is clearly expressed. -What is the meaning of the original word? It does not mean dwelling nor -refuge, as asserted in the New York Herald by Dr. Newman. Four passages -are quoted by him in which the Hebrew word for dwelling occurs, but the -word translated "duty" of marriage, is entirely a distinct word from -that used in the four passages referred to. Does not the learned Dr. -know the difference between two Hebrew words? Or what was his object -in referring to a word elsewhere in the Scripture that does not even -occur in the text under consideration? In a Hebrew and English Lexicon, -(published by Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M., Prof. of Sacred Liter., in the -Theology School in Yale College,) page 160, it refers to this very -Hebrew word and to the very passage, Ex. xxxi, 10, and translates it -thus:--"cohabitation,"--"duty of marriage." "Duty of marriage" then is -"cohabitation:" thus God commands a man who takes another wife, not to -diminish the duty of cohabitation with the first. Would God command -undiminished "cohabitation" with a woman merely betrothed and not -married? - -While I have a few moments left let me refer you to Hosea. I wish all -of you, when you go home, to read the second chapter of Hosea, and -you will find, with regard to Hosea's having divorced his first wife -because of her whoredoms, that no such thing is recorded as stated -by Mr. Newman yesterday. The Lord tells Hosea to go and speak to his -brethren, (not to his son,) to his sisters, (not his daughter,) of -the house of Israel, and tell them what the Lord will do; that he may -not acknowledge them any longer as a wife. Hosea bore the word of the -Lord to Israel, whom his own two wives represented, saying that their -whoredoms, their wickedness and idolatries had kindled the anger of the -Lord against them. - -Having discussed the subject so far I leave it now with all candid -persons to judge. Here is the law of God; here is the command of the -Most High, general in its nature, not limited, nor can it be proved to -be so. There is no law against it, but it stands as immovable as the -Rock of Ages, and will stand when all things on the earth and the earth -itself shall pass away. - -Dr. J. F. NEWMAN Said: - -Respected Umpires, and Ladies and Gentlemen: - -I had heard, prior to my coming to your city, that my distinguished -opponent was eminent in mathematics, and certainly his display to-day -confirms that reputation. Unfortunately, however, he is incorrect in -his statements. First, he assumes that the slaying of all the male -children of the Hebrews was continued through eighty years; but he has -failed to produce the proof. To do this was his starting point. He -assumes it; where is the proof, either in the Bible or in Josephus? -And until he can prove that the destruction of the male children went -on for eighty years, I say this argument has no more foundation than -a vision. Then he makes another blunder: the 303,550, the number of -men above twenty years of age, mentioned in this case, were men to go -to war; they were not the total population of the Jewish nation, and -yet my mathematical friend stands up here to-day and declares that the -whole male population above twenty years of age consisted of 303,550, -whereas it is a fact that this number did not include all the males. - -Then again the 22,273 first-born do not represent the number of -families in Israel at that time, for many of the first-born were -dead. These are the blunders that the gentleman has made to-day, and -I challenge him to produce the contrary and prove that he is not -guilty of these numerical blunders. Then he denies the assertion made -yesterday that there could not be brought forward more than one or -two instances of polygamy in the history of Israel from the time the -Hebrews left Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. Has he disproved -that? He has attempted to prove it by a mathematical problem, which -problem is based on error: his premises are wrong, therefore his -conclusions are false. Why didn't he turn to King James' translation? -I will help him to one polygamist, that is Caleb. Why didn't he start -with old Caleb and go down and give us name after name and date after -date of the polygamists recorded in the history of the Jews while they -were in the wilderness? Ladies and gentlemen, he had none to give, and -therefore the assertion made yesterday is true, that during the sojourn -of the children of Israel in the wilderness there is but one instance -of polygamy recorded. - -Now we come to the law that I laid down yesterday--"Neither shalt thou -take one wife to another." I reaffirm that the translation in the -margin is perfect to a word. He labors to show that God does not mean -what He says. That the phrase "one wife to another," may be equally -rendered one woman to another, or one wife to her sister. The very same -phrase is used in the other seven passages named by Dr. Dwight. For -example, Exodus xxvi, 3, Ezekiel i, 9, etc. He admits the translation -in these passages to be correct. If it is correct in these passages, -why is it not correct in the other? His very admission knocks to pieces -his argument. Why then does he labor to create the impression that the -Hebrew ishau means woman, or wife? What is the object of the travail of -his soul? The word ahoot, he contends, means sister; but sister itself, -is a word which means a specific relation, and a generic relation. -Every woman is sister to every other woman, and I challenge the -gentleman to meet me on paper at any time, in the newspapers of your -city or elsewhere upon the Hebrew of this text. I reaffirm it, reaffirm -it in the hearing of this learned gentleman, reaffirm it in the hearing -of these Hebraists, that as it is said in the margin, is the true -rendering, namely, "neither shalt thou take one wife to another." But -supposing that is incorrect, permit me, before I pass on, to remind you -of this fact, he refers, I think, in his first speech, to the "margin;" -the "margin" was correct then and there, but it is not here. It is a -poor rule that will not work both ways; correct when he wants to quote -from the "margin," but not when I want to do so. He quoted from the -margin, and I followed his illustrious example. - -And now, my friends, supposing that the text means just what he says, -namely, "neither shalt thou take a wife unto her sister, to vex her;" -supposing that is the rendering, and he asserts it is, and he is a -Hebraist, I argued and brought the proof yesterday that this law of -Moses is not kept by the Mormons; in other words there are men in -your very midst who have married sisters. Where was the gentleman's -solemn denunciation of the violation of God's law? Why did he not lift -his voice and vindicate the Divine law? But not a solitary word of -disapproval is uttered! Yesterday he pronounced a curse--"cursed is -he that conforms not to the words of this law, to do them." Does not -the curse rest upon him and upon his people? I gave him the liberty to -choose whether this text condemned polygamy, or whether it condemned -a man for marrying two sisters; he must take his choice, the horns of -the dilemma are before him. For the sake of saving polygamy he stands -up here, in the presence of Almighty God and His holy angels, and -before this intelligent congregation he admits that in this church, -and with this people, God's holy law is set at defiance. What respect, -therefore, can we have for the gentleman's argument, drawn from the -teachings of Moses, in support of polygamy? - -He refers us to the multiplication of horses. I suppose a king may have -one horse or two, there is no special rule; but there is a special rule -as to the number of wives. Neither shall the king multiply wives. God, -in the beginning, gave the first man one wife, and Christ and Paul -sustain that law as binding upon us. And now, supposing that that is -not accepted as a law, what then? Why there is no limit to the number -of wives, none at all. How many shall a man have? Seven, twenty, fifty, -sixty, a hundred? Why, they somewhere quote a passage that if a man -forsake his wife he shall have a hundred. Well, he ought to go on -forsaking; for if he will forsake a hundred he will have ten thousand; -and if he forsake ten thousand he will have so many more in proportion. -It is his business to go on forsaking. That is in the Professor's book -called the Seer. Such a man would keep the Almighty busy creating women -for him. - -I regret very much that I have not time to notice all the points -which have been brought forward. I desired to do so. I plead for more -time; my friends plead for more time; but time was denied us, I am -therefore restricted to an hour. Now, I propose to follow out the -line of argument which I was pursuing yesterday when my time expired, -and I propose to carry out and apply the great law brought forward -yesterday--"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another;" and in -doing this we call your attention to the fact that in the Bible there -are only twenty-five or thirty specially recorded cases of polygamy, -all told, out of thousands and millions of people. I say twenty-five -or thirty specially recorded cases, which polygamists of our day -claim in support of their position. I propose to take up, say half a -dozen of the most prominent ones. I divide the period, before the law -and after the law. I take up Abraham. It is asserted that he was a -polygamist. I deny it. There is no proof that Abraham was guilty of -polygamy. What are the facts? When he was called of the Almighty to be -the founder of a great nation, a promise was given him that he should -have a numerous posterity. At that time he was a monogamist, had but -one wife--the noble Sarah. Six years passed and the promise was not -fulfilled. Then Sarah, desiring to help the Lord to keep His promise, -brought her Egyptian maid Hagar, and offered her as a substitute for -herself to Abraham. Mind you, Abraham did not go after Hagar, but -Sarah produced her as a substitute. Immediately after the act was -performed Sarah discovered her sin and said, "My wrong be upon thee." -"I have committed sin, but I did it for thy sake, and therefore the -wrong that I have committed is upon thee." Then look at the subsequent -facts: by the Divine command this Egyptian girl was sent away from the -abode of Abraham by the mutual consent of the husband and the wife; -by the Divine command, it is said that she was recognized as the wife -of Abraham, but I say you cannot prove it from the Bible; but it is -said that she was promised a numerous posterity. It was also foretold -that Ishmael should be a wild man--"his hand against every man and -every man's hand against him." Did that prediction justify Ishmael -in being a robber and a murderer? No, certainly not; neither did the -other prediction, that Hagar should have a numerous posterity, justify -the action of Abraham in taking her. After she had been sent away by -Divine command, God said unto Abraham--"now walk before me and be thou -perfect." - -These are the facts my friends. I know that some will refer you -to Keturah; but this is the fact in regard to her: Abraham lived -thirty-eight years after the death of Sarah; the energy miraculously -given to Abraham's body for the generation of Isaac was continued after -Sarah's death; but to suppose that he took Keturah during Sarah's -lifetime is to do violence to his moral character. But it is said -he sent away the sons of Keturah with presents during his lifetime, -therefore it must have been during the life time of Sarah. He lived -thirty-eight years after the death of Sarah, and he sent these sons -away eight years before his death, and they were from twenty-five to -thirty years old. Then this venerable Patriarch stands forth as a -monogamist and not as a polygamist. - -Then we come to the case of Jacob. What are the facts in regard to him? -Brought up in the sanctity of monogamy, after having robbed his brother -of his birth-right, after having lied to his blind old father, he then -steals away and goes to Padan-aram and there falls in love with Rachel; -but in his bridal bed he finds Rachel's sister Leah. He did not enter -polygamy voluntarily but he was imposed upon. As he had taken advantage -of the blindness of his father and thereby imposed upon him, so also -was he imposed upon by Laban in the darkness of the night. But I hold -this to be true that Jacob is nowhere regarded as a saintly man prior -to his conversion at the brook Jabbok. After that he appears to us in a -saintly character. It is a remarkable fact that Jacob lived 147 years -all told, eighty-seven of which he lived before he became a polygamist. -He lived twenty-two years in polygamy, he lived forty years after -he had abandoned polygamy, so that out of 147 years there were only -twenty-two years during which he had any connection with polygamy. - -I wish my friend had referred to the case of Moses. In his sermon -on celestial marriage he claims that Moses was a polygamist, and -he declares that the leprosy that was sent upon Miriam was for her -interference with the polygamous marriage of Moses. What are the facts? -There is no record of a second marriage. Zipporah is the only name -given as the wife of Moses. What, then, is the assertion made? Simply -this: It is recorded: and Moses was content to dwell with Jethro. He -gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter. Josephus speaks of Jethro having -two daughters, and distinctly says that he gave Moses one of them. In -Numbers xii and 1st, it is said: - - And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian - woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. - -Now it is affirmed that two women are here mentioned, whereas nothing -can be more untrue. Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman are one and -identical; it is one and the same person called by different names. Let -us see: The father of Zipporah was the priest of Midian; and according -to the best authorities Midian and Ethiopia are identical terms, and -apply to that portion of Arabia where Jethro lived. So the appellation -Midian, Ethiopia and Arabia are applied to the Arabian peninsula. See -Appleton's American Encyclopedia, volumes 6, 7 and 11. Then Moses, the -Jewish law-giver, stands forth as a monogamist, having but one wife. -Moses was not a polygamist. Surely the founder of a polygamist nation -and the revealer of a polygamist law, as this gentleman claims, should -have set an example, and should have had a dozen or a hundred wives. -This son of Jochebed; he was a monogamist, and stands forth as being a -reproof to polygamists in all generations. - -Now we come to Gideon. And what about this man? An angel appeared to -him, that is true; but if the practice of polygamy by Gideon is a law -to us, then the practice of idolatry by Gideon is also a law to us. If -there is silence in the Bible touching the polygamy of Gideon, there -is also silence in the Bible touching his idolatry, and if one is -sanctioned so also is the other. - -I wish my friend had brought up the case of Hannah, the wife of -Elkanah. I can prove to a demonstration that Hannah was the first wife -of Elkanah; but being barren Elkanah takes another wife. But Hannah, in -the anxiety of her heart, pleads to the Almighty, and God honored her -motherhood by answering her prayer. It is asked "Is not this a sanction -of polygamy?" Nay, a sanction of monogamy, because she was the first -wife of Elkanah, and because Elkanah had been guilty of infidelity and -married another wife, was that a reason why Hannah should not have her -rights from High Heaven, why God Almighty should not answer her prayer? -You ask me why did not she pray before. Can you tell me why Isaac did -not pray twenty years sooner for his wife, Rebecca, that she might have -children? I can not tell and you can not tell, all that I assert is -that Hannah was the first wife of Elkanah, and God honored and blessed -the beautiful Samuel. - -Now we come to David. Why did not my friend bring up David, the great -warrior, king and poet, the ruler of Israel? He might have mentioned -him, with ten wives all told; he might also have mentioned him as the -adulterer, who committed one of the most premeditated, cold-blooded -murders on record, simply to cover up his crime of adultery. How often -do you hear quoted the words "and I gave thy master's wives into thy -bosom!"