,,the ,,bible ,,polygamy4 ,,does ,,the ,,bible ,,sanction ,,polygamy8 ,a ,,discussion ,,between ,,professor ,,orson ,,pratt1 ,one of the ,twelve ,apostles of the ,church of ,jesus ,christ of ,latter-day ,saints1 ,,and ,,rev4 ,,doctor ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman1 ,chaplain of the ,united ,states ,senate1 ,,in ,,the ,,new ,,tabernacle1 ,,salt ,,lake ,,city1 ,august #ab1 #ac1 and #ad1 #ahgj4 ,,to ,,which ,,is ,,added ,,three ,,sermons ,,on ,,the ,,same ,,subject1 ,,by ,,prest4 ,,george ,a4 ,,smith1 ,,and ,,elders ,,orson ,,pratt ,,and ,,george ,q4 ,,cannon1 ,,salt ,,lake ,,city1 ,,utah1 #ahgd4 ,,correspondence ,,between ,,reverend ,,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman1 ,pastor of the ,metropolitan ,methodist ,church1 ,washington1 ,d4 ,c41 ,,and ,,brigham ,,young1 ,president of the ,church of ,jesus ,christ of ,latter-day ,saints4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,aug4 #fth1 #ahgj4 ,,to ,,president ,,brigham ,,young3 ,sir3--,in acceptance of the challenge given in your journal1 ,the ,salt ,lake ,daily ,telegraph1 of the #crd of ,may last1 to discuss the question1 ,does the ,bible sanction polygamy8 ,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 question1 under such regulations as may be agreed upon for said discussion2 and ,i suggest for our mutual convenience that1 either by yourself or by two gentlemen whom you shall designate1 you may meet two gentlemen whom ,i will select for the purpose of making all necessary arrangements for the debate1 with as little delay as possible4 ,may ,i hope for a reply at your earliest convenience1 and at least not later than #c o'clock to-day8 ,respectfully1 etc41 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,u4 ,t41 ,aug4 #fth1 #ahgj4 ,,rev4 ,,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman3 ,sir3--,yours of even date has just been received1 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 ,telegraph1 and this is the first information ,i have received that any such challenge ever appeared4 ,you have been mis-informed with regard to the ,salt ,lake ,daily ,telegraph2 it was not my journal1 but was owned and edited by ,dr4 ,fuller1 of ,chicago1 who was not a member of our church1 and ,i was not acquainted with its columns4 ,respectfully1 ,,brigham ,,young4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,aug4 #f1 #ahgj4 ,,to ,,president ,,brigham ,,young3 ,sir3--,i confess my disappointment at the contents of your note in reply to mine of this date4 ,in the far ,east it is impossible to distinguish the local relations between yourself and those papers which advocate the interests of your ,church2 and when the copy of the ,telegraph containing the article of the #crd of ,may last1 reached ,washington1 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 polygamy4 ,had ,i chosen to put a different construction on that article1 and to take no further notice of it1 you could then have adopted the ,telegraph as your organ and the said article as a challenge1 which ,i either could not or dared not accept4 ,that ,i am justified in this construction is clear from the following facts3 #a4 ,the article in the ,telegraph1 of ,may #crd1 contains these expressions1 alluding to my sermon as reported in the ,n4 ,y4 ,herald1 it says3 ,the discourse was a lengthened argument to prove that the ,bible does not sustain polygamy4 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ,the sermon should have been delivered in the ,new ,tabernacle in this city1 with ten thousand ,mormons to listen to it1 and then ,elder ,orson ,pratt1 or some prominent ,mormon1 should have had a hearing on the other side and the people been allowed to decide4 99 99 99 99 99 ,dr4 ,newman1 by his very sermon1 recognizes the religious element of the question4 99 99 99 99 ,let us have a fair contest of peaceful argument and let the best side win4 99 99 99 ,we will publish their notices in the ,telegraph1 report their discourses as far as possible1 use every influence in our power1 if any is needed1 to secure them the biggest halls and crowded congregations1 and we are satisfied that every opportunity will be given them to conduct a campaign4 ,we base this last remark on a statement made last ,sunday week in the ,tabernacle by ,president ,geo4 ,a4 ,smith1 that the public halls throughout the ,territory have been and would be open to clergymen of other denominations coming to ,utah to preach4 99 99 99 ,come on and convert them by the peaceful influences of the ,bible instead of using the means now proposed4 ,convince them by reason and ,scriptural argument and no ,cullom ,bill will be required4 #b4 ,i understand the article containing the above expressions1 was written by ,elder ,sloan1 of the ,mormon ,church1 and at that time associate editor of the ,telegraph2 and that he was1 and has since been1 in constant intercourse with yourself4 ,the expressions of the said article1 as above cited1 were the foundation of the impression throughout the country1 that a challenge had thus been given through the columns of the ,telegraph1 and as such1 ,i myself1 had no alternative but so to regard and accept it4 ,i may add that ,i am informed that an impression prevailed here in ,utah1 that a challenge had been given and accepted4 ,under this impression ,i have acted from that day to this1 having myself both spoken of and seen allusions to the anticipated discussion in several prominent papers of the country4 #c4 ,it was not till after my arrival in your city last evening1 in pursuance of this impression1 that ,i learned the fact that the same ,elder ,sloan1 in the issue of the ,salt ,lake ,herald1 of ,aug4 #crd1 attempts for the first time to disabuse the public of the idea so generally prevalent4 ,still acting in good faith and knowing that you had never denied or recalled the challenge of the #crd of ,may1 ,i informed you of my presence in your city and of the object of my visit here4 ,my note this morning with your reply1 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 country1 that such a challenge had been given and that such a discussion would be held4 ,feeling that ,i have now fully discharged my share of the responsibility in the case1 it only remains for me to subscribe myself1 as before1 ,respectfully1 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,aug4 #f1 #ahgj4 ,,rev4 ,,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman3 ,sir3--,it will be a pleasure to us1 if you will address our congregation to-morrow morning1 the #gth inst41 in the small ,tabernacle at #aj a4 m41 or1 should you prefer it1 in the ,new ,tabernacle at #b p4 m41 same inst41 or both morning and evening4 ,respectfully1 ,,brigham ,,young4 ,p4 ,s4 ,i hope to hear from you immediately4 ,b4 ,y4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,aug4 #f1 #ahgj1 ,eight o'clock1 ,p4,m4 ,,to ,,president ,,brigham ,,young3 ,sir3--,in reply to your note just received to preach in the ,tabernacle to-morrow1 ,i have to say that after disclaiming and declining1 as you have done to-day1 the discussion which ,i came here to hold1 other arrangements to speak in the city were accepted by me1 which will preclude my compliance with your invitation4 ,respectfully1 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,u4 ,t41 ,aug4 #f1 #ahgj4 ,,rev4 ,,dr4 ,,newman3 ,sir3--,in accordance with our usual custom of tendering clergymen of every denomination1 passing through our city1 the opportunity of preaching in our tabernacles of worship1 ,i sent you1 this afternoon1 an invitation tendering you the use of the small ,tabernacle in the morning1 or the ,new ,tabernacle in the afternoon1 or both1 at your pleasure1 which you have seen proper to decline4 ,you charge me with disclaiming and declining the discussion which you came here to hold4 ,i ask you1 sir1 what right have you to charge me with declining a challenge which ,i never gave you1 or1 to assume as a challenge from me1 the writing of any unauthorized newspaper editor8 ,admitting that you could distort the article in question to be a challenge from me1 7which ,i do not believe you conscientiously could7 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 thing8 ,and certainly much more so before making your false charges4 ,your assertion that if you had not chosen to construe the article in question as a challenge from me1 ,i could then have adopted the ',telegraph' as your my organ and the said article as a challenge1 is an insinuation1 in my judgment1 very discreditable to yourself1 and ungentlemanly in the extreme1 and forces the conclusion that the author of it would not scruple to make use of such a subterfuge himself4 ,you say that ,mr4 ,sloan is the author of the article2 if so1 he is perfectly capable of defending it1 and ,i have no doubt you will find him equally willing to do so2 or ,professor ,orson ,pratt1 whose name1 it appears1 is the only one suggested in the article4 ,i am confident he would be willing to meet you1 as would hundreds of our elders1 whose fitness and respectability ,i would consider beyond question4 ,in conclusion ,i will ask1 ,what must be the opinion of every candid1 reflecting mind1 who views the facts as they appear8 ,will they not conclude that this distortion of the truth in accusing me of disclaiming and declining a challenge1 which ,i never even contemplated1 is unfair and ungentlemanly in the extreme and must have been invented with some sinister motive8 ,will they not consider it a paltry and insignificant attempt1 on your part1 to gain notoriety1 regardless of the truth8 ,this you may succeed in obtaining2 but ,i am free to confess1 as my opinion1 that you will find such notoriety more unenviable than profitable1 and as disgraceful1 too1 as it is unworthy of your profession4 ,if you think you are capable of proving the doctrine of ,plurality of ,wives unscriptural1 tarry here as a missionary2 we will furnish you the suitable place1 the congregation1 and plenty of our elders1 any of whom will discuss with you on that or any other scriptural doctrine4 ,respectfully1 ,,brigham ,,young4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,aug4 #hth1 #ahgj4 ,,to ,,president ,,brigham ,,young4 ,sir3--,your last note1 delivered to me on ,sunday morning1 and to which1 of course1 ,i would not on that day reply1 does not at all surprise me4 ,it will be1 however1 impossible for you to conceal from the public the truth1 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 polygamy1 you declined to enter into any arrangements for such a discussion2 and after this fact was ascertained1 ,i felt at liberty to comply with a subsequent request from other parties1 which had been fully arranged before the reception of your note of invitation to preach in your ,tabernacles4 ,i must frankly say that ,i regard your professed courtesy1 extended under the circumstances1 as it was1 a mere device to cover1 if possible1 your unwillingness to have a fair discussion of the matter in question in the hearing of your people4 ,your comments upon disclaiming and declining the discussion are simply a reiteration of the disclaimer2 while1 in regard to your notice of my construction of the article in the ,telegraph of ,may last1 ,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 affair4 ,your intimation that ,elder ,sloan1 ,prof4 ,pratt1 or hundreds of other ,mormon elders1 would be willing to discuss the question of ,polygamy with me from a ,bible standpoint1 and your impertinent suggestion that ,i tarry here as a missionary for that purpose1 ,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 had1 by your own action1 been rendered impossible4 ,as to the elders you speak of1 including yourself1 being ready to meet me in public debate1 ,i have to say that ,i came here with that understanding and expectation1 but it was rudely dispelled1 on being definitely tested4 ,were it possible to reduce these vague suggestions of yours to something like a distinct proposition for a debate1 there is still nothing in your action1 so far1 to assure me of your sincerity1 but1 on the contrary1 every thing to cause me to distrust it4 ,i have one more point of remark4 ,you have insinuated that my motive is a thirst for notoriety4 ,i can assure you that if ,i had been animated by such a motive1 you give me small credit for good sense by supposing that ,i would employ such means4 ,neither you1 nor the system of which you are the head1 could afford me any notoriety to be desired4 ,but1 to show how far ,i have been governed by merely personal aspirations1 let the simple history of the case be recalled4 ,you send your ,delegate to ,congress who1 in the ,house of ,representatives1 and in sight and hearing of the whole ,nation1 throws down the gauntlet upon the subject of ,polygamy as treated in the ,bible4 ,being ,chaplain of the ,american ,senate1 and having been consulted by several public men1 ,i deemed it my duty to preach upon the subject4 ,the discourse was published in tho ,new ,york ,herald1 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 you1 or some one whom you should appoint1 here in your tabernacle4 ,acting upon this presumption1 ,i visit your city1 taking the earliest opportunity to inform you1 as the head of the ,mormon ,church1 of my purpose1 and suggesting the steps usual in such cases4 ,you then reply1 ignoring the whole subject1 but without a hint of your pleasure about my preaching in the ,tabernacle4 ,subsequently other arrangements were made which precluded my accepting any invitation to speak in your places of worship4 ,the day passed away1 and after sunset ,i received your note of invitation1 my reply to which will answer for itself4 ,and this can intimate is an attempt on my part to obtain an unenviable notoriety4 ,sir1 ,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 employ4 ,respectfully1 etc41 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman4 ----- ,the communication referred to in the letter below was addressed to ,dr4 ,newman by five persons1 who asked him whether it was a fact that he was unwilling to debate the question of polygamy now and here1 as that was the impression1 they say1 the ,deseret ,evening ,news and ,salt ,lake ,herald1 conveyed4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,aug4 #ith1 #ahgj4 ,,to ,,mr4 ,,brigham ,,young3 ,sir3--,in view of the inclosed communications1 received from several citizens of this place asking whether ,i am ready now and here to debate the question ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 with you1 as the ,chief of the ,church of ,latter-day ,saints1 and in view of the defiant tone of your ,church journals of last evening and this morning2 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 question1 but having received no such intimation up to this time of writing1 therefore1 ,i do now and here challenge you to meet me in personal and public debate on the aforesaid question4 ,i respectfully suggest that you appoint two gentlemen to meet ,rev4 ,dr4 ,sunderland and ,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,taggart1 who represent me1 to make all necessary arrangements for the discussion4 ,be kind enough to favor me with an immediate reply4 ,respectfully1 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman4 ,residence of ,rev4 ,mr4 ,pierce4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,u4 ,t41 ,august #ith1 #ahgj4 ,,rev4 ,,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman3 ,sir3--,your communication of to-day's date1 with accompanying enclosure1 was handed to me a few moments since by ,mr4 ,black4 ,in reply1 ,i will say that ,i accept the challenge to debate the question ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,professor ,orson ,pratt or ,hon4 ,john ,taylor acting as my representative1 and in my stead in the discussion4 ,i will furnish the place of holding the meetings1 and appoint two gentlemen to meet ,messrs4 ,sunderland and ,taggart1 to whom you refer as your representatives1 to make the necessary arrangements4 ,i wish the discussion to be conducted in a mild1 peaceable1 quiet spirit1 that the people may receive light and intelligence and all be benefitted2 and then let the congregation decide for themselves4 ,respectfully1 ,,brigham ,,young4 ----- ,city1 ,aug4 #ith1 #ahgj ,,rev4 ,,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman3 ,sir3--,i have appointed ,messrs ,a4 ,carrington and ,jos4 ,w4 ,young to meet with ,messrs ,sunderland and ,taggart1 to arrange preliminaries for the discussion4 ,respectfully1 ,,brigham ,,young4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,aug4 #ith1 #ahgj4 ,,to ,,mr4 ,,brigham ,,young3 ,sir3--,i challenged you to a discussion and not ,orson ,pratt or ,john ,taylor4 ,you have declined to debate personally with me4 ,let the public distinctly understand this fact1 whatever may have been your reasons for so declining4 ,here ,i think ,i might reasonably rest the case4 ,however1 if ,orson ,pratt is prepared to take the affirmative of the question1 ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,i am prepared to take the negative1 and ,messrs4 ,sunderland and ,taggart will meet ,messrs4 ,carrington and ,young to-night at #h o'clock at the office of ,mr4 ,taggart to make the necessary arrangements4 ,respectfully1 etc41 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman4 ----- ,salt ,lake ,city1 ,u4 ,t41 ,aug4 #ajth1 #ahgj4 ,,rev4 ,,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman3 ,sir3--,i am informed by ,messrs4 ,carrington and ,young that at their meeting last evening with ,drs4 ,sunderland and ,taggart they were unable to come to a decision with regard to the wording of the subject of debate4 ,bearing in mind the following facts3 ,firstly1 that you are the challenging party4 ,secondly1 ,that in a sermon delivered by you in the city of ,washington1 before ,president ,grant and his ,cabinet1 ,members of ,congress and many other prominent gentlemen1 you assumed to prove that ,god's law condemns the union in marriage of more than two persons1 it certainly seems strange that your representatives should persistently refuse to have any other question discussed than the one ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,it appears to the representatives of ,mr4 ,pratt that if ,dr4 ,newman could undertake to prove in ,washington that ,god's law condemns the union in marriage of more than two persons1 he ought not to refuse to make the same affirmation in ,salt ,lake ,city4 ,mr4 ,pratt1 ,i discover1 entertains the same opinion1 but rather than permit the discussion to fall1 he will not press for your original proposition1 but will accept the question as you now state it3 ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,i sincerely trust that none of the gentlemen forming the committee will encumber the discussion with unnecessary regulations1 which will be irksome to both parties and unproductive of good1 and that no obstacles will be thrown in the way of having a free and fair discussion4 ,respectfully1 ,,brigham ,,young4 ,,the ,,bible ,,and ,,polygamy4 ,,does ,,the ,,bible ,,sanction ,,polygamy8 ,,discussion ,,between ,,professor ,,orson ,,pratt ,,and ,,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,,newman1 ,,chaplain ,,of ,,the ,u4 ,s4 ,,senate1 ,,in ,,the ,,new ,,tabernacle1 ,,salt ,,lake ,,city1 ,,august #ab1 #ac ,,and #ad1 #ahgj4 ,,first ,,day4 ,at two o'clock yesterday afternoon ,professor ,pratt and ,dr4 ,newman1 with their friends and the umpires1 met in the stand of the ,new ,tabernacle3 the two former gentlemen prepared for the discussion of the question1 ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,an audience of three or four thousand--at least half of which was of the gentler sex--assembled to hear the discussion4 ,at a few minutes past two1 the audience was called to order by ,judge ,c4 ,m4 ,hawley1 the umpire of ,dr4 ,newman1 on the negative1 he 7fortunately we presume7 being absent from his district at this juncture--and ,elder ,john ,taylor offered the opening prayer4 ,the same umpire1 who somehow or other had got the idea that he was the master of ceremonies on the occasion1 and that he would relieve the umpire of the affirmative side from all his duties1 then introduced ,professor ,pratt to the audience1 which1 as the professor was so well known and the umpire almost unknown1 created a slight titter1 which1 however1 speedily subsided1 and the assemblage listened quietly to the ,,argument ,,of ,,professor ,,orson ,,pratt4 ,i appear before this audience to discuss a subject that is certainly important to us1 and no doubt is interesting to the country at large1 namely3 the subject of plurality of wives1 or1 as the question is stated3 ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,i would state1 by way of apology to the audience1 that ,i have been unaccustomed1 nearly all my life1 to debate4 ,it is something new to me4 ,i do not recollect of ever having held more than one or two debates1 in the course of my life1 on any subject4 ,i think the last one was some thirty years ago1 in the city of ,edinburgh4 ,but ,i feel great pleasure this afternoon in appearing before this audience for the purpose of examining the question under discussion4 ,i shall simply read what is stated in the ,bible1 and make such remarks as ,i may consider proper upon the occasion4 ,i will call your attention to a passage which will be found in ,deuteronomy1 the #bast ,chapter1 from the #aeth to the #agth verse3 ,if a man have two wives1 one beloved and another hated1 and they have borne him children1 both the beloved and the hated2 and if the first-born be hers that was hated3 ,then it shall be when1 he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath1 that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated1 which is indeed the first-born3 ,but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born1 