? Is this an approval of polygamy? If you will read on you -will find also that God also promises to give his (David's) wives to -another, and that another should lie with them in the sight of the -sun. Surely if one is an approval of polygamy the other is an approval -of rebellion and incest! David lived to be seventy-five years old. He -was twenty-seven years old when he took his first wife Michael, the -daughter of Saul. For the next forty years we find him complicated with -the evils, crimes and sorrows of polygamy; and the old man, seeing its -great sin, thoroughly repented of it and put it away from him, and for -the last eight years of his life endeavored to atone, as best he could, -for his troubled and guilty experience. - -And what of Solomon? He is the greatest polygamist--the possessor of -a thousand wives! Had this gentleman told me that Solomon's greatness -was predicted, and therefore his polygamic birth was approved, and his -polygamic marriage also approbated, I can remind him of the fact that -the future greatness of Christ was foretold; but the foretelling of -the future greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ was not an approval of -the betrayal by Judas and the crucifixion by the Jews. Neither was the -mere foretelling of the future greatness of Solomon an approval of the -polygamic character of his birth. - -I suppose the gentleman on this occasion would have referred to the -law of bastardy and have said, if my doctrine is true, then Solomon -and others were bastards. I could have wished that he had produced -that point. He did quote and declare in this temple, not long since, -in reference to the law touching bastardy, that a bastard should be -branded with infamy to the tenth generation. But it is plain that -he has misunderstood the law respecting bastards, as contained in -Deuteronomy xxiii and 2nd. It is known from history that the same -signification has not always been attached to this term. We say a -bastard is one born out of wedlock, that is monogamous matrimony. In -Athens, in the days of Pericles, five centuries before Christ, all were -declared bastards by law who were not the children of native Athenians. -And we here assert to-day that the gentleman can not bring forward a -law from the book of Jewish laws to prove that a child born of a Jew -and Jewess, whether married or not, was a bastard. The only child -recognized as a bastard by Jewish law is a child born of a Jew and a -Pagan woman; therefore the objection falls to the ground, and Solomon -and others, who were not to blame for the character of their birth, are -exonerated. - -The geometrical progression of evil in this system of polygamy is seen -in the first three kings, Saul, David and Solomon. Saul had a wife and -a concubine--two women; David had ten women, Solomon had a thousand, -and it broke the kingdom asunder. God says it was for that very cause. -He had multiplied his wives to such an extent, that they had not only -led him astray from God into idolatry, but the very costliness of his -harem was a burden upon the people too heavy for them to bear. I said -the other day that polygamy might do for kings and priests and nabobs, -but could not do for poor men; it costs too much and the people are -taxed too much to support the harem. - -Ah! you bring forward these few cases of polygamy! Name them if you -please. Lamech the murderer; Jacob, who deceived his blind old father, -and robbed his brother of his birthright; David, who seduced another -man's wife and murdered that man by putting him in front of the -battle, and old Solomon, who turned to be an idolater. These are some -polygamists! Now let me call the roll of honor: There were Adam, Enoch, -Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Joseph and Samuel and -all the prophets and apostles. You are accustomed to hear, from this -sacred place, that all the patriarchs and all the kings and all the -prophets were polygamists. I assert to the contrary, and these great -and eminent men whom I have just mentioned, belonging to the roll of -honor, were monogamists. - -Yesterday the gentleman gave me three challenges; he challenged me to -show that the New Testament condemned polygamy. I now proceed to do it. -I quote Paul's words, 1st Corinthians, 7th chap., 2nd and 4th verses: - - Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, - and let every woman have her own husband. - - The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise - also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. - -Marriage is a remedy against fornication, and this is the subject of -the chapter. This is the opinion of Clark, Henry, Whitby, Langley and -others. One great evil prevailed at Corinth--a community of wives, -which the apostle here calls fornication. St. Paul strikes at the very -root of the evil and commands that every man have his own wife and that -every woman have her own husband: that is, let every man have his own -peculiar, proper and appropriate wife, and the wife her own proper, -peculiar and appropriate husband. In this there is mutual appropriation -and exclusiveness of right; and this command of Paul agrees with the -law of Moses in Leviticus xviii, 18: "Neither shalt thou take one wife -unto another," and the two are one statute, clear and unquestionable -for monogamy and against polygamy. The apostle teaches the reciprocal -duties of husband and wife, and the exclusive right of each. In verse -four it is distinctly affirmed that the husband has exclusive power -over the body of his wife, as the wife has exclusive power over the -body of her husband. It is universally admitted that this passage -proves the exclusive right of the husband to the wife, and by parity -it also proves the exclusive right of the wife to the husband. These -relations are mutual, and if the husband can claim a whole wife, the -wife can claim a whole husband. She has just as good a right to a whole -husband as he has a right to a whole wife. First Corinthians, 6th -chapter, 15th, 16th and 17th verses says: - - Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then - take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot? God - forbid. - - What! know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? - for two (saith he) shall be one flesh. - - But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. - -This passage is brought against the idea, but what are the facts? It -is objected that if one flesh is conclusively expressive of wedlock, -that St. Paul affirms that sexual commerce with a harlot is marriage. -For argument's sake I accept the assertion. The passage in question is: -"What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body?" -"For two," says he, "shall be one flesh, but he which is joined to the -Lord is one spirit." Now look at the facts of the position, showing -the true relation of the believer to Christ. It is illustrated under -the figure of marriage. The design of this figure is to show that the -believer becomes one with Christ; and the apostle further explains, in -reproof of the Corinthians mingling with idolaters and adulterers, that -by this mingling they become assimilated and identical. He brings up an -illustration that if a man is married to a harlot, not simply joined, -but cohabit with or married to a harlot, he becomes identical with her; -in other words, one flesh. - -There is a passage which declares that "a bishop must be blameless, the -husband of one wife." It is asserted that he must have one wife anyhow -and as many more as he pleases. It is supposed that this very caution -indicates the prevalence of polygamy in that day; but no proof can be -brought to bear that polygamy prevailed extensively at that time; on -the contrary I am prepared to prove that polygamists were not admitted -into the Christian Church, for Paul lays down the positive command: -"Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband;" -so that if you say the former applies to the priest, and the latter, -applies to the layman, what is good for the priest is good for the -layman, and vice versa. - -How often is it asserted here that monogamy has come from the Greeks -and Romans. But look at the palpable contradiction in the assertion. It -is asserted that monogamy came from those nations; it is also asserted -that polygamy was universal at the time of Christ and his apostles. -If monogamy came from the Greeks and Romans, then polygamy could not -have been universally prevalent, for it is admitted that at that time -the Romans held universal sway, and wherever they held sway their laws -prevailed, hence the two statements cannot be reconciled. - -Now we come to the words of the Savior, Matthew v, 27 and 28; and xix, -8 and 9, and Mark x, and 11 and 12. At that time, when the Savior was -discoursing with the Pharisees, as recorded in Matthew xix, the Jews -were divided as to the interpretation of the law of Moses touching -divorce: "when a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it comes -to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some -uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement." Upon -the meaning of the word uncleanness, the Jews differed: some agreed -with the school of Rabbi Hillel: that a man might dismiss his wife for -the slightest offence, or for no offence at all, if he found another -woman that pleased him better; but the school of Rabbi Shammai held -that the term uncleanness means moral delinquency. The Pharisees came -to Christ, hoping to involve him in this controversy; He declined, but -took advantage of the opportunity to give them a discourse on marriage, -and in doing so, he refers to the original institution, saying "have -ye not read that in the beginning God made them male and female?" Thus -He brings out the great law of monogamy. Grant that the allusion is -incidental, nevertheless, it is all-important as falling from the lips -of the Great Master. - -I was challenged to show that polygamy is adultery. The gentleman -challenged me, and I will now proceed to prove it. As adultery is -distinguished in Scripture from whoredom and fornication, it is proper -to ascertain the exact meaning of the words as used by the sacred -writers. The word translated whoredom is from the Hebrew verb Zanah -and the Greek pornica, and means pollution, defilement, lewdness, -prostitution and, in common parlance, whoredom, the prostitution of the -body for gain. The word translated fornication is from the same Hebrew -verb, and in general, signifies criminal, sexual intercourse without -the formalities of marriage. Adultery is from the Hebrew word Naaph and -the Greek word Moicheia, and is the criminal intercourse of a married -woman with another man than her husband, or of a married man with -any other woman than his wife. This is indicated by the philological -significance of the term adulterate, compounded of two words meaning -to another, as the addition of pure and impure liquors, or of an alloy -with pure metal. Adulterer is from the Hebrew Naaph and the Greek -Moichos, which mean as above. - -The material question to be settled is, Is the Hebrew word Naaph and -the Greek word Moichos or Moicheia confined to the criminal sexual -intercourse between a man, married or unmarried, with a married woman? -This is the theory of the Mormon polygamists; but I join issue with -them and assert that the Scriptures teach that adultery is committed by -a married man who has sexual intercourse with a woman other than his -wife, whether said woman is married or unmarried. It is conceded that -he is an adulterer who has carnal connection with a woman married or -betrothed. Thus far we agree. - -Now can it be proved that the sin of adultery is committed by a -married man having carnal connection with a woman neither married nor -betrothed! To prove this point I argue: - -First, that the Hebrew word Naaph, translated in the seventh -commandment, adultery, does include all criminal sexual intercourse. -It is a generic term and the whole includes the parts. It is like the -word kill in the sixth commandment, which includes all those passions -and emotions of the human soul which lead to murder, such as jealousy, -envy, malice, hatred, revenge. So this word Naaph includes whoredom, -fornication, adultery, and even salacial lust. Matthew v, 27, 29. - -Second. The terms adultery and fornication are used interchangeably by -our Lord, and mean the same thing. A married woman copulating with a -man other than her husband is admitted to be adultery, but the highest -authority we can bring forward calls the act fornication. Matthew v, 3, -2. Romans vii, 2, 3. 1st Corinthians vii, 1, 4. - -Third. The carnal connection of a man with an unmarried woman is -positively declared to be adultery in God's holy word. It is so -recorded in Job xxiv, from the 15th to the 21st verse; and in Isaiah -lvii and 3rd it is taught that the adulterer commits his sin with the -whore. Therefore I conclude that the term Naaph, as used in the seventh -commandment, comprehends all those modifications of that crime, down to -the salacial lust that a man may feel in his soul for a woman. - -But it may be asked: If this is so, why then, does the Mosiac law -mention a married woman? We deny that such a distinction is made. -We do admit, however, that special penalties were pronounced on -such an action with a married woman, but for special reasons. What -were they? To preserve the genealogy, parentage and birth of Christ -from interruption and confusion, which were in imminent danger when -intercourse with a married woman was had by a man other than her -husband. And no such danger could arise from the intercourse with -a married man with an unmarried woman. That law was temporary, and -was abolished and passed away when Christ came. Under the Jewish -dispensation he that cohabited with a woman other than his wife was -responsible to God for the violation of the seventh commandment; the -woman was also responsible to God for the violation of the seventh -commandment and this special law. But here you say if this be true, -then some great men in Bible times were guilty of the violation of -the seventh commandment. I say they were; but they were not all -polygamists: that I have demonstrated to you to-day. But take the -facts: Abraham, when convinced of his sin, put away Hagar; Jacob lived -several years out of the state of polygamy; David put away all his -wives eight years before he died; and if there is no account that -Solomon put away his, neither is there the assurance that he abandoned -his idolatry. - -This then, my friend, is the argument; and as a Christian minister, -desiring only your good, I proclaim the fact that polygamy is adultery. -I do it in all kindness, but I assert it as a doctrine taught in the -Bible. - -I am challenged again to prove that polygamy is no prevention of -prostitution. It has been affirmed time and time again, not only in -this discussion, but in the written works of these distinguished -gentlemen around me, that in monogamic countries prostitution, or -what is known as the social evil, is almost universally prevalent. I -perceive that I have not time to follow out this in arguments; but I -am prepared to prove, and I will prove it in your daily papers, that -prostitution is as old as authentic history; that prostitution has been -and is to-day more prevalent in polygamic countries than in monogamic -countries. I can prove that the figures representing prostitution in -monogamic countries are all overdrawn. They are overdrawn in regard to -my native city, that the gentleman brought up, New York, and of the -million and over of population he can not find six thousand recorded -prostitutes. I can go, for instance, to St. Louis, where they have just -taken the census of the prostitutes of that city, and with a population -of three hundred thousand, there are but 650 courtesans. You may go -through the length and breadth of this land, and in villages containing -from one thousand to ten thousand inhabitants, you cannot find a house -of prostitution. The truth is, my friends, they would not allow it for -a moment. Those men who assert that our monogamous country is full of -prostitutes put forth a slander upon our country. - -Our distinguished friend referred to religious liberty, and claimed -that he had a right under the Federal Constitution to enjoy religious -liberty and to practise polygamy. I am proud as he is that we have -religious liberty here. I rejoice that a man can worship God after -his own heart; but I affirm that the law of limitation is no less -applicable to religious liberty than it is to the revolution of the -heavenly bodies. The law of limitation is as universal as creation, and -religious liberty must be practised within the bounds of decency, and -the wellbeing of society; and civil authority may extend or restrict -this religious liberty within due bounds. Why, the Hindoo mother may -come here with her Shasta--with her Bible--and she may throw her babe -into your river or lake, and the civil authorities, according to your -theory, could not interpose and say to that mother, "You shall not do -it." That is the theory. You say it is murder, I say it is not. I say -the act is stripped of the attributes of murder; it is a religious act. -She turns to her bible or Shasta, and says: "I am commanded to do this -by my bible." What will you do? You will turn away from the Shasta and -say, "The interests of society demand that you shall not murder that -child." So civil government has the right to legislate in regard to -marriage, and restrict the number of wives to one, according to God's -law. But I am not an advocate of stringent legislation. I agree with -my friend, that the law should not incarcerate men, women and children -in dungeons! No, my friends, if I can say a word to induce humane and -kind legislation toward the people of Utah I shall do it, and do it -most gladly. But I assert this principle, that civil government has the -right to limit religious liberty within due bounds. - -There was another point that I desired to touch upon, and that is as -to the longevity of nations. We are told repeatedly here, in printed -works, that monogamic nations are short-lived, and that polygamic -nations are long-lived. I am prepared to go back to the days of Nimrod, -come down to the days of Ninus Sardanapalus, and down to the days of -Cyrus the Great, and all through those ancient polygamic nations, and -show that they were short-lived; while on the other hand I am prepared -to prove that Greece and Rome outlived the longest-lived polygamic -nations of the past. Greece, from the days of Homer down to the third -century of the Christian era; and Rome at from seven hundred and fifty -years before the coming of Christ down to the dissolution of the old -empire. But that old empire finds a resurrection in the Italians under -Victor Emanuel and Garibaldi; and England, Germany and France are all -proofs of the longevity of monogamic nations. Babylon is a ruin to-day, -and Babylon was polygamic. Egypt, to-day, is a ruin! Her massy piles -of ruin bespeak her former glory and her pristine beauty. And the last -edition of the polygamic nations--Turkey--is passing away. From the -Golden Horn and the Bosphorus, from the Danube, and the Jordan and the -Nile, the power of Mahommedanism is