by giving him a double portion of all that he hath2 for he is the beginning of his strength2 the right of the first-born is his4 ,here is a law1 in the words of the ,great ,law-giver himself1 the ,lord1 who spake to ,moses2 and it certainly must be a sanction of a plurality of wives1 for it is given to regulate inheritances in families of that description1 as well as in families wherein the first wife may have been divorced1 or may be dead2 wives contemporary and wives that are successive4 ,it refers to both classes2 and inasmuch as plurality of wives is nowhere condemned in the law of ,god1 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 wife4 ,this is the ground we are forced to take until we can find some law1 some evidence1 some testimony to the contrary4 ,they are acknowledged as wives in this passage1 at least--,if a man have two wives4 ,it is well known that the ,house of ,israel at that time practised both monogamy and polygamy4 ,they were not exclusively monogamists2 neither were they exclusively polygamists4 ,there were monogamic families existing in ,israel in those days1 and therefore in the ,lord giving this ,he referred not only to successive wives1 where a man had married after the death of his first wife1 or if the first wife had been divorced for some legal cause1 but to wives who were contemporary1 as there were many families in ,israel1 which can be proved if necessary1 that were polygamists4 ,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 law4 ,this seems to have been given to regulate a question that had a prior existence4 ,i will refer1 before ,i proceed from this passage1 to the monogamic family of ,isaac1 wherein we have the declaration that ,esau and ,jacob1 being twins1 had a dispute1 or at least there was an ill feeling on the part of ,esau1 because ,jacob at a certain time had purchased the right of the first-born--that is1 his birth-right4 ,the first-born1 though twins1 and perhaps a few moments intervening between the first and second1 or only a short time1 had rights1 and those rights were respected and honored centuries before the days of ,moses4 ,this was a monogamic family1 so far as we are informed2 for if ,isaac had more than one wife1 the ,bible does not inform us4 ,we come to ,jacob1 who was a polygamist1 and whose first-born son pertained to the father and not to the mother4 ,there were not four first-born sons to ,jacob who were entitled to the rights of the first-born1 but only one4 ,the first-born to ,jacob was ,reuben1 and he would have retained the birth-right had he not transgressed the law of heaven4 ,because of transgression he lost that privilege4 ,it was taken from him and given to ,joseph1 or rather to the two sons of ,joseph1 as you will find recorded in the fifth chapter of #ast ,chronicles4 ,here then the rights of the first-born were acknowledged1 in both polygamic and monogamic families1 before the law under consideration was given4 ,the ,house of ,israel was not only founded in polygamy1 but the two wives of ,jacob1 and the two handmaidens1 that were also called his wives1 were the women with whom he begat the twelve sons from whom the twelve tribes of ,israel sprang2 and polygamy having existed and originated as it were with ,israel or ,jacob1 in that nation1 was continued among them from generation to generation down until the coming of ,christ2 and these laws therefore were intended to regulate an institution already in existence4 ,if the law is limited to monogamic families only1 it will devolve upon my learned opponent to bring forth evidence to establish this point4 ,we will next refer to a passage which will be found in ,exodus #bast chapter1 #ajth verse4 ,it may be well to read the three preceding verses1 commencing with the #gth3 ,and if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant1 she shall not go out as the men servants do4 ,if she please not her master1 who hath betrothed her to himself1 then shall he let her be redeemed2 to sell her into a strange nation he shall have no power1 seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her4 ,and if he hath betrothed her unto his son1 he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters4 ,if he take him another wife1 her food1 her raiment and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish4 ,also the following verse1 the #aath3 ,and if he do not these three unto her1 then shall she go out free without money4 ,i think from the nature of this passage that it certainly does have reference to two lawful wives4 ,it may be that objection will be taken to the word wife--another wife--from the fact that it is in ,italics1 and was so placed by the translators of ,king ,james1 according to the best judgment they could form1 taking into consideration the text4 ,i do not intend at present to dwell at any great length upon this passage1 merely declaring that this does sanction plurality of wives1 so far as my judgment and opinion are concerned1 and so far as the literal reading of the ,scripture exhibits it does sanction the taking of another wife1 while the first is still living4 ,if this word wife could be translated woman1 that perhaps might alter the case1 providing it can be proved that it should be so from the original1 which may be referred to on this point1 and it may not4 ,we have the privilege1 ,i believe1 of taking the ,bible according to ,king ,james' translation1 or of referring to the original1 providing we can find any original4 ,but so far as the original is concerned1 from which this was translated1 it is not in existence4 ,the last information we have of the original manuscripts from which this was translated1 is that they were made into the form of kites and used for amusement1 instead of being preserved4 ,with regard to a great many other manuscripts1 they may perhaps agree with the original of ,king ,james' translation1 or they may not4 ,we have testimony and evidence in the ,encyclopedia ,metropolitana that the original manuscripts contained a vast number of readings1 differing materially one from the other4 ,we have this statement from some of the best informed men1 and in several instances it has been stated that there are #cj1jjj different readings of these old original manuscripts from which the ,bible was translated4 ,men might dispute over these readings all the days of their lives and there would be a difference of opinion1 there were so many of them4 ,this1 then1 is another law1 regulating1 in my estimation1 polygamy4 ,i will now refer to another law on the subject of polygamy1 in the #beth chapter of ,deuteronomy--,i do not recollect the verse1 but ,i will soon find it--it commences at the #eth verse4 ,if brethren dwell together--,now1 it is well enough in reading this1 to refer to the margin1 as we have the privilege of appealing to it1 so you will find in the margin the words next kinsmen1 or brethren4 ,if brethren--or next kinsmen--dwell together3 ,if brethren dwell together1 and one of them die1 and have no child1 the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger3 her husband's brother shall go in unto her1 and take her to him to wife1 and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her4 ,and it shall be1 that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead1 that his name be not put out of ,israel4 ,and if the man like not to take his brother's wife1 then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders1 and say1 ,my husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in ,israel1 he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother4 ,then the elders of his city shall call him1 and speak unto him3 and if he stand to it1 and say1 ,i like not to take her2 ,then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders1 and loose his shoe from off his foot1 and spit in his face1 and shall answer and say1 ,so shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house4 ,and his name shall be called in ,israel1 the house of him that hath his shoe loosed4 ,it may be asked1 ,what has this to do with polygamy8 ,i answer that as the law is general1 it is binding upon brethren and upon all near kinsmen dwelling together4 ,not unmarried brethren or unmarried kinsmen1 but the married and unmarried4 ,the law is general4 ,if it can be proved from the original1 or from any source whatever1 that the law is not general1 then the point will have to be given up4 ,but if that cannot be proven1 then here is a law that not only sanctions polygamy1 but commands it2 and if we can find one law where a command is given1 then plurality of wives would be established on a permanent footing1 equal in legality to that of monogamy4 ,this law of ,god absolutely does command all persons1 whether married or unmarried1 it makes no difference--brethren dwelling together1 or near kinsmen dwelling together--which shows that it is not unmarried persons living in the same house that are meant1 but persons living together in the same neighborhood1 in the same country in ,israel1 as it is well known that ,israel in ancient days did so dwell together2 and the law was binding upon them4 ,this was calculated to make a vast number of polygamists in ,israel from that day until the coming of ,christ4 ,and the ,christian religion must have admitted these polygamists into the ,church1 because they would have been condemned if they had not observed this law4 ,there was a penalty attached to it1 and they could not be justified and refuse to obey it4 ,hence there must have been hundreds1 perhaps thousands1 of polygamists in ,israel1 when ,jesus came1 who were living in obedience to this law and who would have been condemned if they had disobeyed it4 ,when the gospel was preached to them1 if they could not have been admitted into the ,christian ,church without divorcing their wives ,god would have been unjust to them1 for if they1 through their obedience to ,god's law1 should have been cut off from the gospel1 would it not have been both inconsistent and unjust8 ,but as there is no law either in the ,old or ,new ,testament against polygamy1 and as we here find polygamy commanded1 we must come to the conclusion that it is a legal form of marriage4 ,we cannot come to any other conclusion1 for it stands on a par with the monogamic form of marriage2 consequently1 wherever we find either righteous men or wicked men1 whatever may be their practices in the course of their lives1 it does not affect the legality of their marriage with one wife or with two wives4 ,we may refer you to ,cain1 who had but one wife1 so far as we are informed4 ,he was a monogamist4 ,he was also a very wicked man1 having killed his own brother4 ,we find he was driven out into the land of ,nod4 ,of course1 as the ,lord had not created any females in the land of ,nod1 ,cain must have taken his wife with him1 and there was born a son to him in that land4 ,shall we condemn monogamy and say it was sinful because ,cain was a murderer8 ,no2 that will never do4 ,we can bring no argument of this kind to destroy monogamy1 or the one-wife system1 and make it illegal4 ,we come down to the days of ,lamech4 ,he was another murderer4 ,he happened to be a polygamist2 but he did not commit his murder in connection with polygamy1 so far as the ,scriptures give any information4 ,there is no connection between the law of polygamy and the murder he committed in slaying a young man4 ,does that1 therefore1 invalidate the marriage of two persons to ,lamech8 ,no2 it stands on just as good ground as the case of ,cain1 who was a monogamist and a murderer also4 ,adam was a monogamist4 ,but was there any law given to ,adam to prevent him taking another wife8 ,if there was such a law1 it is not recorded in ,king ,james' translation4 ,if there be such a law recorded1 perhaps it is in some of the originals that differed so much from each other4 ,it may be argued1 in the case of ,adam1 that the ,lord created but one woman to begin the peopling of this earth4 ,if the ,lord saw proper to create but one woman for that purpose1 he had a perfect right to do so4 ,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 indeed4 ,there are a great many historical facts recorded concerning the days of ,adam that were not to be examples to his posterity4 ,for instance1 he was ordered to cultivate the garden of ,eden--one garden4 ,was that any reason why his posterity should not cultivate two gardens8 ,would any one draw the conclusion that1 because ,god gave a command to ,adam to cultivate the garden of ,eden1 to dress it and keep it1 that his posterity to the latest time should all have one garden each1 and no more8 ,there is no expression of a law in these matters2 they are simply historical facts4 ,again1 ,god gave him clothing on a certain occasion1 the ,lord himself being the tailor--clothing to cover the nakedness of ,adam and of ,eve his wife2 and this clothing was made from the skins of beasts4 ,this is a historical fact4 ,will any one say that all the posterity of ,adam shall confine their practice in accordance with this historical fact8 ,or that it was an expression of law from which they must not deviate8 ,by no means4 ,if the posterity of ,adam see fit to manufacture clothing out of wool1 or flax1 or cotton1 or any other material whatever1 would any one argue in this day that they were acting in violation of the law of the ,divine ,creator1 of a law expressed and commanded in the early ages8 ,why1 no4 ,we should think a man had lost all powers of reason who would argue this way4 ,as our delegate remarked in his speech1 ,adam had taken all the women in the world1 or that were made for him4 ,if there had been more1 he might have taken them3 there was nothing in the law to limit him4 ,i would like to dwell upon this longer1 but ,i have many other passages to which ,i wish to draw your attention4 ,the next passage to which ,i will refer1 you will find in ,numbers1 #cast chapter1 #agth and #ahth verses4 ,this chapter gives us a history of the proceedings of this mixed race of polygamists and monogamists called ,israel4 ,at a certain time they went out to battle against the nation of ,midianites2 and having smote the men1 they took all the women captives1 as you will find in the #ith verse4 ,commencing at the #aeth verse1 we read3 ,and ,moses said unto them have ye saved all the women alive8 ,behold these caused the children of ,israel1 through the counsel of ,balaam1 to commit trespass against the ,lord in the matter of ,peor1 and there was a plague among the congregation of the ,lord4 ,you will recollect the case of some ,midianitish women being brought into the camp of ,israel contrary to the law of ,god1 not being wives2 and ,israel with them sinned and transgressed the law of heaven1 and the ,lord sent an awful plague into their midst for this transgression4 ,now1 here was a large number of women saved1 and ,moses1 finding they were brought into camp1 said these had caused the children of ,israel to sin2 and he gave command3 ,now1 therefore1 kill every male among the little ones1 and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him4 ,but all the women children1 that have not known man by lying with him1 keep alive for yourselves4 ,how many were there of this great company that they were to keep alive for themselves8 ,there was something very strange in this4 ,if they had caused ,israel to sin why spare them8 ,or why keep them alive for themselves8 ,that they might have them lawfully4 ,some may say to have them as servants1 not as wives4 ,some might have been kept as servants and not as wives1 but would there not have been great danger of ,israel sinning again with so many thousand servants1 as they were the same women who had brought the plague into the camp of ,israel before8 ,how many were there of these women8 ,thirty-two thousand1 as you will find in another verse of the same chapter4 ,and these were divided up as you will also find1 in the latter part of the same chapter1 among the children of ,israel4 ,those who stayed at home from the war took a certain portion--sixteen thousand in number2 those who went to the war1 including the ,levites1 took the remaining sixteen thousand4 ,now to show that polygamy was practised among the children of ,israel in taking captive women1 let me refer you to another passage of ,scripture1 in ,deuteronomy1 #bast chapter1 commencing at the #ajth verse4 ,when thou goest forth to war against thine enemies1 and the ,lord thy ,god hath delivered them into thine hands1 and thou hast taken them captive2 ,and seest among the captives a beautiful woman1 and hast a desire unto her1 that thou wouldst have her to thy wife2 ,then thou shalt bring her home to thine house2 and she shall shave her head1 and pare her nails2 ,and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her1 and shall remain in thine house1 and bewail her father and her mother a full month3 and after that thou shalt go in unto her1 and be her husband1 and she shall be thy wife4 ,and it shall be4 ,if thou have no delight in her1 then thou shalt let her go whither she will2 but thou shalt not sell her at all for money1 thou shalt not make merchandise of her1 because thou hast humbled her4 ,now1 this law was given to a nation1 as ,i have already shown1 which practised polygamy as well as monogamy2 and consequently if a polygamist saw a woman1 a beautiful woman1 among the captives2 or if a monogamist saw a beautiful woman among the captives2 or if an unmarried man saw a beautiful woman among the captives1 the law being general1 they had an equal right to take them as wives4 ,this will explain the reason why the ,lord told ,israel to save thirty-two thousand ,midianitish women alive for themselves4 ,it will be recollected that the ,israelites had a surplus of women4 ,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 years1 until ,moses went to deliver ,israel from ,egypt4 ,during this time females were spared alive1 making a surplus of them in the midst of ,israel2 but the ,lord saw there was not enough1 and ,he made provision for more by commanding them to spare these captive women and keep them alive for themselves4 ,if my opponent1 who will follow me1 can bring forth any evidence from the law of ,god1 or from the passage under consideration1 to prove that this law was limited to unmarried men1 all right2 we will yield the point1 if there can be evidence brought forward to that effect4 ,when you go forth to war if you see a beautiful woman--not you unmarried men alone1 but all that go forth to war4 ,the next passage to which ,i will refer you1 where ,god absolutely commands polygamy1 will be found in ,exodus1 #bbnd chapter1 #afth and #agth verses3 ,and if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed1 and lie with her1 he shall surely endow her to be his wife4 ,if her father utterly refuse to give her unto him1 he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins4 ,there is the law of ,exodus2 now let us turn to the law of ,deuteronomy1 #bbnd chapter1 #bhth and #bith verses1 on the same subject3 ,if a man find a damsel that is a virgin1 which is not betrothed1 and lay hold on her1 and lie with her1 and they be found2 ,then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver1 and she shall be his wife2 because he hath humbled her1 he may not put her away all his days4 ,does this mean an unmarried man8 ,the law was given to a nation wherein both forms of marriage were recognized1 and wherein single men existed4 ,if it does mean single men alone1 we would like to hear the proof4 ,the law is general4 ,whether married or unmarried1 whether a monogamist or polygamist1 if he committed this crime1 if he found a maid and committed the crime there specified1 of seduction1 there is the law2 he shall marry her1 and shall not only marry her1 but shall pay a fine of fifty shekels of silver to the father4 ,this was the penalty2 not that they were justified in the act4 ,it mattered not whether he was a polygamist1 a monogamist1 or an unmarried man1 he must comply with the law as a penalty4 ,that was another command establishing and sanctioning polygamy1 sanctioning it by ,divine command4 ,if this law could have been put in force in modern times1 among modern ,christian nations1 what a vast amount of evil would have been avoided in the earth4 ,it is proverbial that among all the nations of modern ,europe1 as well as in our own great nation--,christian nations--there is a vast amount of prostitution1 houses of ill-lame1 and prostitutes of various forms2 now1 if this law1 which ,god gave to ,israel1 had been re-enacted by the law-makers and legislatures and parliaments of these various nations1 what would have been the consequence8 ,in a very short time there would not have been a house of ill-fame in existence4 ,their inmates would have all been married off to their seducers1 or their patrons2 for who does not know that females would far rather be married than prostitute themselves as they do at the present time8 ,and they would lie in wait to entrap this man and that man1 and the other man1 to get out of these brothels1 and1 as the law is general1 if the same law had existed in our day1 it would soon have broken up houses of ill-fame4 ,there might have been some secret evils2 but it would have broken up the social evil4 ,the next passage to which ,i will refer you is in #bnd ,chronicles1 #bdth chapter1 #bnd1 #crd1 #aeth and #ahth verses3 ,and ,joash did that which was right in the sight of the ,lord all the days of ,jehoiada the priest4 ,and ,jehoiada took for him two wives1 and he begat sons and daughters4 ,according to the ideas of monogamists1 ,jehoiada must have been a very wicked man1 and ,joash a beastly polygamist for taking two wives4 ,we will take the man who received the wives first4 ,joash1 who received the wives from the highest authority ,god had on the earth1 did right in the sight of the ,lord1 all the days of ,jehoiada