passing away before the advance of -the monogamic nations of the old world. Our own country is just in its -youth; but monogamic as it is, it is destined to live on, to outlive -the hoary past, to live on in its greatness, in its benificence, in its -power; to live on until it has demonstrated all those great problems -committed to our trust for human rights, religion, liberty and the -advancement of the race. - -My friends, these are the arguments in favor of Monogamy; and when they -can be overthrown, then it will be time enough for us to receive the -system of Polygamy as it is taught here. But until that great law that -we have quoted can be proved to be not a law: until it can be proved -that there is no distinction between law and practice; until it can be -proved that there is a positive command for polygamy; until it can be -proved that Christ did not refer to the original marriage; until it -can be proved that Paul does not demand that every man shall have his -own wife and every woman her own husband; until it can be proved that -polygamy is a prevention of prostitution; until it can be proved that -monogamic nations are not as long-lived as polygamous nations; until -it can be proved that monogamy is not in harmony with civil liberty; -until all these points can be demonstrated beyond a doubt; until then, -we can't give up this grand idea that God's law condemns polygamy, -and that God's law commends monogamy; that the highest interests of -man, that the dearest interests of the rising generation, that all -that binds us to earth and points us to heaven are not subserved and -promoted under the monogamic system. All these great interests demand -the practice of monogamy in marriage--one man and one wife. Then indeed -shall be realized the picture portrayed in Scripture of the happy -family--the family where the wife is one and the husband one, and the -two are equivalent; then, when father and mother, centered in the -family, shall bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of -the Lord--when the husband provides for his family--and it is said that -the man who does not is worse than an infidel--then indeed monogamy -stands forth as a grand Bible doctrine. - - - -DISCOURSE - -ON - -CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, - -DELIVERED BY - -ELDER ORSON PRATT, - -IN THE - -NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 7th, 1869. - -It was announced at the close of the forenoon meeting that I would -address the congregation this afternoon upon the subject of Celestial -Marriage; I do so with the greatest pleasure. - -In the first place, let us enquire whether it is lawful and right, -according to the Constitution of our country, to examine and practise -this Bible doctrine? Our fathers, who framed the Constitution of our -country, devised it so as to give freedom of religious worship of the -Almighty God; so that all people under our Government should have the -inalienable right--a right by virtue of the Constitution--to believe in -any Bible principle which the Almighty has revealed in any age of the -world to the human family. I do not think however that our forefathers, -in framing that instrument, intended to embrace all the religions -of the world. I mean the idolatrous and pagan religions. They say -nothing about those religions in the Constitution; but they give the -express privilege in that instrument to all people dwelling under this -Government and under the institutions of our country, to believe in all -things which the Almighty has revealed to the human family. There is no -restriction or limitation, so far as Bible religion is concerned, on -any principle or form of religion believed to have emanated from the -Almighty; but yet they would not admit idolatrous nations to come here -and practise their religion, because it is not included in the Bible; -it is not the religion of the Almighty. Those people worship idols, the -work of their own hands; they have instituted rights and ceremonies -pertaining to those idols, in the observance of which they, no doubt, -suppose they are worshipping correctly and sincerely, yet some of them -are of the most revolting and barbarous character. Such, for instance, -as the offering up of a widow on a funeral pile, as a burnt sacrifice, -in order to follow her husband into the eternal worlds. That is no part -of the religion mentioned in the Constitution of our country, it is no -part of the religion of Almighty God. - -But confining ourselves within the limits of the Constitution, and -coming back to the religion of the Bible, we have the privilege to -believe in the Patriarchal, in the Mosaic, or in the Christian order of -things; for the God of the patriarchs, and the God of Moses is also the -Christians' God. - -It is true that many laws were given, under the Patriarchal or Mosaic -dispensations, against certain crimes, the penalties for violating -which, religious bodies, under our Constitution, have not the right to -inflict. The Government has reserved, in its own hands, the power, so -far as affixing the penalties of certain crimes is concerned. - -In ancient times there was a law strictly enforcing the observance -of the Sabbath day, and the man or woman who violated that law was -subjected to the punishment of death. Ecclesiastical bodies have the -right, under our government and Constitution, to observe the Sabbath -day, or to disregard it, but they have not the right to inflict -corporeal punishment for its non-observance. - -The subject proposed to be investigated this afternoon is that of -Celestial Marriage, as believed in by the Latter-day Saints, and which -they claim is strictly a Bible doctrine and part of the revealed -religion of the Almighty. It is well known by all the Latter-day Saints -that we have not derived all our knowledge concerning God, heaven, -angels, this life and the life to come, entirely from the books of the -Bible; yet we believe that all of our religious principles and notions -are in accordance with and are sustained by the Bible; consequently, -though we believe in new revelation, and believe that God has revealed -many things pertaining to our religion, we also believe that He has -revealed none that are inconsistent with the worship of Almighty -God, a sacred right guaranteed to all religious denominations by the -Constitution of our country. - -God created man, male and female. He is the author of our existence. -He placed us on this creation. He ordained laws to govern us. He gave -to man, whom he created, a help-meet--a woman, a wife to be one with -him, to be a joy and a comfort to him; and also for another very great -and wise purpose--namely, that the human species might be propagated -on this creation, that the earth might teem with population according -to the decree of God before the foundation of the world; that the -intelligent spirits whom He had formed and created, before this world -was rolled into existence, might have their probation, might have an -existence in fleshly bodies on this planet, and be governed by laws -emanating from their Great Creator. In the breast of male and female -he established certain qualities and attributes that never will be -eradicated--namely love towards each other. Love comes from God. The -love which man possesses for the opposite sex came from God. The same -God who created the two sexes implanted in the hearts of each love -towards the other. What was the object of placing this passion or -affection within the hearts of male and female? It was in order to -carry out, so far as this world was concerned, His great and eternal -purposes pertaining to the future. But He not only did establish this -principle in the heart of man and woman, but gave divine laws to -regulate them in relation to this passion or affection, that they might -be limited and prescribed in the exercise of it towards each other. -He therefore ordained the Marriage Institution. The marriage that was -instituted in the first place was between two immortal beings, hence it -was marriage for eternity in the very first case which we have recorded -for an example. Marriage for eternity was the order God instituted on -our globe; as early as the Garden of Eden, as early as the day when -our first parents were placed in the garden to keep it and till it, -they, as two immortal beings, were united in the bonds of the New and -Everlasting Covenant. This was before man fell, before the forbidden -fruit was eaten, and before the penalty of death was pronounced upon -the heads of our first parents and all their posterity, hence, when God -gave to Adam his wife Eve, He gave her to him as an immortal wife, and -there was no end contemplated of the relation they held to each other -as husband and wife. - -By and bye, after this marriage had taken place, they transgressed the -law of God, and by reason of that transgression the penalty of death -came, not only upon them, but also upon all their posterity. Death, -in its operations, tore asunder, as it were, these two beings who had -hitherto been immortal, and if God had not, before the foundation of -the world, provided a plan of redemption, they would perhaps have been -torn asunder forever; but inasmuch as a plan of redemption had been -provided, by which man could be rescued from the effects of the Fall, -Adam and Eve were restored to that condition of union, in respect to -immortality, from which they had been separated for a short season of -time by death. The Atonement reached after them and brought forth their -bodies from the dust, and restored them as husband and wife, to all the -privileges that were pronounced upon them before the Fall. - -That was eternal marriage; that was lawful marriage ordained by God. -That was the divine institution which was revealed and practised in -the early period of our globe. How has it been since that day? Mankind -have strayed from that order of things, or, at least, they have done -so in latter times. We hear nothing among the religious societies of -the world which profess to believe in the Bible about this marriage for -eternity. It is among the things which are obsolete. Now all marriages -are consummated until death only; they do not believe in that great -pattern and prototype established in the beginning; hence we never hear -of their official characters, whether civil or religious, uniting men -and women in the capacity of husband and wife as immortal beings. No, -they marry as mortal beings only, and until death does them part. - -What is to become of them after death? What will take place among all -those nations who have been marrying for centuries for time only? Do -both men and women receive a resurrection? Do they come forth with all -the various affections, attributes and passions that God gave them in -the beginning? Does the male come forth from the grave with all the -attributes of a man? Does the female come forth from her grave with -all the attributes of a woman? If so, what is their future destiny? -Is there no object or purpose in this new creation save to give them -life, a state of existence? or is there a more important object in view -in the mind of God, in thus creating them anew? Will that principle -of love which exists now, and which has existed from the beginning, -exist after the resurrection? I mean this sexual love. If that existed -before the Fall, and if it has existed since then, will it exist in -the eternal worlds after the resurrection? This is a very important -question to be decided. - -We read in the revelations of God that there are various classes of -beings in the eternal worlds. There are some who are kings, priests, -and Gods, others that are angels; and also among them are the orders -denominated celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. God, however, -according to the faith of the Latter-day Saints, has ordained that -the highest order and class of beings that should exist in the -eternal worlds should exist in the capacity of husbands and wives, -and that they alone should have the privilege of propagating their -species--intelligent, immortal beings. Now it is wise, no doubt, in -the Great Creator to thus limit this great and Heavenly principle to -those who have arrived or come to the highest state of exaltation, -excellency, wisdom, knowledge, power, glory and faithfulness, to dwell -in his presence, that they by this means shall be prepared to bring up -their spirit offspring in all pure and holy principles in the eternal -worlds, in order that they may be made happy. Consequently he does not -entrust this privilege of multiplying spirits with the terrestrial -or telestial, or the lower order of beings there, nor with angels. -But why not? Because they have not proved themselves worthy of this -great privilege. We might reason, of the eternal worlds, as some of -the enemies of polygamy reason of this state of existence, and say -that there are just as many males as females there, some celestial, -some terrestrial and some telestial; and why not have all these paired -off, two by two? Because God administers His gifts and His blessings -to those who are most faithful, giving them more bountifully to the -faithful, and taking away from the unfaithful that with which they had -been entrusted, and which they had not improved upon. That is the order -of God in the eternal worlds, and if such an order exist there, it may -in a degree exist here. - -When the sons and daughters of the Most High God come forth in the -morning of the resurrection, this principle of love will exist in -their bosoms just as it exists here, only intensified according to the -increased knowledge and understanding which they possess; hence they -will be capacitated to enjoy the relationships of husband and wife, of -parents and children a hundred fold degree greater than they could in -mortality. We are not capable, while surrounded with the weaknesses -of our flesh, to enjoy these eternal principles in the same degree -that will then exist. Shall these principles of conjugal and parental -love and affection be thwarted in the eternal worlds? Shall they be -rooted out and overcome? No, most decidedly not. According to the -religious notions of the world these principles will not exist after -the resurrection; but our religion teaches the fallacy of such notions. -It is true that we read in the New Testament that in the resurrection -they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels -in heaven. These are the words of our Savior when He was addressing -himself to a very wicked class of people, the Sadducees, a portion of -the Jewish nation, who rejected Jesus, and the counsel of God against -their own souls. They had not attained to the blessings and privileges -of their fathers, but had apostatized; and Jesus, in speaking to them, -says that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in -marriage but are as the angels of God. - -I am talking, to-day, to Latter-day Saints; I am not reasoning with -unbelievers. If I were, I should appeal more fully to the Old Testament -Scriptures to bring in arguments and testimonies to prove the divine -authenticity of polygamic marriages. Perhaps I may touch upon this for -a few moments, for the benefit of strangers, should there be any in our -midst. Let me say, then, that God's people, under every dispensation -since the creation of the world, have, generally, been polygamists. -I say this for the benefit of strangers. According to the good old -book, called the Bible, when God saw proper to call out Abraham from -all the heathen nations, and made him a great man in the world, He saw -proper, also, to make him a polygamist, and approbated him in taking -unto himself more wives than one. Was it wrong in Abraham to do this -thing? If it were, when did God reprove him for so doing? When did He -ever reproach Jacob for doing the same thing? Who can find the record -in the lids of the Bible of God reproving Abraham, as being a sinner, -and having committed a crime, in taking to himself two living wives? -No such thing is recorded. He was just as much blessed after doing -this thing as before, and more so, for God promised blessings upon the -issue of Abraham by his second wife the same as that of the first wife, -providing he was equally faithful. This was a proviso in every case. - -When we come down to Jacob, the Lord permitted him to take four wives. -They are so called in holy writ. They are not denominated prostitutes, -neither are they called concubines, but they are called wives, legal -wives; and to show that God approved of the course of Jacob in taking -these wives, He blessed them abundantly, and hearkened to the prayer of -the second wife just the same as to the first. Rachel was the second -wife of Jacob, and our great mother, for you know that many of the -Latter-day Saints by revelation know themselves to be the descendants -of Joseph, and he was the son of Rachel, the second wife of Jacob. -God in a peculiar manner blessed the posterity of this second wife. -Instead of condemning the old patriarch, He ordained that Joseph, the -first-born of this second wife, should be considered the first-born -of all the twelve tribes, and into his hands was given the double -birthright, according to the laws of the ancients. And yet he was -the offspring of plurality--of the second wife of Jacob. Of course, -if Reuben, who was indeed, the first-born unto Jacob, had conducted -himself properly, he might have retained the birthright and the greater -inheritance; but he lost that through his transgression, and it was -given to a polygamic child, who had the privilege of inheriting the -blessing to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills; the great -continent of North and South America was conferred upon him. Another -proof that God did not disapprove of a man having more wives than one, -is to be found in the fact that, Rachel, after she had been a long