the priest4 ,what6 ,did he do right when ,jehoiada took two wives for him and gave them to him8 ,yes2 so says the word of ,god1 the ,bible1 and you know the question is ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,but what a dreadful priest that man must have been1 according to the arguments of monogamists6 ,let us see what kind of a character he appears4 ,in this same chapter1 #bhth verse1 if ,i recollect aright3 7looking74 ,no1 in the #aeth and #afth verses we read3 ,but ,jehoiada waxed old1 and was full of days when he died2 a hundred and thirty years old was he when he died4 ,and they buried him in the city of ,david among the kings1 because he had done good in ,israel1 both toward ,god1 and toward his house4 ,because he had done good in ,israel1 both toward ,god and towards his house1 they buried him among the kings1 honored him in that manner2 and the reason why they did bestow this great honor upon him was because he had done good4 ,in the first place he had given two wives to ,joash1 which was a very good act1 for he was the highest authority ,god had upon the earth at that time2 and ,god sanctioned polygamy by lengthening out the age of this man to #acj years1 a very long age in those days4 ,but ,i shall have to hasten on1 although there are many passages which ,i have not time to quote4 ,the next will be found in ,hosea1 #ast chapter1 #bnd and #crd verses3 ,the beginning of the word of the ,lord by ,hosea4 ,this was the introduction of ,hosea as a prophet4 ,no doubt he brought the evidence as a prophet2 and in the beginning of the word of ,god through ,hosea1 to the world1 he must have come with great proof4 ,the first thing the ,lord said to him1 was ,go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms4 ,in the #crd verse it says3 ,so he went and took ,gomer1 the daughter of ,diblain4 ,if such a thing had occurred in our day2 if a man had come forth1 professing to be a prophet1 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 character1 what would be thought of him8 ,yet he was a true prophet4 ,was this the only wife ,god commanded ,hosea to take8 ,no4 ,the ,lord said--,go yet1 love a woman beloved of her friends1 yet an adulteress--,see chapter #crd4 ,what1 love a woman1 an adulteress1 when he already had a wife of very bad character6 ,take wives of such disgraceful reputation6 ,yet ,god commanded this1 and he must be obeyed4 ,this did not justify any other prophet in doing so4 ,jeremiah would not have been justified in doing the same4 ,but this was a command of ,god1 given to ,hosea alone4 ,it was not given as a pattern for any other man to follow after1 or for the people of this generation to observe4 ,yet it was given in this instance4 ,but1 inquires one1 does not the ,lord require such characters to be put to death8 ,yes2 but in this instance1 it seems1 the ,lord deviated from this law2 for ,he commanded a holy prophet to go and marry two women4 ,this recalls to my mind the law given to ,israel1 recorded in ,deuteronomy1 where the ,lord commanded the law of consanguinity to be broken4 ,you will recollect that in two different chapters the ,lord pointed out who should not marry within certain degrees of consanguinity2 yet in the #beth chapter of ,deuteronomy he commanded brethren1 who dwell together1 and near kinsmen1 to break that law1 which was a justification in part to not regard the law of consanguinity4 ,god has the right to alter his commands as he pleases4 ,go back to the days of ,noah1 and the command was given3 ,whoso sheddeth man's blood1 by man shall his blood be shed2 yet the same ,god commanded ,abraham1 that good man who is up yonder in the kingdom of ,god1 according to the ,new ,testament1 to take his son ,isaac and slay him and offer him up as a burnt offering4 ,here is one command in opposition to another4 ,consequently1 ,god does sometimes give a command in opposition to another1 but they are not examples for you or me to follow4 ,supposing ,i should prove by ten thousand examples from the ,bible that polygamy was practised in ancient ,israel1 is that a reason why you and ,i should practise it4 ,no2 we must have a command for ourselves4 ,god sometimes repeats a command4 ,the ,latter-day ,saints in this ,territory practise polygamy2 not because ,god commanded it in ancient times1 not because ,moses gave laws to regulate it2 not because it was practised by good men of ancient times-- 7,at this point the umpires said the time was up47 ,judge ,c4 ,m4 ,hawley then introduced ,dr4 ,j4 ,p4 ,newman1 who proceeded to deliver the following ,,argument4 ,honorable ,umpires and ,ladies and ,gentlemen3 ,the question for our consideration is ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,it is of the utmost importance that we proceed to the discussion of this question and the unfolding of its elements at once2 and therefore1 that we lose no time1 we propose to analyze the question4 ,i had desired nine hours to speak on this great subject2 but by mutual consent the time has been reduced to three4 ,in view of this fact ,i1 therefore1 proceed at once to the consideration of the elements of the question ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,every word is emphatic4 ,does the ,bible--the ,bible--,god's word1 whether in the original text or in the translation which is accepted by ,christendom1 as the revealed will of ,god2 this old book which has come down from the hoary past2 this old book written by different men1 under different circumstances1 yet for one great and grand object2 this book that comes to us under the authority of plenary inspiration1 no matter what has become of the manuscripts1 whether lost in the flood or consumed in the flame that burned the doomed ,persepolis1 no matter what has been their destiny1 we have the original1 the ,hebrew1 the ,septuagint and the ,greek translations2 in the ,new ,testament the ,greek1 which have been and are accepted by the most eminent ,biblical scholars2 therefore the point the gentleman makes that so many manuscripts are lost1 is a bagatelle4 ,i throw it away1 as useless as a rush4 ,would he have me infer that because some manuscripts are lost1 therefore that book is not the authentic word of ,god and the revealed will of ,high ,heaven8 ,no2 for him to assume that is to assume that that book is not ,god's will4 ,supposing that the original revelation1 the pretended revelation1 that you1 here1 were to practise polygamy1 was consumed in the flames by the wife of ,joseph ,smith1 does that invalidate the preserved copy which ,mr4 ,joseph ,smith had in his bosom8 ,certainly not4 ,i hold therefore that that old book comes to us with authority2 and that whatever has become of the manuscripts which have been furnished1 formed1 arranged and handed down to us1 that is our standard4 ,i am here to speak to the people1 and ,i will be an organ to you in the name of the ,lord4 ,but let us look at this book4 ,it is a book of history and of biography1 of prophecy and precepts2 of promises and of miracles2 of laws and precepts2 of promises and threatenings2 of poetry and of narrative4 ,it is to be judged by the ordinary rules of grammar1 of rhetoric and of logic4 ,it is written in human language4 ,there is a language spoken by the persons in the ,godhead1 and had ,god revealed himself in that language we could not have understood the terms4 ,there is a language spoken by the angels that blaze before the throne2 had ,god spoken to us in angelic language we could not have understood the terms4 ,but he took human language1 with all its poverty and imperfections1 and with all its excellencies4 ,he has spoken to us in terms by which we can understand his pleasure concerning us4 ,but it is a great fact1 my friends1 that all that is written in the ,bible is neither approved by the ,almighty1 nor was it written for our imitation4 ,achan stole a ,babylonish garment and a wedge of gold4 ,god did not approve the theft1 nor are those acts recorded in the ,bible for our imitation4 ,we are to read ,bible history as we read ,xenophon1 ,tacitus1 and ,herodotus1 and1 in modern times1 ,hume1 ,gibbon and ,bancroft1 with this distinction--when we take down ,herodotus1 ,tacitus1 or others ,i have not mentioned1 we are not always sure that what we read is true1 but we are sure that what is recorded in the ,bible is true1 whether it be prophetic truth1 mandatory truth or historic truth4 ,we should therefore make a distinction1 according to the kind of composition we are reading4 ,if we are reading history1 read it as history1 and make a distinction between what is simply recorded as part and parcel of the record of a great nation1 or part and parcel of the record or biography of some eminent man1 and that which is recorded there for our imitation1 for which we shall have to give an account at ,god's bar4 ,so take the poetry of the ,bible4 ,scriptural poetry is subject to the same rules as the poetry in ,homer1 ,virgil1 ,milton or ,young1 with this exception--that the poetry of the ,bible is used to convey a grand thought1 and there is no redundancy of thought or imagery in ,bible poetry4 ,we come to biography1 and to my mind it is a sublime fact1 and one for which ,i thank ,god1 that the inspired writers were impartial in recording biographical history4 ,they recorded the virtues and the vices of men2 they did not disguise the faults even of their eminent friends1 nor did they always stop to pronounce condemnation upon such2 but they recorded one and the other1 just as they came along the stream of time4 ,it is this book1 therefore1 that is my standard in this discussion1 and it is composed of the ,old and ,new ,testament4 ,the ,new ,testament holds the relation to the ,old ,testament of a commentary1 in a prominent sense4 ,christ comes along and gives an exposition of the law of ,moses2 comes and gives an exposition of some of those grand principles which underlie ,christianity3 and then his references to the law of ,moses simply prove this--that what ,moses has said is true4 ,take his exposition of the ,ten ,commandments1 as they were given amid the thunders of ,mount ,sinai1 and you find that he has written a commentary on the ,decalogue1 bringing out its hidden meaning1 showing to us that the man is an adulterer who not only marries more women than one1 but who looks on a woman with salacial lust4 ,such is the commentary on the law1 by the ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,now does this book1 the ,old ,testament and the ,new8 ,not what revelation has been made to the ,latter-day ,saints2 that is not to be brought into this controversy2 that is not the question in dispute4 ,whether ,joseph ,smith or any other member of the ,church of ,latter-day ,saints has had a revelation from ,god2 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 controversy4 ,neither the ,mormon ,bible1 nor the ,book of ,covenants1 nor the revelations of yesterday or to-day1 or any other day2 but the grand question is1 ,does that old book--read in old ,england1 read in ,wales1 read in ,ireland1 read in ,norway and ,sweden1 and read in this land of liberty--does that book sanction polygamy8 ,we now come to another important word--namely1 does the ,bible sanction8 ,sanction6 ,by the term sanction we mean command1 consequently the authority of positive1 written1 divine law1 or whatever may be reasonably held as equivalent to such law4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that toleration is not sanction4 ,sufferance is not sanction4 ,municipal legislation is not sanction4 ,an historical statement of prevailing customs is not sanction4 ,a faithful narrative of the life and example of eminent men is not sanction4 ,the remission of penalty is not sanction4 ,a providential blessing1 bestowed upon general principles1 for an ulterior purpose1 is not sanction4 ,the only adequate idea of sanction is the divine and positive approbation1 plainly expressed1 either in definite statute or by such forms of conformation as constitute a full and clear equivalent4 ,it is in this sense that we take the term sanction in the question before us4 ,the next word in the question is1 ,does the ,bible sanction ,polygamy8 ,by which we mean1 as it 7the ,bible7 now stands4 ,not as it once was1 but as it now is2 that is1 the ,bible taken as a whole4 ,the question is not1 ,did the ,bible formerly sanction ,polygamy8 ,but rather1 ,does it1 at the present day1 authorize and establish and approve it8 ,just as we may say of the ,constitution of the ,united ,states1 not1 ,did it sanction slavery8 but1 does it now sanction it8 ,for it is a well known principle of jurisprudence that if any thing have been repealed in the supreme law of the land1 which that law once authorized1 then it no longer sanctions the matter in question4 ,it is so here1 precisely2 for let us suppose for a moment that it could be proved that the ,bible once sanctioned polygamy1 in the sense excepted1 and that this sanction has never been withdrawn1 then we are bound to admit that the affirmative has been sustained2 but supposing1 on the other hand1 that the ,bible1 as it is now1 to-day1 does not sanction polygamy1 then we have sustained the negative of the question4 ,there is another word1 and one of importance1 and that is the term polygamy4 ,there are three words in this connection which should be referred to4 ,the first is polygamy1 which is from the the ,greek polus1 and gamos1 the former meaning many1 and the latter marriage and signifies a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time4 ,when a man has more wives than one1 or a woman more husbands than one1 at the same time1 the offender is punishable for polygamy4 ,such is the fact in ,christian countries4 ,polygamy is allowed in some countries1 as in ,turkey4 ,turn to ,webster's ,dictionary1 page #hdd1 and we shall find the word polyandry1 from polus1 many and aner1 man1 meaning the practice of females having more husbands than one at the same time1 or a plurality of husbands4 ,then there is another word--polygyny1 from the ,greek polus1 and gune1 woman or female1 the practice of having more wives than one at the same time4 ,the word1 therefore1 to be used1 is not polygamy1 but polygyny1 for polygamy signifies a man with more wives than one1 or a woman with more husbands than one2 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 one4 ,then the true word is polygyny1 and hereafter we will scout the word polygamy1 and use the true word polygyny4 ,this question involves or supposes two systems of marriage3 ,what is commonly called polygamy and what is known as monogamy4 ,on the one hand a man with more than one wife2 and on the other1 a man with only one wife4 ,you observe therefore that these are two systems essentially and radically different and distinct1 the one from the other1 and especially so in this controversy4 ,the material question to be decided is1 which is the authorized system of marriage1 polygamy1 or a plurality of wives1 or monogamy1 or what it termed the one-wife system8 ,let us glance for a moment at some of the grand features of monogamy2 and we shall thereby see the distinction between the two systems of marriage4 ,take1 for instance1 the design of marriage1 as originally established by the ,almighty in the garden of ,eden1 in the time of man's innocency4 ,that design was three-fold3 companionship1 procreation and prevention4 ,companionship is first3 the soul is more than the body4 ,the union of two loving hearts is more than the union of two bodies4 ,ere ,eve was created or she beheld the rosy sky or breathed its balmy atmosphere1 ,god said1 ,it is not good that man should be alone2 ,i will make for him a helpmeet4 ,the animals had passed in review before ,adam2 but neither among the doves that plumed their pinions in the air of ,paradise2 nor amid the fish of the deep1 the beasts of the field1 nor the reptiles of the earth could a companion be found for man4 ,but a special exertion of divine power had to be put forth that this companion should be made4 ,and how was she made8 ,a deep sleep is caused to come upon the first man4 ,there lies ,adam upon the ambrosial floor of ,paradise1 and out of his side a rib is taken1 and out of that rib woman was created4 ,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 rib8 ,the answer was3 ,he did not make woman out of man's head1 lest she should rule over him2 ,he did not make her out of the bone of man's foot1 lest he should trample upon her2 but ,he made her out of his side1 that she might be near his heart2 from under his arm1 that he might protect her4 ,the grand primary object of marriage1 therefore1 is companionship--the union of two loving hearts4 ,the next design is procreation4 ,it has pleased ,almighty ,god to people the earth by the offspring coming from those united in marriage4 ,this was his wisdom3 this was his plan4 ,it is an old saying that history repeats itself2 and after the flood had swept away the antediluvians1 and after that terrible storm had subsided1 there1 in the ark1 was ,noah and his sons and their wives--four men and four women4 ,if ,almighty ,god sanctioned polygamy in the beginning1 and intended to sanction it afterwards1 why did not ,he save in the ark a dozen wives for ,noah and a dozen for each of his sons8 ,but one wife for ,noah1 and one wife for each of his sons2 and thus the ,almighty repeats history4 ,the next design is prevention--namely to prevent the indiscriminate intercourse of the sexes4 ,god loves chastity in man and in woman1 and therefore he established marriage1 it is a divine institution1 lifting man above the brutes4 ,he would not have man as the male of the brute creation--mingling indiscriminately with the females2 but he establishes an institution holy as the angels--bearing upon its brow the signet of ,his approval1 and sanctioned by the good and great of all ages4 ,he establishes this institution that the lines may be drawn1 and that the chastity of male and female may be preserved4 ,on passing from this question of design1 let us go to the consideration of the very nature of marriage4 ,it is two-fold4 ,it is an institution1 not a law2 it is a state1 not an act2 something that has been originated1 framed1 built up and crowned with glory4 ,it is not an act of mere sexual intercourse1 but it is a state to run parallel with the life of the married pair1 unless the bonds of marriage are sundered by one crime--that is adultery4 ,then consider the grand fact that there are solemn obligations in this institution of marriage4 ,nay1 more than this1 the very essential elements of marriage distinguish it in its monogamic1 from the institution of marriage in its polygamic1 condition4 ,there is choice1 preference of one man for one woman1 and when we come to the question of the census that will demonstrate it clear as the sunlight2 when we come to that question we will prove the equality of the sexes2 we will prove that there is not an excess of marriageable women either in this or any other country4 ,therefore the grand advice of ,paul3 ,let every man have his own wife1 and every woman have her own husband4 ,now1 if the equality of the sexes be a fact1 and every man is to have his own wife1 and every woman her own husband1 then ,i say that this great idea of choice is fully sustained1 of preference on the part of a man1 and also preference on the part of woman4 ,and around this institution ,god has thrown guards to protect it2 indeed1 he has surrounded it with muniments which seem to be as high as heaven2 and whenever the obligations1 or so long as the obligations of marriage are observed1 then these defenses stand impregnable and the gates of hell shall not prevail against marriage4 ,first1 there is its innocency3 the union of a man with his wife1 is an act as pure as the devotion of angels in heaven4 ,then comes the nobleness of marriage3 the bed undefined is honorable in all2 but whoremongers and adulterers will ,god judge4 ,then notice the sanction of divine and human law that surrounds this institution2 the law that was given amid the awful thunderings of ,mount ,sinai is a grand muniment of this monogamic institution4 ,in all civilized ,christian countries civil legislation has extended the arm of the law to protect marriage4 ,then recall the affinities of the sexes2 the natural desire of man for woman2 and the natural desire of woman for man4 ,there may be some exceptions4 ,now and then we find an old bachelor in the world2 but a man without a wife is only half a man4 ,now and then we find a woman in the world who is styled an old maid2 but a woman without a husband is only half a humanity4 ,adam1 in the beginning1 was a perfect humanity1 possessing the strength1 dignity and courage of man1 with the grace1 gentleness and beauty of woman4 ,after ,eve's creation he retained the strength1 dignity and courage2 but lost1 with ,eve1 the grace1 beauty and gentleness2 so that it now takes the union of one man1 with the sterner qualities1 with one woman1 with the gentler graces1 to produce one perfect humanity1 and that is the type of marriage1 as instituted by ,almighty ,god1 and as is approved by ,his divine law4 ,and1 now1 ,i desire to run the parallel between the two systems1 showing how the one is destructive of the other4 ,take1 for instance1 the element1 namely1 the design1 and see how polygamy strikes at the institution of marriage in that regard4 ,i now refer to companionship1 the union of two loving hearts to the exclusion of a third4 ,a man may love three or more friends2 he may love three or more children2 he may love three or more brothers or sisters2 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 person4 ,ah6 what a pleasure it is for a man when away from home to know1 ,i shall soon return to the bosom of my wife1 and my little children will climb upon my knee and lisp the child's welcome at my return4 ,and he hastens from afar to