time -barren, prayed to the Lord to give her seed. The Lord hearkened to her -cry and granted her prayer; and when she received seed from the Lord by -her polygamic husband, she exclaimed--"the Lord hath hearkened unto me -and hath answered my prayer." Now do you think the Lord would have done -this if He had considered polygamy a crime? Would He have hearkened to -the prayer of this woman if Jacob had been living with her in adultery? -and he certainly was doing so if the ideas of this generation are -correct. - -Again, what says the Lord in the days of Moses, under another -dispensation? We have seen that in the days of Abraham, Isaac and -Jacob, He approved of polygamy and blessed His servants who practised -it, and also their wives and children. Now, let us come down to the -days of Moses. We read that, on a certain occasion, the sister of -Moses, Miriam, and certain others in the great congregation of Israel, -got very jealous. What were they jealous about? About the Ethiopian -woman that Moses had taken to wife, in addition to the daughter of -Jethro, whom he had taken before in the land of Midian. How dare the -great law-giver, after having committed, according to the ideas of the -present generation, a great crime, show his face on Mount Sinai when it -was clothed with the glory of the God of Israel? But what did the Lord -do in the case of Miriam, for finding fault with her brother Moses? -Instead of saying "you are right, Miriam, he has committed a great -crime, and no matter how much you speak against him," He smote her with -a leprosy the very moment she began to complain, and she was considered -unclean for a certain number of days. Here the Lord manifested, by the -display of a signal judgment, that He disapproved of any one speaking -against His servants for taking more wives than one, because it may not -happen to suit their notion of things. - -I make these remarks and wish to apply them to fault-finders against -plural marriages in our day. Are there any Miriams in our congregation -to-day, any of those who, professing to belong to the Israel of -the latter-days, sometimes find fault with the man of God standing -at their head, because he, not only believes in but practises this -divine institution of the ancients? If there be such in our midst, I -say, remember Miriam the very next time you begin to talk with your -neighboring women, or any body else against this holy principle. -Remember the awful curse and judgment that fell on the sister of Moses -when she did the same thing, and then fear and tremble before God, lest -He, in his wrath, may swear that you shall not enjoy the blessings -ordained for those who inherit the highest degree of glory. - -Let us pass along to another instance under the dispensation of Moses. -The Lord says, on a certain occasion, if a man have married two wives, -and he should happen to hate one and love the other, is he to be -punished--cast out and stoned to death as an adulterer? No; instead of -the Lord denouncing him as an adulterer because of having two wives, He -gave a commandment regulating the matter so that this principle of hate -in the mind of the man towards one of his wives should not control him -in the important question of the division of his inheritance among his -children, compelling him to give just as much to the son of the hated -wife as to the son of the one beloved; and, if the son of the hated -woman happened to be the first-born, he should actually inherit the -double portion. - -Consequently, the Lord approved, not only the two wives, but their -posterity also. Now, if the women had not been considered wives by -the Lord, their children would have been bastards, and you know that -He has said that bastards shall not enter into the congregation of -the Lord, until the tenth generation, hence you see there is a great -distinction between those whom the Lord calls legitimate or legal, and -those who were bastards--begotten in adultery and whoredom. The latter, -with their posterity, were shut out of the congregation of the Lord -until the tenth generation, while the former were exalted to all the -privileges of legitimate birthright. - -Again, under that same law and dispensation, we find that the Lord -provided for another contingency among the hosts of Israel. In order -that the inheritances of the families of Israel might not run into -the hands of strangers, the Lord, in the book of Deuteronomy, gives a -command that if a man die, leaving a wife, but no issue, his brother -shall marry his widow and take possession of the inheritance; and to -prevent this inheritance going out of the family a strict command -was given that the widow should marry the brother or nearest living -kinsman of her deceased husband. The law was in full force at the time -of the introduction of Christianity--a great many centuries after -it was given. The reasoning of the Sadducees on one occasion when -conversing with Jesus proves that the law was then observed. Said -they: "There were seven brethren who all took a certain woman, each -one taking her in succession after the death of the other," and they -inquired of Jesus which of the seven would have her for a wife in the -resurrection. The Sadducees, no doubt, used this figure to prove, as -they thought, the fallacy of the doctrine of the resurrection, but it -also proves that this law, given by the Creator while Israel walked -acceptably before Him, was acknowledged by their wicked descendants -in the days of the Savior. I merely quote the passage to show that -the law was not considered obsolete at that time. A case like this, -when six of the brethren had died, leaving the widow without issue, -the seventh, whether married or unmarried, must fulfill this law -and take the widow to wife, or lay himself liable to a very severe -penalty. What was that penalty? According to the testimony of the law -of Moses he would be cursed, for Moses says--"cursed be he that doth -not all things according as it is written in this book of the law, and -let all the people say Amen." There can be no doubt that many men in -those days were compelled to be polygamists in the fulfillment of this -law, for any man who would not take the childless wife of a deceased -brother and marry her, would come under tho tremendous curse recorded -in the book of Deuteronomy, and all the people would be obliged to -sanction the curse, because he would not obey the law of God and -become a polygamist. They were not all congressmen in those days, nor -Presidents, nor Presbyterians, nor Methodists, nor Roman Catholics; but -they were the people of God, governed by divine law, and were commanded -to be polygamists; not merely suffered to be so, but actually commanded -to be. - -There are some Latter-day Saints who, perhaps, have not searched these -things as they ought, hence we occasionally find some who will say that -God suffered these things to be. I will go further, and say that He -commanded them, and He pronounced a curse, to which all the people had -to say amen, if they did not fulfill the commandment. - -Coming down to the days of the prophets we find that they were -polygamists; also to the days of the kings of Israel, whom God -appointed Himself, and approbated and blessed. This was especially the -case with one of them, named David, who, the Lord said, was a man after -His own heart. David was called when yet a youth, to reign over the -whole twelve tribes of Israel; But Saul, the reigning king of Israel, -persecuted him, and sought to take away his life. David fled from city -to city throughout all the coasts of Judea in order to get beyond the -reach of the relentless persecutions of Saul. While thus fleeing, the -Lord was with him, hearing his prayers, answering his petitions, giving -him line upon line, precept upon precept; permitting him to look into -the Urim and Thummin and receive revelations, which enabled him to -escape from his enemies. - -In addition to all these blessing that God bestowed upon him in his -youth, before he was exalted to the throne, He gave him eight wives; -and after exalting him to the throne, instead of denouncing him for -having many wives, and pronouncing him worthy of fourteen or twenty-one -years of imprisonment, the Lord was with His servant David, and, -thinking he had not wives enough, He gave to him all the wives of his -master Saul, in addition to the eight He had previously given him. Was -the Lord to be considered a criminal, and worthy of being tried in a -court of justice and sent to prison for thus increasing the polygamic -relations of David? No, certainly not; it was in accordance with his -own righteous laws, and He was with His servant, David the king, and -blessed him. By and by, when David transgressed, not in taking other -wives, but in taking the wife of another man, the anger of the Lord -was kindled against him and He chastened him and took away all the -blessings He had given him. All the wives David had received from -the hand of God were taken from him. Why? Because he had committed -adultery. Here then is a great distinction between adultery and -plurality of wives. One brings honor and blessing to those who engage -in it, the other degradation and death. - -After David had repented with all his heart of his crime with the wife -of Uriah, he, notwithstanding the number of wives he had previously -taken, took Bathsheba legally, and by that legal marriage Solomon was -born; the child born of her unto David, begotten illegally, being a -bastard, displeased the Lord and He struck it with death; but with -Solomon, a legal issue from the same woman, the Lord was so pleased -that he ordained Solomon and set him on the throne of his father David. -This shows the difference between the two classes of posterity, the one -begotten illegally, the other in the order of marriage. If Solomon had -been a bastard, as this pious generation would have us suppose, instead -of being blessed of the Lord and raised to the throne of his father, -he would have been banished from the congregation of Israel and his -seed after him for ten generations. But, notwithstanding that he was -so highly blessed and honored of the Lord, there was room for him to -transgress and fall, and in the end he did so. For a long time the Lord -blessed Solomon, but eventually he violated that law which the Lord had -given forbidding Israel to take wives from the idolatrous nations, and -some of these wives succeeded in turning his heart from the Lord and -induced him to worship the heathen gods, and the Lord was angry with -him and, as it is recorded in the Book of Mormon, considered the acts -of Solomon an abomination in His sight. - -Let us now come to the record in the Book of Mormon, when the Lord led -forth Lehi and Nephi, and Ishmael and his two sons and five daughters -out of the land of Jerusalem to the land of America. The males and -females were about equal in number: there were Nephi, Sam, Laman and -Lemuel, the four sons of Lehi, and Zoram, brought out of Jerusalem. -How many daughters of Ishmael were unmarried? Just five. Would if -have been just under these circumstances, to ordain plurality among -them? No. Why? Because the males and females were equal in number and -they were all under the guidance of the Almighty, hence it would have -been unjust, and the Lord gave a revelation--the only one on record I -believe--in which a command was ever given to any branch of Israel to -be confined to the monogamic system. In this case the Lord, through His -servant Lehi, gave a command that they should have but one wife. The -Lord had a perfect right to vary His commands in this respect according -to circumstances, as He did in others, as recorded in the Bible. There -we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind -and will of God, and were varied according to circumstances, as He -thought proper. - -By and by, after the death of Lehi, some of his posterity began to -disregard the strict law that God had given to their father, and took -more wives than one, and the Lord put them in mind, through His servant -Jacob, one of the sons of Lehi, of this law, and told them that they -were transgressing it, and then referred to David and Solomon, as -having committed abomination in his sight. The Bible also tells us that -they sinned in the sight of God; not in taking wives legally but only -in those they took illegally, in doing which they brought wrath and -condemnation upon their heads. - -But because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of -Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there -are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the -Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's -domestic relations. The same God that commanded one branch of the -House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of -the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts -of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in -the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people -of the commandment delivered by Lehi, in regard to monogamy, the Lord -says--"For if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people, -otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;" that is, if I will -raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to -the law that exists among the tribes of Israel, I will give them a -commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they -shall hearken to the law which I give unto their father Lehi. That is -the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that -plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it -was authorized by Him. - -In the early rise of this church, February, 1831, God gave a -commandment to its members, recorded in the Book of Covenants, wherein -He says--"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave -unto her and to none else;" and then He gives a strict law against -adultery. This you have, no doubt, all read; but let me ask whether -the Lord had the privilege and the right to vary from this law. It was -given in 1831, when the one-wife system alone prevailed among this -people. I will tell you what the Prophet Joseph said in relation to -this matter in 1831, also in 1832, the year in which the law commanding -the members of this church to cleave to one wife only was given. Joseph -was then living in Portage County, in the town of Hyrum, at the house -of Father John Johnson. Joseph was very intimate with that family, and -they were good people at that time, and enjoyed much of the spirit of -the Lord. In the fore part of the year 1832, Joseph told individuals, -then in the Church, that he, had enquired of the Lord concerning the -principle of plurality of wives, and he received for answer that the -principle of taking more wives than one is a true principle, but the -time had not yet come for it to be practised. That was before the -Church was two years old. The Lord has His own time to do all things -pertaining to His purposes in the last dispensation. His own time for -restoring all things that have been predicted by the ancient prophets. -If they have predicted that the day would come when seven women would -take hold of one man saying--"We will eat our own bread and wear -our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name to take away our -reproach;" and that, in that day the branch of the Lord should be -beautiful and glorious and the fruits of the earth should be excellent -and comely, the Lord has the right to say when that time shall be. - -Now, supposing the members of this Church had undertaken to vary from -that law given in 1831, to love their one wife with all their hearts -and to cleave to none other, they would have come under the curse -and condemnation of God's holy law. Some twelve years after that -time the revelation on Celestial Marriage was revealed. This is just -republished at the Deseret News office, in a pamphlet entitled "Answers -to Questions," by President George A. Smith, and heretofore has been -published in pamphlet form and in the Millennial Star, and sent -throughout the length and breadth of our country, being included in our -works and published in the works of our enemies. Then came the Lord's -time for this holy and ennobling principle to be practised again among -His people. - -We have not time to read the revelation this afternoon; suffice it to -say that God revealed the principle through His servant Joseph in 1843. -It was known by many individuals while the Church was yet in Illinois; -and though it was not then printed, it was a familiar thing through all -the streets of Nauvoo, and indeed throughout all Hancock county. Did I -hear about it? I verily did. Did my brethren of the Twelve know about -it? They certainly did. Were there any females who knew about it? There -certainly were, for some received the revelation and entered into the -practice of the principle. Some may say, "Why was it not printed, and -made known to the people generally, if it was of such importance?" I -reply by asking another question: Why did not the revelations in the -book of Doctrine and Covenants come to us in print years before they -did? Why were they shut up in Joseph's cupboard years and years without -being suffered to be printed and sent broadcast throughout the land? -Because the Lord had again His own time to accomplish His purposes, and -He suffered the revelations to be printed just when He saw proper. He -did not suffer the revelation on the great American war to be published -until sometime after it was given. So in regard to the revelation -on plurality, it was only a short time after Joseph's death that we -published it, having a copy thereof. But what became of the original? -An apostate destroyed it; you have heard her name. That same woman, -in destroying the original, thought she had destroyed the revelation -from the face of the earth. She was embittered against Joseph, her -husband, and at times fought against him with all her heart: and then -again she would break down in her feelings, and humble herself before -God and call upon His holy name, and would then lead forth ladies and -place their hands in the hands of Joseph, and they were married to -him according to the law of God. That same woman has brought up her -children to believe that no such thing as plurality of wives existed -in the days of Joseph, and has instilled the bitterest principles of -apostasy into their minds, to fight against the Church that has come to -these mountains according to the predictions of Joseph. - -In the year 1844, before his death, a large company was organized -to come and search out a location, west of the Rocky Mountains. We -have been fulfilling and carrying out his predictions in coming here -and since our arrival. The course pursued by this woman shows what -apostates can do, and how wicked they can become in their hearts. When -they apostatize from the truth they can come out and swear before -God and the heavens that such and such things never existed, when -they know, as well as they know they exist themselves, that they are -swearing falsely. Why do they do this? Because they have no fear of -God before their eyes; because they have apostatized from the truth; -because they have taken it upon themselves to destroy the revelations -of the Most High, and to banish them from the face of the earth, and -the Spirit of God withdraws from them. We have come here to these -mountains, and have continued to practise the principle of Celestial -Marriage from the day the revelation was given until the present time; -and we are a polygamic people, and a great people, comparatively -speaking, considering the difficult circumstances under which we came -to this land. - -Let us speak for a few moments upon another point connected with this -subject--that is, the reason why God has established polygamy under -the present circumstances among this people. If all the inhabitants of -the earth, at the present time, were righteous before God, and both -males and females were faithful in keeping His commandments, and the -numbers of the sexes of a marriageable age were exactly equal, there -would be no necessity for any such institution. Every righteous man -could have his wife and there would be no overplus of females. But what -are the facts in relation to this matter? Since old Pagan Rome and -Greece--worshippers of idols--passed a law confining a man to one wife, -there has been a great surplus of females, who have had no possible -chance of getting married. You may think this a strange statement, but -it is a fact that those nations were the founders of what is termed -monogamy. All other nations, with few exceptions, had followed the -scriptural plan of having more wives than one. These nations, however, -were very powerful, and when Christianity came to them, especially the -Roman nation, it had to bow to their mandates and customs, hence the -Christians gradually adopted the monogamic system. The consequence -was that a great many marriageable ladies of those days, and of all -generations from that time to the present have not had the privilege -of husbands, as the one-wife system has been established by law among -the nations descended from the great Roman Empire--namely the nations -of modern Europe and the American States. This law of monogamy, or -the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and evils -and diseases of the most revolting nature and character, under which -modern Christendom groans, for as God has implanted, for a wise -purpose, certain feelings in the breasts of females as well as males, -the gratification of which is necessary to health and happiness, and -which can only be accomplished legitimately in the married state, -myriads of those who have been deprived of the privilege of entering -that state, rather than be deprived of the gratification of those -feelings altogether, have, in despair, given way to wickedness and -licentiousness; hence the whoredoms and prostitution among the nations -of the earth where the "Mother of Harlots" has her seat. - -When the religious Reformers came out, some two or three centuries ago, -they neglected to reform the marriage system--a subject demanding their -urgent attention. But leaving these Reformers and their doings, let us -come down to our own times and see whether, as has been often said by -many, the numbers of the sexes are equal; and let us take as a basis -for our investigations on this part of our subject, the censuses taken -by several of the States in the American Union. - -Many will tell us that the number of males and the number of females -born are just about equal, and because they are so it is not reasonable -to suppose that God ever intended the nations to practise plurality -of wives. Let me say a few words on that. Supposing we should admit, -for the sake of argument, that the sexes are born in equal numbers, -does that prove that the same equality exists when they come to a -marriageable age? By no means. There may be about equal numbers -born, but what do the statistics of our country show in regard to -the deaths? Do as many females as males die during the first year -of their existence? If you go to the published statistics you will -find, almost without exception, that in every State a greater number -of males die the first year of their existence than females. The -same holds good from one year to five years, from five years to ten, -from ten to fifteen, and from fifteen to twenty. This shows that the -number of females is greatly in excess of the males when they reach -a marriageable age. Let us elucidate still further, in proof of the -position here assumed. Let us take, for instance, the census of the -State of Pennsylvania in the year 1860, and we shall find that there -were 17,588 more females than males between the age of twenty and -thirty years, which may strictly be termed a marriageable age. Says -one, "Probably the great war made that difference." No, this was before -the war. Now let us go to the statistics of the State of New York, -before the war, and we find, according to the official tables of the -census taken in 1860, that there were 45,104 more females than males -in that one State, between the ages of twenty and thirty years--a -marriageable age recollect. Now let us go to the State of Massachusetts -and look at the statistics there. In the year 1865, there were 33,452 -more females than males between the age of twenty and thirty. We might -go on from State to State, and then to the census taken by the United -States, and a vast surplus would be shown of females over males of a -marriageable age. What is to be done with them? I will tell you what -Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York say: they say, virtually, "We -will pass a law so strict, that if these females undertake to marry a -man who has another wife, both they and the men they marry shall be -subject to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary." Indeed! Then -what are you going to do with these hundreds of thousands of females -of a marriageable age? "We are going to make them either old maids -or prostitutes, and we would a little rather have them prostitutes, -then we men would have no need to marry." This is the conclusion many -of these marriageable males, between twenty and thirty years of age, -have come to. They will not marry because the laws of the land have -a tendency to make prostitutes, and they can purchase all the animal -gratification they desire without being bound to any woman; hence many -of them have mistresses, by whom they raise children, and, when they -get tired of them, turn both mother and children into the street, -with nothing to support them, the law allowing them to do so, because -the women are not wives. Thus the poor creatures are plunged into -the depths of misery, wretchedness, and degradation, because at all -risks they have followed the instincts implanted within them by their -Creator, and not having the opportunity to do so legally have done so -unlawfully. There are hundreds and thousands of females in this boasted -land of liberty, through the narrow, contracted, bigoted state laws, -preventing them from ever getting husbands. That is what the Lord -is fighting against; we, also, are fighting against it, and for the -re-establishment of the Bible religion and the Celestial or Patriarchal -order of marriage. - -It is no matter according to the Constitution whether we believe in the -patriarchal parts of the Bible, in the Mosiac or in the Christian part; -whether we believe in one-half, two-thirds, or in the whole of it; that -is nobody's business. The Constitution never granted power to Congress -to prescribe what part of the Bible any people should believe in or -reject; it never intended any such thing. - -Much more might be said, but the congregation is large, and a speaker, -of course, will weary. Though my voice is tolerably good, I feel weary -in making a congregation of from eight to ten thousand people hear -me, I have tried to do so. May God bless you, and may He pour out His -Spirit upon the rising generation among us, and upon the missionaries -who are about to be sent to the United States, and elsewhere, that -the great principles, political, religious and domestic, that God has -ordained and established, may be made known to all people. - -In this land of liberty in religious worship, let us boldly proclaim -our rights, to believe in and practise any Bible precept, command or -doctrine, whether in the Old or New Testament, whether relating to -ceremonies, ordinances, domestic relations, or anything else, not -incompatible with the rights of others, and the great revelations of -Almighty God manifested in ancient and modern times. Amen. - - - -DISCOURSE - -ON - -CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, - -DELIVERED BY - -PRESIDENT GEO. A. SMITH, - -IN THE - -NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 8th, 1869. - -It is a difficult undertaking to address this immense audience. -If a man commences speaking loud, in a short time his voice gives -out; whereas, if he commences rather low, he may raise his voice by -degrees, and be able to sustain himself in speaking some length of -time. But with children crying, a few persons whispering, and some -shuffling their feet, it is indeed a difficult task to make an audience -of ten thousand persons hear. I have listened with pleasure to the -instructions of our brethren from the commencement of our Conference -to the present time. I have rejoiced in their testimonies. I have felt -that the Elders are improving in wisdom, in knowledge, in power and in -understanding; and I rejoice in the privilege, which we have at the -present day, of sending out to our own country, a few hundred of the -Elders who have had experience--who have lived in Israel long enough -to know, to feel and to realize the importance of the work in which -they are engaged--to understand its principles and comprehend the way -of life. They can bear testimony to a generation that has nearly grown -from childhood since the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. - -The Lord said in relation to those who have driven the Saints that he -would visit "judgment, wrath and indignation, wailing and anguish, -and gnashing of teeth upon their heads unto the third and fourth -generation, so long as they repent not and hate me, saith the Lord your -God." - -I am a native of Potsdam, St. Lawrence County, New York--a town -somewhat famous for its literary institutions, its learning and the -religion and morality of its inhabitants. I left there in my youth, -with my father's family, because we had received the Gospel of Jesus -Christ, as revealed through Joseph Smith; and followed with the Saints -through their drivings and trials unto the present day. - -I have never seen the occasion, nor let the opportunity slip, from -the time when I first came to a knowledge of the truth of the work -of the Lord in the last days, that I understood it was in my power -to do good for the advancement of this work, but what I have used my -utmost endeavors to accomplish that good. I have never failed to bear a -faithful testimony to the work of God, or to carry out, to all intents -and purposes, the wishes and designs of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I was -his kinsman; was familiar with him, though several years his junior; -knew his views, his sentiments, his ways, his designs, and many of -the thoughts of his heart, and I do know that the servants of God, -the Twelve Apostles, upon whom He laid the authority to bear off the -Kingdom of God, and fulfill the work which he had commenced, have done -according to his designs, in every particular, up to the present time, -and are continuing to do so. And I know, furthermore, that he rejoiced -in the fact that the law of redemption and Celestial Marriage was -revealed unto the Church in such a manner that it would be out of the -power of earth and hell to destroy it; and that he rejoiced in the fact -that the servants of God were ready prepared, having the keys, to bear -off the work he had commenced. Previous to my leaving Potsdam, there -was but one man that I heard of in that town who did not believe the -Bible. He proclaimed himself an atheist and he drowned himself. - -The Latter-day Saints believe the Bible. An agent of the American Bible -Society called on me the other day and wanted to know if we would aid -the Society in circulating the Bible in our Territory? I replied yes, -by all means, for it was the book from which we were enabled to set -forth our doctrines, and especially the doctrine of plural marriage. - -There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons--who suppose that -they believe the Bible--that Christ, when He came, did away with plural -marriage, and that He inaugurated what is termed monogamy; and there -are certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view of -the subject, one of which is found in Paul's first epistle to Timothy -(iii chap. 2 vs.), where Paul says: "A Bishop should be blameless, the -husband of one wife." The friends of monogamy render it in this way: "A -Bishop should be blameless, the husband of but one wife." That would -imply that any one but a bishop might have more. But they will say, -"We mean--a bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife only." -Well, that would also admit of the construction that other people might -have more than one. I understand it to mean that a bishop must be a -married man. - -A short time ago, the Minister from the King of Greece to the United -States called on President Young. I inquired of him in relation to the -religion of his country, and asked him if the clergy were allowed to -marry. It is generally understood that the Roman Catholic clergy are -not allowed to marry. How is it with the Greek clergy? "Well," said he, -"all the clergy marry except the Bishop." I replied, "you render the -saying of Paul differently from what we do. We interpret it to mean--"a -bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife at least;" and "we -construe it" said he "directly the opposite." - -Now this passage does not prove that a man should have but one wife. -It only proves that a bishop should be a married man. The same remark -is made of deacons, that they also should have wives. Another passage -is brought up where the Savior speaks of divorce. He tells us that it -is very wrong to divorce, and that Moses permitted it because of the -hardness of their (the children of Israel) hearts. A man should leave -his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and they twain -should be one flesh. That is the principal argument raised that a man -should have but one wife. - -In the New Testament, in various places, certain eminent men are -referred to as patterns of faith, purity, righteousness and piety. For -instance, if you read the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, the 11th -chap., you find therein selected those persons "who through faith -subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the -mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of -the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, -turning to flight the armies of the aliens;" and it is said that by -faith Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph, and that he conferred upon -them a blessing to the "uttermost bounds of the everlasting hills." -Who was Joseph? Why, Joseph was the son of Rachel. And who was Rachel? -Rachel was the second wife of Jacob, a polygamist. Jacob had four -wives; and after he had taken the second, (Rachel) she, being barren, -gave a third wife unto her husband that she might bear children unto -him for her; and instead of being displeased with her for giving her -husband another wife, God heard her prayer, blessed her, worked a -miracle in her favor, by opening her womb, and she bear a son, and -called his name Joseph, rejoicing in God, whom she testified would give -her another son. The question now arises--were not Rachel and Jacob -one flesh? Yes. Leah and Jacob were also one flesh. Jacob is selected -by the Apostle Paul as a pattern of faith for Christians to follow; he -blessed his twelve sons, whom he had by four wives. The law of God, as -it existed in those days, and as laid down in this book, (the Bible) -makes children born of adultery or of fornication bastards; and they -were prohibited from entering into the congregation of the Lord unto -the fourth generation. - -Now, instead of God blessing Rachel and Jacob and their offspring, -as we are told He did, we might have expected something entirely -different, had it not been that God was pleased with and approbated and -sustained a plurality of wives. - -While we are considering this subject, we will enquire, did the Savior -in any place that we read of, in the course of His mission on the -earth, denounce a plurality of wives? He lived in a nation of Jews; -the law of Moses was in force, plurality of wives was the custom, and -thousands upon thousands of people, from the highest to the lowest in -the land, were polygamists. The Savior denounced adultery; He denounced -fornication; He denounced lust; also, divorce; but is there a single -sentence asserting that plurality of wives is wrong? If so, where is -it? Who can find it? Why did He not say it was wrong? "Think not," said -He, "that I am come to destroy the law or the Prophets. I am not come -to destroy, but to fulfil. Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from -the law and the Prophets, but all shall be fulfilled." Of what does the -Savior speak when He refers to "the law?" Why, of the Ten Commandments, -and other rules of life commanded by God and adopted by the ancients, -and which Bro. Pratt referred to yesterday, showing you from the -sacred book that God legislated and made laws for the protection of a -plurality of wives, (Exod. 21, 10) and that He commanded men to take a -plurality under some circumstances. Brother Pratt further showed that -the Lord made arrangements to protect, to all intents and purposes, the -interests of the first wife; and to shield and protect the children -of a wife from disinheritance who might be unfortunate enough not to -have the affections of her husband. (Deut., 21.15.) These things were -plainly written in the law--that law of which the Savior says "not -one jot or one tittle shall pass away." Continuing our inquiry, we -pass on to the epistles of John the Evangelist, which we find in the -book of Revelations, written to the seven churches of Asia. In them we -find the Evangelist denounces adultery, fornication, and all manner -of iniquities and abominations of which these churches were guilty. -Anything against a plurality of wives? No; not a syllable. Yet those -churches were in a country in which plurality was the custom. Hundreds -of Saints had more wives than one; and if it had been wrong, what would -have been the result? Why, John would have denounced the practice, the -same as the children of Israel were denounced for marrying heathen -wives, had it not been that the law of plurality was the commandment of -God. - -Again, on this point, we can refer to the Prophets of the Old -Testament--Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others. When God called those -men he warned them that if they did not deliver the message to the -people which He gave them concerning their sins and iniquities His -vengeance should rest upon their heads. These are his words to Ezekiel: -"Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: -therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. -When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him -not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to -save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his -blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he -turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in -his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul." (Ezek. iii.17.18.29.) -How do we find these Prophets of the Lord fulfilling the commandments -of the Almighty? We find them pouring out denunciations upon the heads -of the people--against adultery, fornication and every species of -wickedness. All this, too, in a country in which, from the King down to -the lowest orders of the people, a plurality of wives was practised. Do -they say anything against plurality of wives? Not one word. It was only -in cases where men and women took improper license with each other, in -violation of the holy law of marriage, that they were guilty of sin. - -If plurality of wives had been a violation of the seventh commandment -those prophets would have denounced it, otherwise their silence on the -matter would have been dangerous to themselves, inasmuch as the blood -of the people would have been required at their hands. The opposers of -Celestial Marriage sometimes quote a passage in the seventh chapter of -Romans, second and third verses, to show that a plurality of wives is -wrong; but when we come to read the passage it shows that a plurality -of husbands is wrong. You can rend the passage for yourselves. In -the forcible parable used by the Savior in relation to the rich man -and Lazarus, we find recorded that the poor man Lazarus was carried -to Abraham's bosom--Abraham the father of the faithful. The rich man -calls unto Father Abraham to send Lazarus, who is afar off. Who was -Abraham? He was a man who had a plurality of wives. And yet all good -Christians, even pious church deacons, expect when they die to go to -Abraham's bosom. I am sorry to say, however, that thousands of them -will be disappointed, from the fact that they cannot and will not go -where any one has a plurality of wives; and I am convinced that Abraham -will not turn out his own wives to receive such unbelievers in God's -law. One peculiarity of this parable is the answer of Abraham to the -application of the rich man, to send Lazarus to his five brothers "lest -they come into this place of torment," which was--"they have Moses and -the prophets, let them hear them; and if they hear not Moses and the -prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the -dead." Moses' law provided for a plurality of wives, and the prophets -observed that law, and Isaiah predicts its observance even down to the -latter-days. Isaiah, in his 4th chap. and 1st and 2nd verses, says -"seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own -bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name to -take away our reproach. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be -beautiful and glorious and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent." - -A reference to the Scriptures shows that the reproach of woman is to be -childless, Gen. c. 30, v. 23; Luke c. 1, v. 25. - -We will now refer to John the Baptist. He came as the forerunner of -Christ. He was a lineal descendant of the house of Levi. His father -was a priest. John the Baptist was a child born by miracle, God -having revealed to his father that Elizabeth, who had been many years -barren, should bear a son. John feared not the world, but went forth -preaching in the wilderness of Judea, declaiming against wickedness and -corruption in the boldest terms. He preached against extortion; against -the cruelty exercised by the soldiers and tax gatherers. He even was so -bold as to rebuke the king on his throne, to his face, for adultery. -Did he say anything against a plurality of wives? No: it cannot be -found. Yet thousands were believers in and practised this order of -marriage, under the law of Moses that God had revealed. - -In bringing this subject before you, we cannot help saying that God -knew what was best for His people. Hence He commanded them as He -would have them act. The law, regulating marriage previous to Moses, -recognized a plurality of wives. Abraham and Jacob and others had -a plurality. These are the men who are referred to in scripture as -patterns of piety and purity. David had many wives. The scripture says -that David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned -not aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, -save in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, 1 Kings, 15 chap. 5 vs. "I -have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart which -shall fulfill all my will. Of this man's seed hath God, according to -His promise, raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus." Acts 13 chap., 22 -and 23 vs. Did David sin in taking so many wives? No. In what, then, -did his sin consist? It was because he took the wife of Uriah, the -Hittite--that is, violated the law of God in taking her. The Lord had -given him the wives of Saul and would have given him many more; but -he had no right to take one who belonged to another. When he did so -the curse of adultery fell upon his head, and his wives were taken -from him and given to another. We will now inquire in relation to the -Savior himself. From whom did he descend? From the house of David, a -polygamist; and if you will trace the names of the familles through -which He descended you will find that numbers of them had a plurality -of wives. How appropriate it would have been for Jesus, descending as -he did from a race of polygamists, to denounce this institution of -plural marriage and show its sinfulness, had it been a sin! Can we -suppose, for one moment, if Patriarchal Marriage were wrong, that He -would, under the circumstances have been silent concerning it or failed -to denounce it in the most positive manner? Then if plural marriage be -adultery and the offspring spurious, Christ Jesus is not the Christ; -and we must look for another. - -All good Christians are flattering themselves with the hope that they -will finally enter the gates of the New Jerusalem. I presume this is -the hope of all denominations--Catholics, Protestants, Greeks, and all -who believe the Bible. Suppose they go there, what will they find? -They will find at the twelve gates twelve angels, and "names written -thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children -of Israel." The names of the twelve sons of Jacob, the polygamist. -Can a monogamist enter there? "And the walls of the city had twelve -foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb;" -and at the gates the names of the twelve tribes of Israel--from the -twelve sons of the four wives of Jacob. Those who denounce Patriarchal -Marriage will have to stay without and never walk the golden streets. -And any man or woman that lifts his or her voice to proclaim against a -plurality of wives under the Government of God, will have to seek an -inheritance outside of that city. For "there shall in no wise enter -into it, anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination -or maketh a lie, for without are sorcerers, whoremongers, and whosoever -loveth and maketh a lie." Is not the man that denounces Celestial -Marriage a liar? Does he not work abomination? "I, Jesus, have sent -mine Angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am -the root and offspring of [the polygamist] David, the bright and the -morning star." - -May God enable us to keep His law, for "blessed are they that do His -commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and may -enter in through the gate into the city." Amen. - - - -DISCOURSE - -ON - -CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, - -DELIVERED BY - -ELDER GEORGE Q. CANNON, - -IN THE - -NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 9th, 1869. - -I will repeat a few verses in the tenth chapter of Mark, commencing at -the twenty-eighth verse: - - Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have - followed thee. - - And Jesus answered and said, verily I say unto you, There is no man - that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, - or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, - - But he shall receive an hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and - brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with - persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. - -In rising to address you this morning, my brethren and sisters, I rely -upon your faith and prayers and the blessing of God. We have heard, -during Conference, a great many precious instructions, and in none -have I been more interested than in those which have been given to -the Saints concerning that much mooted doctrine called Patriarchal or -Celestial Marriage. I am interested in this doctrine, because I see -salvation, temporal and spiritual, embodied therein. I know, pretty -well, what the popular feelings concerning this doctrine are; I am -familiar with the opinions of the world, having traveled and mingled -with the people sufficiently to be conversant with their ideas in -relation to this subject. I am also familiar with the feelings of the -Latter-day Saints upon this point. I know the sacrifice of feeling -which it has caused for them to adopt this principle in their faith and -lives. It has required the revelation of God, our Heavenly Father, to -enable His people to receive this principle and carry it out. I wish, -here, to make one remark in connection with this subject--that while -there is abundant proof to be found in the scriptures and elsewhere -in support of this doctrine, still it is not because it was practised -four thousand years ago by the servants and people of God, or because -it has been practised by any people or nation in any period of the -world's history, that the Latter-day Saints have adopted it and made -it part of their practice, but it is because God, our Heavenly Father, -has revealed it unto us. If there were no record of its practice to -be found, and if the Bible, Book of Mormon and Book of Doctrine and -Covenants were totally silent in respect to this doctrine, it would -nevertheless be binding upon us as a people, God himself having given -a revelation for us to practise it at the present time. This should be -understood by us as a people. It is gratifying to know, however, that -we are not the first of God's people unto whom this principle has been -revealed; it is gratifying to know that we are only following in the -footsteps of those who have preceded us in the work of God, and that -we, to-day, are only carrying out the principle which God's people -observed, in obedience to revelation received from Him, thousands of -years ago. It is gratifying to know that we are suffering persecution, -that we are threatened with lines and imprisonment for the practice -of precisely the same principle which Abraham, the "friend of God," -practised in his life and taught to his children after him. - -The discourses of Brother Orson Pratt and of President George A. Smith -have left but very little to be said in relation to the scriptural -arguments in favor of this doctrine. I know that the general opinion -among men is that the Old Testament, to some extent, sustains it; but -that the New Testament--Jesus and the Apostles, were silent concerning -it. It was clearly proved in our hearing yesterday, and the afternoon -of the day previous, that the New Testament, though not so explicit -in reference to the doctrine, is still decidedly in favor of it and -sustains it. Jesus very plainly told the Jews, when boasting of being -the seed of Abraham, that if they were, they would do the works of -Abraham. He and the Apostles, in various places, clearly set forth that -Abraham was the great exemplar of faith for them to follow, and that -they must follow him if they ever expected to participate in the glory -and exaltation enjoyed by Abraham and his faithful seed. Throughout the -New Testament Abraham is held up to the converts to the doctrines which -Jesus taught, as an example worthy of imitation, and in no place is -there a word of condemnation uttered concerning him. The Apostle Paul, -in speaking of him says: - -"Know ye, therefore, that they which are of the faith, the same are the -children of Abraham. * * * * So then they which be of the faith are -blessed with faithful Abraham." - -He also says that the Gentiles, through adoption, became Abraham's -seed; that the blessing of Abraham, says he, might come upon the -Gentiles through Jesus Christ, shewing plainly that Jesus and all the -Apostles who alluded to the subject, held the deeds of Abraham to be, -in every respect, worthy of imitation. - -Who was this Abraham? I have heard the saying frequently advanced, that -in early life, being an idolater, it was an idolatrous, heathenish -principle which he adopted in taking to himself a second wife while -Sarah still lived. Those who make this assertion in reference to the -great patriarch, seem to be ignorant of the fact that he was well -advanced in life and had served God faithfully many years, prior to -making any addition to his family. He did not have a plurality of wives -until years after the Lord had revealed Himself to him, commanding him -to leave Ur, of the Chaldees, and go forth to a land which He would -give to him and his posterity for an everlasting possession. He went -forth and lived in that land many long years before the promise of God -was fulfilled unto him--namely, that in his seed should all the nations -of the earth be blessed; and Abraham was still without any heir, except -Eliezer, of Damascus, the steward of his house. At length, after living -thus for ten years, God commanded him to take to himself another wife, -who was given to him by his wife Sarah. When the offspring of this -marriage was born, Abraham was eighty-six years old. - -We read of no word of condemnation from the Lord for this -act--something which we might naturally expect if, as this unbelieving -and licentious generation affirm, the act of taking more wives than one -be such a vile crime, and so abominable in the sight of God; for if it -be evil in the sight of the Lord to-day it was then, for the scriptures -inform us that He changes not, He is the same yesterday, today and -forever, and is without variableness or the shadow of turning. But -instead of condemnation, God revealed himself continually to his friend -Abraham, teaching His will unto him, revealing all things concerning -the future which it was necessary for him to understand, and promising -him that, though he had been blessed with a son, Ishmael, yet in -Isaac, a child of promise, not yet born, should his seed be called. -Abraham was to have yet another son. Sarah, in her old age, because -of her faithfulness, because of her willingness to comply with the -requirements and revelations of God, was to have a son given unto her. -Such an event was so unheard of among women at her time of life that, -though the Lord promised