the embraces of that wife4 ,and then what an almost infinity of joy it is on the part of the woman1 whose husband is far away1 to know that he is coming4 ,says she1 ,i will stand in the door-way and will watch his returning footsteps4 ,he is coming to me1 to my embrace1 to my home prepared for him6 ,and with what pride and care the busy housewife arranges for his return6 ,how neat and beautiful everything is6 ,the bouquet of flowers is on the table1 the best viands are spread on the board1 and everything in the house is prepared with the utmost care6 ,but oh6 what a gloom comes down upon the poor woman's soul when she knows that he returns not to her1 but returns to one1 two1 three1 four1 twelve1 twenty1 thirty1 forty1 fifty4 ,then see how the system works against the next design--namely1 procreation4 ,it is a fact that in polygamous countries one sex or the other has preponderance in numbers4 ,some good authorities say the females preponderate1 others say the males4 ,i do not know1 ,i do not care a rush which preponderates3 all that ,i say is this1 that good1 reliable authorities say that in polygamic--mark you1 polygamic countries1 there is a preponderance of one or the other2 while in monogamic nations the great law of equality is brought out4 ,according to some authorities the tendency of polygamy is to make all males2 according to other authorities to make all females2 and if either follow1 then comes the destruction of the race1 and within a hundred years the earth is depopulated and is a howling wilderness4 ,take the influence of polygamy upon what may be properly called the rights of marriage1 and these rights are two-fold3--authority on the part of the man1 and protection on the part of the woman4 ,the man is the head of the family2 the man is the high priest of the family2 the man is the legislator and executive of the family4 ,he is to have reverence from his wife2 she is to obey him2 and ,i never performed the marriage ceremony without including that word when ,i address the woman1 ,wilt thou obey the man8 ,that is ,god's authority1 and every true and loving wife will obey her husband in the ,lord as readily as she obeys the ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,but while man is the legislator and executive2 while he is endowed with authority as his right1 so1 on the other hand1 protection belongs to and is the natural and inalienable right of the woman4 ,see that ivy as it entwines around the oak6 ,that grand old oak has sent down its roots and takes hold of the very foundations of the earth1 and its branches tower up towards the sky4 ,see that ivy how it entwines itself gently1 sweetly and beautifully around the oak8 ,a thing of beauty is a ,joy forever4 ,so woman entwines herself1 the tendrils of her affection go out and they entwine themselves around the man2 and what must be the depth of the depravity to which that man has fallen who ruthlessly tears asunder these gentle tendrils of affection6 ,what the ivy is to the oak1 the woman is to the man2 and it is for man1 in his pride and glory1 in his strength and energy1 with his strong arm to protect her2 and it is woman's right to go to man for protection4 ,but how is it possible under the system of polygamy for these great rights to be preserved8 ,it is true that the man retains his right and authority2 this system augments and multiplies that authority4 ,this system is one of usurpation1 extending a right over the larger number that is not included in ,god's law4 ,but1 on the other hand1 where is the right of woman to protection8 ,a whole soul for a whole soul6 ,a whole body for a whole body1 and a whole life for a whole life6 ,just like the shells of the bivalve2 they correspond with each other6 ,just like the two wings of a bird1 male and female4 ,so precisely this great idea of reciprocity1 mutual affection and reciprocal love is developed in this idea of monogamous marriage4 ,but polygamy1 it seems to me1 strikes down this right of woman2 in other words1 it divides the protecting power of man in proportion to the number of wives he possesses2 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 family4 ,kings1 who can tax a whole people2 kings1 who can build palaces and rear pyramids2 kings1 who can marshal their armies on the banks of the ,rhine and go to war1 may have their harems--their plurality of wives2 but the poor man1 doomed to toil1 with the sweat of labor on his brow1 how is it possible for him to provide for more than one family8 ,yet if the king in his glory has the right to have a plurality of wives1 so also has the poor man1 who is doomed to toil1 the same right2 and ,god ,almighty1 in making this law for a plurality of wives1 if ,he has made it1 which ,i1 of course1 question1 yet1 if ,he has made it1 then ,he has not made provision for the execution of that law2 or1 in other words1 ,he has not made provision for its immunities to be enjoyed by the common people4 ,it is a law exclusively for nabobs1 kings and high priests2 for men in power1 for men possessing wealth1 and not for me1 a poor man1 or for you1 pointing to audience a poor laborer4 ,god ,almighty is just1 and a king is no more before him than a peasant4 ,the meanest of ,his creatures1 as well as the highest1 are all alike unto ,him4 ,i ask you1 therefore1 to-day1 ,would ,he enact a law sanctioning--commanding a plurality of wives1 without making a provision that every man should be in such financial circumstances as to have a plurality of wives and enjoy them8 ,see1 therefore1 how these two systems of marriage are antagonistic one against the other6 ,and1 after hearing this exposition of the nature and the elements and the rights and the muniments of marriage1 it is for you to infer which is the system which ,god ordained in the beginning4 ,my distinguished friend has hastily reviewed many passages of ,scripture1 all of which1 my friends1 ,i shall notice4 ,i will sift them to the bottom4 ,my only regret is that my distinguished friend1 for whose scholarship ,i have regard1 did not deliberately take up one passage and exhaust that passage1 instead of giving us here a passage and there a passage1 simply skimming them over without going to the depths1 and showing their philological relation and their entire practical bearing upon us4 ,when my friend shall give us such an exegesis and analysis1 whether he quotes ,hebrew1 ,greek or ,latin1 ,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 argument4 ,i feel bound1 to-day1 my friends1 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 polygamous4 ,now ,i presume that ,i will pass to the consideration of a few of the salient points which my distinguished friend threw out4 ,let us see in relation to the text he quoted1 ,if brethren dwell together1 though he wanders back1 and it was difficult for me to see what relation the antediluvians1 and what relation old ,adam had to this passage2 but he referred to the antediluvians and to ,adam1 and he also referred to ,lamech4 ,who was ,lamech8 ,he is the first polygamist on record1 the first mentioned in the first two hundred years of the history of the world4 ,he had two wives2 and what else did he have8 ,he had murder in his heart and blood on his hand1 and ,i aver that whoever analyzes the case of ,lamech1 will find that the murder which he committed grew out of his plurality of wives2 in other words1 it grew out of the polygamy which he attempted to introduce into the world4 ,said he to his wives1 ,i have slain a man2 and the inference is that this man had come to claim his rights4 ,my friend says that ,cain was a murderer1 and went down to the land of ,nod2 he don't exactly know the geography1 but it was somewhere4 ,and there he found a woman and married her4 ,now ,i affirm this1 that when ,cain killed his brother ,abel he was not married1 and he didn't go down to the land of ,nod1 then1 therefore the murder he committed didn't grow out of monogamy1 and seems to have had no relation to monogamy2 but it grew out of this fact3 these two brothers came before the ,lord to present their offerings4 ,cain was a deist1 a moralist as we may say1 that is1 he had no sins to repent of4 ,he therefore did not bring the little lamb as a sacrificial offering1 but he came with the first fruits of the earth as a thank offering4 ,he comes before ,god ,almighty and says3 ,i have no sins to atone for1 none at all2 but here1 ,i am conscious that thou hast created me and that ,i am dependent upon thee1 therefore ,i present to thee the first fruits of the soil4 ,abel comes with his thank offering4 ,he brings his lamb and lays it upon the altar1 and that lamb pre-intimated the coming of ,jesus ,christ1 who is the lamb of ,god that taketh away the sins of the world2 and if there is any record that ,abel brought a thank offering1 it is a principle in theology and in scriptural exposition that the whole includes the part1 just as ,saint ,paul says3 ,i beseech you1 by the mercies of ,god1 to present your bodies a living sacrifice to ,god4 ,do you think that he excluded the soul8 ,no1 he speaks of one as including the other4 ,so the offering which ,abel presented was an offering1 sacrificial in its nature1 pointing to ,christ4 ,now1 perhaps by sending down fire from heaven1 or at all events in some significant manner1 ,god recognized the righteousness of ,abel1 and expressed a preference for his offering1 and ,cain was wroth1 and his pride belched forth and he slew his brother4 ,the murder1 therefore1 had no reference1 directly or indirectly1 to marriage1 while the murder which the first polygamist mentioned in history committed grew out of the marriage relation4 ,then my friend goes back to ,adam1 and says our first parents wore clothes made of skins1 and therefore we must wear similar ones4 ,well1 let us see4 ,our first parents were placed in a garden and were driven out of a garden1 therefore we must be placed in a garden and driven out of a garden4 ,the first man was created out of the dust of the earth1 therefore all subsequent men must be created out of the same material4 ,the first woman was created out of man's rib1 therefore all subsequent women must be made so4 ,they would make very nice women1 no doubt about that6 ,such is the logic of my friend6 ,so you may follow on his absurdities4 ,he has failed to make a distinction between what is essential to marriage and what is accidental to marriage2 or in other words1 he has failed to make a distinction between the creation and the fall of man1 and between the institution and characteristics of marriage4 ,one1 therefore1 is surprised at such arguments1 and drawn from such premises6 ,now1 my friends1 that first marriage in the garden of ,eden is the great model for all subsequent marriages3 one man and one woman4 ,my friend says that ,god could have made more if ,he had chosen2 but ,he did not do so1 and it seems to me1 if ,god ,almighty had designed that all us men should be polygamists1 