it, she could not help laughing at the idea. -But God fulfilled His promise, and in due time Isaac was born, and was -greatly blessed of the Lord. - -Determined to try His faithful servant Abraham to the uttermost, the -Lord, some years after the birth of this son, in whom He had promised -that Abraham's seed should be called, required him to offer up this boy -as a burnt offering to Him; and Abraham, nothing doubting, but full of -faith and integrity, and of devotion to his God, proved himself worthy -of the honored title that had been conferred upon him, namely, "the -Friend of God," by taking his son Isaac, in whom most of his hopes for -the future centred, up the mountain, and there, having built the altar, -he bound the victim and, with knife uplifted, was about to strike the -fatal blow, when the angel of the Lord cried out of heaven, commanding -him not to slay his son. The Lord was satisfied, having tried him to -the uttermost, and found him willing even to shed the blood of his well -beloved son. - -The Lord was so pleased with the faithfulness of Abraham, that He gave -unto him the greatest promise He could give to any human being on the -face of the earth. What do you think was the nature of that promise? -Did He promise to Abraham a crown of eternal glory? Did He promise to -him that he should be in the presence of the Lamb, that he should tune -his harp, and sing praises to God and the Lamb, throughout the endless -ages of eternity? Let me quote it to you, and it would be well if all -the inhabitants of the earth would reflect upon it. Said the Lord: - -"In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy -seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea -shore: and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." - -This was the promise which God gave to Abraham, in that hour of -his triumph, in that hour when there was joy in heaven over the -faithfulness of one of God's noblest and most devoted sons. Think of -the greatness of this blessing! Can you count the stars of heaven, or -even the grains of a handful of sand? No, it is beyond the power of -earth's most gifted sons to do either, and yet God promised to Abraham -that his seed should be as innumerable as the stars of heaven or as the -sand on the sea-shore. - -How similar was this promise of God to Abraham to that made by Jesus as -a reward for faithfulness to those who followed Him! Said Jesus, "He -that forsakes brothers or sisters, houses or lands, father or mother, -wives or children, shall receive a hundred fold in this life with -persecution, and eternal life in the world to come." A very similar -blessing to that which God, long before, had made to Abraham, and -couched in very similar terms. - -It is pertinent for us to enquire, on the present occasion, how the -promises made by Jesus and His Father, in ages of the world separated -by a long interval the one from the other, could be realized under the -system which prevails throughout Christendom at the present day? In the -monogamic system, under which the possession of more than one living -wife is regarded as such a crime, and as being so fearfully immoral, -how could the promise of the Savior to his faithful followers, that -they should have a hundredfold of wives and children, in this present -life, ever be realized? There is a way which God has provided in a -revelation given to this Church, in which He says: - -"Strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the -exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find -it, because ye receive me not in this world, neither do ye know me." - -God revealed that strait and narrow way to Abraham, and taught him -how he could enter therein. He taught him the principle of plurality -of wives; Abraham practised it and bequeathed it to his children as -a principle which they were to practise. Under such a system it was -a comparatively easy matter for men to have a hundred fold of wives, -children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and everything else in -proportion; and in no other way could the promises of Jesus be realized -by His followers, than in the way God has provided, and which He has -revealed to His Church and people in these latter-days. - -I have felt led to dwell on these few passages from the sayings of -Jesus, to show you that there is abundance of scriptural proofs in -favor of this principle and the position this Church has assumed, in -addition to those previously referred to. - -It is a blessed thing to know that, in this as in every other doctrine -and principle taught by us as a Church, we are sustained by the -revelations God gave to His people anciently. One of the strongest -supports the Elders of this Church have had in their labors among the -nations was the knowledge that the Bible and New Testament sustained -every principle they advanced to the people. When they preached faith, -repentance, baptism for the remission of sins, the laying on of hands -for the reception of the Holy Ghost, the gathering of the people from -the nations, the re-building of Jerusalem, the second coming of Christ, -and every other principle ever touched upon by them, it was gratifying -to know that they were sustained by the scriptures, and that they could -turn to chapter and verse among the sayings of Jesus and His Apostles, -or among those of the ancient prophets, in confirmation of every -doctrine they ever attempted to bring to the attention of those to whom -they ministered. There is nothing with which the Latter-day Saints can, -with more confidence, refer to the scriptures for confirmation and -support, than the doctrine of plural marriage, which, at the present -time, among one of the most wicked, adulterous and corrupt generations -the world has ever seen, is so much hated, and for which mankind -generally, are so anxious to cast out and persecute the Latter-day -Saints. - -If we look abroad and peruse the records of everyday life throughout -the whole of Christendom, we find that crimes of every hue, and of -the most appalling and revolting character are constantly committed, -exciting neither surprise nor comment. Murder, robbery, adultery, -seduction and every species of villany known in the voluminous -catalogue of crime, in modern times, are regarded as mere matters of -ordinary occurrence, and yet there is a hue and cry raised, almost -as wide as Christendom, for the persecution, by fine, imprisonment, -proscription, outlawry or extermination, of the people of Utah because, -knowing that God, the Eternal Father, has spoken in these days and -revealed his mind and will to them, they dare to carry out His -behests. For years they have meekly submitted to this persecution and -contumely, but they appeal now, as ever, to all rational, reflecting -men, and invite comparison between the state of society here and in -any portion of this or any other country, knowing that the verdict -will be unanimous and overwhelming in their favor. In every civilized -country on the face of the earth the seducer plies his arts to envelop -his victim within his meshes, in order to accomplish her ruin most -completely; and it is well known that men holding positions of trust -and responsibility, looked upon as honorable and highly respectable -members of society, violate their marriage vows by carrying on their -secret amours and supporting mistresses; yet against the people of -Utah, where such things are totally unknown, there is an eternal and -rabid outcry because they practise the heaven-revealed system of a -plurality of wives. It is a most astonishing thing, and no greater -evidence could be given that Satan reigns in the hearts of the children -of men, and that he is determined, if possible, to destroy the work of -God from the face of the earth. - -The Bible, the only work accepted by the nations of Christendom, as a -divine revelation, sustains this doctrine, from beginning to end. The -only revelation on record that can be quoted against it came through -the Prophet Joseph Smith, and is contained in the Book of Mormon; and -strange to say, here in Salt Lake City, a day or or two since, one of -the leading men of the nation, in his eager desire and determination to -cast discredit on this doctrine, unable to do so by reference to the -Bible, which he no doubt, in common with all Christians, acknowledges -as divine, was compelled to have recourse to the Book of Mormon, a work -which on any other point, he would most unquestionably have scouted -and ridiculed, as an emanation from the brain of an impostor. What -consistency! A strange revolution this, that men should have recourse -to our own works, whose authenticity they most emphatically deny, to -prove us in the wrong. Yet this attempt, whenever made, cannot be -sustained, for Brother Pratt clearly showed to you, in his remarks the -other day, that instead of the Book of Mormon being opposed to this -principle, it contains an express provision for the revelation of the -principle to us as a people at some future time--namely that when the -Lord should desire to raise up unto Himself a righteous seed, He would -command His people to that effect. Plainly setting forth that a time -would come when He would command His people to do so. - -It is necessary that this principle should be practised under the -auspices and control of the priesthood. God has placed that priesthood -in the Church to govern and control all the affairs thereof, and this -is a principle which, if not practised in the greatest holiness and -purity, might lead men into great sin, therefore the priesthood is -the more necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this -principle. There might be circumstances and situations in which it -would not be wisdom in the mind of God for his people to practise -this principle, but so long as a people are guided by the priesthood -and revelations of God there is no danger of evil arising therefrom. -If we, as a people, had attempted to practise this principle without -revelation, it is likely that we should have been led into grievous -sins and the condemnation of God would have rested upon us; but the -Church waited until the proper time came, and then the people practised -it according to the mind and will of God, making a sacrifice of their -own feelings in so doing. But the history of the world goes to prove -that the practice of this principle even by nations ignorant of the -gospel has resulted in greater good to them than the practice of -monogamy or the one-wife system in the so-called Christian nations. -To-day, Christendom holds itself and its institutions aloft as a -pattern for all men to follow. If you travel throughout the United -States and through the nations of Europe in which Christianity -prevails, and talk with the people about their institutions, they -will boast of them as being the most permanent, indestructible and -progressive of any institutions existing upon the earth; yet it is a -fact well known to historians, that the Christian nations of Europe are -the youngest nations on the globe. Where are the nations which have -existed from time immemorial? They are not to be found in Christian -monogamic Europe, but in Asia, among the polygamic races--China, -Japan, Hindostan and the various races of that vast continent. Those -nations, from the most remote times, practised plural marriage handed -down to them by their forefathers. Although they are looked upon by -the nations of Europe as semi-civilized, you will not find among them, -woman prostituted, debased and degraded as she is through Christendom. -She may be treated coldly, and degraded, but among them, except where -the Christian element to a large extent prevails, she is not debased -and polluted as she is among the so-called Christian nations. It is a -fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have -record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences, and war-like -instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She -was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system -early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook -her. The strongest sayings of Jesus, recorded in the New Testament, -were levelled against the dreadful corruptions practised in Rome and -wherever the Romans held sway. The leaven of their institutions had -worked its way into the Jewish nation, Jewry or Palestine being then a -Roman province, and governed by Roman officers, who brought with them -their wicked institutions, and Jesus denounced the practices which -prevailed there. - -A few years before the birth of the Savior, Julius Caesar was First -Consul at Rome; he aimed at and obtained imperial power. He had four -wives during his life and committed numerous adulteries. His first -wife he married early; but, becoming ambitious, the alliance did not -suit him, and, as the Roman law did not permit him to retain her -and to marry another, he put her away. He then married the daughter -of a consul, thinking to advance his interests thereby. She died, -and a third was married. The third was divorced, and he married a -fourth, with whom he was living at the time he was murdered. His -grand-nephew, the Emperor Augustus Caesar, reigned at the time of the -birth of Christ. He is alluded to in history as one of the greatest of -the Caesars; he also had four wives. He divorced one after another, -except the last, who out-lived him. These men were not singular in -this practice; it was common in Rome; the Romans did not believe -in plurality of wives, but in divorcing them; in taking wives for -convenience and putting them away when they got tired of them. In our -country divorces are increasing, yet Roman-like, men expect purity -and chastity from their wives they do not practise themselves. You -recollect, doubtless, the famous answer of Caesar when his wife was -accused of an intrigue with an infamous man. Some one asked Caesar why -he had put away his wife. Said he, "The wife of Caesar must not only -be incorrupt but unsuspected." He could not bear to have the virtue of -his wife even suspected, yet his own life was infamous in the extreme. -He was a seducer, adulterer and is reported to have practised even a -worse crime, yet he expected his wife to possess a virtue which, in his -highest and holiest moments, was utterly beyond his conception in his -own life. - -This leaven was spreading itself over every country where the Roman -Empire had jurisdiction. It had reached Palestine in the days of the -Savior, hence by understanding the practices prevalent in those times -amongst that people, you will be better able to appreciate the strong -language used by Jesus against putting away, or divorcing wives. Rome -continued to practise corruption until she fell beneath the weight -of it, and was overwhelmed, not by another monogamic race, but by -the vigorous polygamic hordes from the north, who swept away Roman -imperialism, establishing in the place thereof institutions of their -own. But they speedily fell into the same habit of having one wife and -multitudes of courtesans, and soon, like Rome, fell beneath their own -corruptions. - -When courtesans were taught every accomplishment and honored with the -society of the leading men of the nation, and wives were deprived of -these privileges, is it any wonder that Rome should fall? or that the -more pure, or barbarous nations, as they were called, overwhelmed and -destroyed her? - -I have had it quoted to me many times that no great nations ever -practised plural marriage. They who make such an assertion are utterly -ignorant of history. What nations have left the deepest impress on the -history of our race? Those which have practised plurality of marriage. -They have prevented the dreadful crime of prostitution by allowing men -to have more wives than one. I know we are dazzled by the glory of -Christendom; we are dazzled with the glory of our own age. Like every -generation that has preceded it, the present generation thinks it is -the wisest and best, and nearer to God than any which has preceded it. -This is natural; it is a weakness of human nature. This is the case -with nations as well as generations. China, to-day, calls all western -nations "outside barbarians." Japan, Hindostan and all other polygamic -nations do the same, and in very many respects they have as much right -to say that of monogamic nations, as the latter have to say it of them. - -I heard a traveller remark a few days ago, while in conversation with -him, "I have travelled through Asia Minor and Turkey, and I have -blushed many times when contrasting the practices and institutions of -those people with those of my own country," the United States. He is a -gentleman with whom I had a discussion some years ago on the principle -of plural marriage. He has traveled a good deal since then, and he -remarked to me: "Travel enlarges a man's head and his heart. I have -learned a great many things since we had a discussion together, and -I have modified my views and opinions very materially with regard to -the excellence of the institutions, habits and morals which prevail in -Christendom." This gentleman told me that among those nations, which -we call semi-civilized, there are no drinking saloons, no brothels, -nor drunkenness, and an entire absence of many other evils which exist -in our own nation. I think this testimony, coming from a man who, -previously, had such strong prejudices, was very valuable. He is not -the only one who has borne this testimony, but all reliable travelers, -who have lived in Oriental nations, vouch for the absence of those -monstrous evils which flourish in and fatten and fester upon the vitals -of all civilized or Christian nations. - -In speaking of Utah and this peculiar practice amongst its people it -is frequently said, "Look at the Turks and other Oriental nations and -see how women are degraded and debased among them, and deprived of many -privileges which they enjoy among us!" But if it be true that woman -does not occupy her true position among those nations, is this not more -attributable to their rejection of the gospel than to their practice -of having a plurality of wives? Whatever her condition may be there, -however, I do not therefore accept, as a necessary conclusion, that -she must be degraded among us. We have received the gospel of the Lord -Jesus, the principles of which elevate all who honor them, and will -impart to our sisters every blessing necessary to make them noble and -good in the presence of God and man. - -Look at the efforts which are being made to elevate the sex among the -Latter-day Saints! See the privileges that are given them, and listen -to the teachings imparted to them day by day, week by week, and year by -year, to encourage them to press forward in the march of improvement! -The elevation of the sex must follow as a result of these instructions. -The practice in the world is to select a few of the sex and to elevate -them. There is no country in the world, probably, where women are -idolized to the extent they are in the United States. But is the entire -sex in the United States thus honored and respected? No; it is not. -Any person who will travel, and observe while he is travelling, will -find that thousands of women are degraded and treated as something very -vile, and are terribly debased in consequence of the practices of men -towards them. But the gospel of Jesus, and the revelations which God -has given unto us concerning Patriarchal Marriage have a tendency to -elevate the entire sex, and give all the privilege of being honored -matrons and respected wives. There are no refuse among us--no class to -be cast out, scorned and condemned; but every woman who chooses, can -be an honored wife and move in society in the enjoyment of every right -which woman should enjoy to make her the equal of man as far as she can -be his equal. - -This is the result of the revelations of the gospel unto us, and the -effect of the preaching and practice of this principle in our midst. -I know, however, that there are those who shrink from this, who feel -their hearts rebel against the principle, because of the equality which -it bestows on the sex. They would like to be the honored few--the -aristocrats of society as it were, while their sisters might perish on -every hand around them. They would not, if they could, extend their -hands to save their sisters from a life of degradation. This is wrong -and a thing which God is displeased at. He has revealed this principle -and commanded His servants to take wives. What for? That they may -obey his great command--a command by which Eternity is peopled, a -command by which Abraham's seed shall become as the stars of heaven for -multitude, and as the sand on the sea shore that cannot be counted. He -has given to us this command, and shall we, the sterner sex, submit to -all the difficulties and trials entailed in carrying it out? Shall we -submit to all the afflictions and labor incident to this life to save -our sisters, while many of you who are of the same sex, whose hearts -ought to beat for their salvation as strongly as ours do, will not -help us? I leave you all to answer. There is a day of reckoning coming -when you will be held accountable as well as we. Every woman in this -Church should join heart and hand in this great work, which has for its -result, the redemption of the sexes, both male and female. No woman -should slacken her hand or withhold her influence, but every one should -seek by prayer and faith unto God for the strength and grace necessary -to enable her to do so. "But," says one, "is not this a trial, and does -it not inflict upon us unnecessary trials?" There are afflictions and -trials connected with this principle. It is necessary there should be. -Is there any law that God reveals unattended with a trial of some kind? -Think of the time, you who are adults, and were born in the nations, -when you joined the Church! Think of the trials connected with your -espousal of the gospel. Did it not try you to go forth and be baptized? -Did it not try you, when called upon to gather, to leave your homes -and nearest and dearest friend, as many of you have done? Did it not -try you to do a great many things you have been required to do in the -gospel? Every law of the gospel has a trial connected with it, and -the higher the law the greater the trial; and as we ascend nearer and -nearer to the Lord our God we shall have greater trials to contend -with in purifying ourselves before Him. He has helped us this far. He -has helped us to conquer our selfish feelings, and when our sisters -seek unto Him He helps them to overcome their feelings; He gives them -strength to overcome their selfishness and jealousy. There is not a -woman under the sound of my voice to-day, but can bear witness of this -if she has tried it. You, sisters, whose husbands have taken other -wives, can you not bear testimony that the principle has purified your -hearts, made you less selfish, brought you nearer to God and given you -power you never had before? There are hundreds within the sound of my -voice to day, both men and women, who can testify that this has been -the effect that the practice of this principle has had upon them. - -I am speaking now of what are called the spiritual benefits arising -from the righteous practice of this principle. I am sure that through -the practice of this principle, we shall have a purer community, a -community more experienced, less selfish and with a higher knowledge of -human nature than any other on the face of the earth. It has already -had this effect to a great extent, and its effects in these directions -will increase as the practice of the principle becomes more general. - -A lady visitor remarked to me not long ago, in speaking upon this -subject: "Were I a man, I should feel differently probably to what -I do; to your sex the institution cannot be so objectionable." This -may be the case to some extent, but the practice of this principle is -by no means without its trials for the males. The difficulties and -perplexities connected with the care of a numerous family, to a man who -has any ambition, are so great that nothing short of the revelations -of God or the command of Jesus Christ, would tempt men to enter this -order; the mere increase of facilities to gratify the lower passions -of our natures would be no inducement to assume such an increase of -grave responsibilities. These desires have been implanted in both -male and female for a wise purpose, but their immoderate and illegal -gratification is a source of evil equal to that system of repression -prevalent in the world, to which thousands must submit or criminate -themselves. - -Just think, in the single State of Massachusetts, at the last census, -there were 63,011 females more than males. Brother Pratt, in his -remarks on this subject, truly remarked that the law of Massachusetts -makes these 63,011 females either old maids or prostitutes, for that -law says they shall not marry a man who has a wife. Think of this! And -the same is true to a greater or less degree throughout all the older -States, for the females preponderate in every one. - -Thus far I have referred only to the necessity and benefit of this -principle being practised in a moral point of view. I have said -nothing about the physiological side of the question. This is one of -if not the strongest sources of argument in its favor; but I do not -propose to enter into that branch of the subject to any great extent -on the present occasion. We are all, both men and women, physiologists -enough to know that the procreative powers of man endure much longer -than those of woman. Granting, as some assert, that an equal number -of the sexes exist, what would this lead to? Man must practise that -which is vile and low or submit to a system of repression; because if -he be married to a woman who is physically incapable, he must either -do himself violence or what is far worse, he must have recourse to -the dreadful and damning practice of having illegal connection with -women, or become altogether like the beasts. Do you not see that if -these things were introduced among our society they would be pregnant -with the worst results? The greatest conceivable evils would result -therefrom! How dreadful are the consequences of this system of which I -am now speaking, as witnessed at the present time throughout all the -nations of Christendom! You may see them on every hand. Yet the attempt -is being continually made to bring us to the same standard, and to -compel us to share the same evils. - -When the principle of plurality of wives was revealed I was but a -boy. When reflecting on the subject of the sealing power which was -then being taught, the case of Jacob, who had four wives, occurred to -me, and I immediately concluded that the time would come when light -connected with this practice would be revealed to us as a people. I -was therefore prepared for the principle when it was revealed, and I -know it is true on the principle that I know that baptism, the laying -on of hands, the gathering, and everything connected with the gospel -is true. If there were no books in existence, if the revelation itself -were blotted out, and there was nothing written in its favor, extant -among men, still I could bear testimony for myself that I know this -is a principle which, if practised in purity and virtue, as it should -be, will result in the exaltation and benefit of the human family; and -that it will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of -the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning. I -believe the correct practice of this principle will redeem woman from -the effects of that curse--namely, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, -and he shall rule over thee." All the evils connected with jealousy -have their origin in this. It is natural for woman to cleave to man; it -was pronounced upon her in the beginning, seemingly as a punishment. -I believe the time will come when, by the practise of the virtuous -principles which God has revealed, woman will be emancipated from that -punishment and that feeling. Will she cease to love man? No, it is not -necessary for her to cease to love. - -How is it among the nations of the earth? Why, women, in their yearning -after the other sex and in their desire for maternity, will do anything -to gratify that instinct of their nature, and yield to anything and be -dishonored even rather than not gratify it; and in consequence of that -which has been pronounced upon them, they are not held accountable to -the same extent that men are. Man is strong, he is the head of woman, -and God will hold him responsible for the use of the influence he -exercises over the opposite sex. Hence we were told by Brother Pratt -that there are degrees of glory, and that the faithful man may receive -the power of God--the greatest He has ever bestowed upon man--namely, -the power of procreation. It is a god-like power, but how it is -abused! How men debase themselves and the other sex by its unlawful -and improper exercise! We were told there is a glory to which alone -that power will be accorded in the life to come. Still there will be -millions of women saved in the kingdom of God, while men, through -the abuse of this precious gift, will not be counted worthy of such -a privilege. And this very punishment will, in the end, be woman's -salvation, because she is not held accountable to the same degree that -men are. - -This is a subject that we should all do well to reflect upon. There are -many points connected with the question physiologically, that might -be dwelt upon with great advantage. I have heard it said, and seen -it printed, that the children born here under this system are not so -smart as others; that their eyes lack lustre and that they are dull -in intellect; and many strangers, especially ladies, when arriving -here, are anxious to see the children, having read accounts which have -led them to expect that most of the children born here are deficient. -But the testimony of Professor Park, the principal of the University -of Deseret, and of other leading teachers of the young here, is that -they never saw children with a greater aptitude for the acquisition -of knowledge than the children raised in this Territory. There are no -brighter children to be found in the world than those born in this -Territory. Under the system of Patriarchal Marriage, the offspring, -besides being equally as bright and brighter intellectually, are much -more healthy and strong. Need I go into particulars to prove this? To -you who are married there is no necessity of doing so; you know what I -mean. You all know that many women are sent to the grave prematurely -through the evil they have to endure from their husbands during -pregnancy and lactation, and their children often sustain irremediable -injury. - -Another good effect of the institution here is that you may travel -throughout our entire Territory, and virtue prevails. Our young live -virtuously until they marry. But how is it under the monogamic system? -Temptations are numerous on every hand and young men fall a prey to -vice. An eminent medical professor in New York recently declared, while -delivering a lecture to his class in one of the colleges there, that if -he wanted a man twenty-five years of age, free from a certain disease, -he would not know where to find him. What a terrible statement to make! -In this community no such thing exists. Our boys grow up in purity, -honoring and respecting virtue; our girls do the same, and the great -mass of them are pure. There may be impurities. We are human, and it -would not be consistent with our knowledge of human nature to say that -we are entirely pure, but we are the most pure of any people within the -confines of the Republic. We have fewer unvirtuous boys and girls in -our midst than any other community within the range of my knowledge. -Both sexes grow up in vigor, health and purity. - -These, my brethren and sisters, are some of the results which I wanted -to allude to in connection with this subject. Much more might be said. -There is not a man or woman who has listened to me to-day, but he and -she have thoughts, reasons and arguments to sustain this principle -passing through their minds which I have not touched upon, or, if -touched upon at all, in a very hasty manner. - -The question arises, What is going to be done with this institution? -Will it be overcome? The conclusion arrived at long ago is that it is -God and the people for it. God has revealed it, He must sustain it, -we can not; we cannot bear it off, He must. I know that Napoleon said -Providence was on the side of the heaviest artillery, and many men -think that God is on the side of the strongest party. The Midianites -probably thought so when Gideon fell upon them with three hundred men. -Sennacherib and the Assyrians thought so when they came down in their -might to blot out Israel. But God is mighty; God will prevail; God will -sustain that which he has revealed, and He will uphold and strengthen -His servants and bear off His people. We need not be afflicted by a -doubt; a shadow of doubt need not cross our minds as to the result. We -know that God can sustain us: He has borne off His people in triumph -thus far and will continue to do so. - -I did intend, when I got up, to say something in relation to the -effects of the priesthood; but as the time is so far gone, I feel that -if I say anything it must be very brief. But in connection with the -subject of plural marriage, the priesthood is intimately interwoven. -It is the priesthood which produces the peace, harmony, good order, -and everything which make us as a people peculiar, and for which our -Territory has become remarkable. It is that principle--the priesthood, -which governs the heavenly hosts. God and Jesus rule through this -power, and through it we are made, so for as we have received it and -rendered obedience to its mandates, like our Heavenly Father and God. -He is our Father and our God. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus -Christ; He is the Father of all the inhabitants of the earth, and we -inherit His divinity, if we choose to seek for and cultivate it. We -inherit His attributes; we can, by taking the proper course, inherit -the priesthood by which He exercises control; by which the heavenly -orbs in the immensity of space are governed, and by which the earth -revolves in its seasons. It is the Holy Priesthood that controls all -the creations of the Gods, and though men fight against it, and, if -they could, would blot it out of existence, it will prevail and go -on increasing in power and strength until the sceptre of Jesus is -acknowledged by all, and the earth is redeemed and sanctified. - -That this day may be brought about speedily, is my prayer in the name -of Jesus, Amen. - - - -Transcriber's Note: - -Some obvious typographical errors have been corrected as seemed reasonable. -Throughout the source text practice is spelled as both "practice" and -"practise." This inconsistency has been preserved in this electronic -edition. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Bible and Polygamy, by -Orson Pratt and J. P. Newman and George A. Smith and George Q. Cannon - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BIBLE AND POLYGAMY *** - -***** This file should be named 51140.txt or 51140.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/1/1/4/51140/ - -Produced by the Mormon Texts Project -(http://mormontextsproject.org), with thanks to Christopher -Dunn for proofreading. - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/51140.zip b/old/51140.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index e4df696..0000000 --- a/old/51140.zip +++ /dev/null |