and that polygamy should be the form of marriage1 that in the very beginning ,he would have started right1 that is1 ,he would have made a number of women for the first man4 ,ah6 what a grand sanction that would be2 but instead of that ,he makes one man and one woman1 and says--,for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife1 and they shall be one flesh4 ,this is not merely an historical fact2 were it so ,i think the argument would be with my friend4 ,but as ,i come along the stream of time ,i find this fact referred to as expressing a great law4 ,i hear old ,malachi repeating the same words1 referring to this institution of marriage in the garden of ,eden1 reproving the ,jews for their practice of polygamy1 putting the pungent question to their conscience--,why have ye dealt treacherously with the wife of your youth8--your first wife1 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 live4 ,ah6 that old prophet asks1 why have you dealt thus treacherously with the wife of your youth and the wife of your covenant8 ,god hates this putting away1 says the prophet1 and then he refers to ,eden as a reason for his reproof4 ,the reason is purely monogamous1 and that in the beginning ,god created one woman for one man1 and one man for one woman4 ,when the ,pharisees propounded a question to the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 touching divorce1 he refers to the same grand idea spoken of by the ,prophet ,malachi3 ,have ye not read that in the beginning ,god created them male and female8 ,thus re-enacting1 as it were1 the marriage law2 thus lifting marriage1 which had been stained by polygamy1 from its degradation1 and re-establishing it in its monogamic purity4 ,and then ,st4 ,paul1 corroborating the words of ,jesus1 at this time the umpires said the time was up refers to the marriage in ,eden1 and says1 ,god created them1 male and female1 one flesh4 ,this is the great truth brought out in the ,bible4 ,,second ,,day4 ,after opening with religious exercises ,prof4 ,pratt commenced3 ,ladies and ,gentlemen3 ,we again come before you this afternoon1 being the second session of our discussion1 to examine the question3 ,does the ,bible ,sanction ,polygamy8 ,i will here remark1 that yesterday afternoon ,i occupied one hour upon the subject1 and brought forth numerous evidences from the ,bible to show that polygamy was a divine institution sanctioned by the ,bible1 and sanctioned by the ,almighty1 who gave the laws contained in the ,bible4 ,here let me observe that it is of the utmost importance to clearly understand the point under discussion4 ,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 husbands4 ,hence a new term was introduced by the reverend ,doctor1 who followed me1 namely polygyny1 if ,i recollect the term1 having reference to the plurality of wives4 ,this seems to be the question under discussion3 ,does the ,bible ,sanction ,polygamy8 and as the word polygamy appears to be discarded and scouted1 it would be3 ,does the ,bible ,sanction ,polygyny8 ,perhaps ,i may not have the term aright2 that is1 ,does the ,bible sanction plurality of wives8 ,it was was said by the speaker who followed me1 in relation to the plurality of wives--perhaps ,i had better refer to some of his remarks from print1 lest my memory should not serve me on the occasion4 ,the first remark to which ,i will call your attention is in regard to the original of the ,bible4 ,i admit in this discussion the ,bible called ,king ,james' translation as authority4 ,i admit the ,bible in the original ,hebrew1 if it can be found4 ,of course we have ,hebrew ,bibles at the present day4 ,i hold one in my hand2 that is1 a ,bible in the ,hebrew language4 ,but there is no such thing in existence as the original copies of the ,bible2 neither secondary copies2 and copies that might come in as the hundreth copy1 ,i presume1 cannot be found1 as1 for instance1 of the original law of ,moses1 written on tables of stone4 ,such tables and such original law have not been in existence to our knowledge for the last eighteen hundred years4 ,we cannot refer to them2 we cannot refer to any copies only those that have been multiplied in modern times--that is1 comparatively modern times4 ,and inasmuch as these copies disagree one with the other1 so much so that it is said there are thirty thousand different readings in the various manuscripts and copies1 who is to decide whether this ,hebrew ,bible1 translated from one of a number of manuscripts1 is translated from the original or not8 ,certainly it would not do for me as an individual to set up my judgment in the matter2 nor for any other learned man to set up his judgment4 ,i would far rather take the translation known as ,king ,james'1 made by the able translators chosen in his day2 men of great learning1 who had studied the original languages1 the ,hebrew and the ,greek1 and had become extensively acquainted with manuscripts in existence2 ,i say ,i would far rather take their judgment than one that might be advanced by myself1 or by any other learned man1 however deeply he might be versed in the ,hebrew or ,greek4 ,i do not by these remarks disparage the ,bible1 or set it aside4 ,by no means4 ,i accept it as proof that it was translated by those men who were chosen for the purpose4 ,and hundreds of thousands1 ,i may say scores of millions1 of copies of this ,bible have been circulated among all nations in various languages4 ,they have been sent forth by millions among the inhabitants of the earth for their information4 ,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 polygamy4 ,it was stated in the course of the remarks of the reverend gentleman in relation to polygamy1 or polygyny1 whichever term we feel disposed to choose1 that marriage with more than one woman is considered adultery4 ,i will read one or two of ,mr4 ,newman's sentences3 ,take his exposition--that is the ,savior's--,take his exposition of the ten commandments as they were given amid the thunders of ,mount ,sinai1 and you find he has written a commentary on the ,decalogue1 bringing out its hidden meaning1 showing to us that the man is an adulterer who not only marries more women than one1 but who looks on a woman with salacial lust4 ,such is the commentary on the law by the ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,with part of this ,i agree most perfectly4 ,if a man1 according to the great commentary of our ,savior1 looks upon a woman with a lustful heart and lustful desire1 he commits adultery in his heart1 and is condemned as an adulterer4 ,with the other part ,i do most distinctly disagree4 ,it is merely an assertion of the reverend gentleman4 ,no proof was adduced from the ,new ,testament ,scriptures2 no proof was advanced as the words of the great commentator1 the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 to establish the position that a man who marries more than one woman is an adulterer4 ,if there is such a passage contained within the lids of the ,new ,testament1 it has not come under my observation4 ,it remains to be proved1 therefore4 ,we will now pass on to another item1 that is1 the meaning of the word sanction3 ,does the ,bible sanction polygamy8 ,i am willing to admit the full force and meaning of the word sanction4 ,i am willing to take it in all of its expositions as set forth in ,webster's unabridged edition4 ,i do not feel like shirking from this1 nor from the definition given4 ,let it stand in all its force4 ,the only adequate idea of sanction1 says ,mr4 ,newman1 is a divine and positive approbation1 plainly expressed2 or stated so definitely and by such forms of expression as to make a full and clear equivalent4 ,it is in this way that we take the term sanction in the question before us4 ,admit that it must be expressed in definite terms1 these terms were laid before the congregation yesterday afternoon4 ,from this ,bible1 ,king ,james' translation1 passage after passage was brought forth to prove the divine sanction of polygamy2 direct commands in several instances1 wherein the ,israelites were required to be polygamists2 and in one instance1 especially1 where they were required under the heaviest curse of the ,lord3 ,cursed be he that continueth not in all things written in this book of the law2 and let all the people say ,amen1 was the expression4 ,i say1 under this dreadful curse and the denunciations of the ,almighty1 the people were commanded to be polygamists4 ,did this give authority and sanction to practise that divine institution8 ,it certainly is sanction1 or ,i do not understand the meaning of the word as defined by ,webster1 and the meaning of the arguments presented by my opponent4 ,i waited in vain yesterday afternoon for any rebutting evidence and testimony against this divine sanction4 ,i was ready with my pencil and paper to record anything like such evidence1 any passage from the ,bible to prove that it was not sanctioned4 ,i heard a remarkable sermon1 a wonderful flourish of oratory4 ,it certainly was pleasing to my ears4 ,it fell upon me like the dews of heaven1 as it were1 so far as oratorical power was concerned4 ,but where was the rebutting testimony8 ,what was the evidence brought forth8 ,forty-nine minutes of the time were occupied before it was even referred to2 forty-nine minutes passed away in a flourish of oratory1 without having the proofs in rebuttal and the evidence examined which ,i had adduced4 ,then eleven minutes were left4 ,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 polygamy4 ,but ,i waited in vain4 ,to be sure1 one passage1 and only one that had been cited1 in ,deuteronomy1 was merely referred to2 and then1 without examining the passage and trying to show that it did not command polygamy1 another item that was referred to by myself with regard to ,lamech and ,cain was brought up4 ,instead of an examination of that passage1 until the close of the eleven minutes1 the subject of ,abel's sacrifice and ,cain's sacrifice1 and ,cain's going to the ,land of ,nod and marrying a wife1 and so on1 occupied the time4 ,all these things were examined1 and those testimonies that were brought forth by me were untouched4 ,now1 then1 we will proceed to the fourth1 or rather to the fifth position he took2 that is the first great form of marriage established in the beginning--one woman created for one man4 ,however1 before ,i dwell upon this subject1 let me make a correction with regard to ,cain and ,lamech2 then we will commence on this argument4 ,i did not state yesterday afternoon1 as it was represented by the speaker who followed me1 that ,cain went to the land of ,nod and there married a wife1 for there is no such thing in the ,bible4 ,i stated that ,cain went to the land of ,nod1 after having murdered his brother ,abel4 ,i stated that we were not to suppose that ,god had created any woman in the ,land of ,nod1 and that ,cain took his wife in the land of ,nod4 ,we are not to suppose this2 but we are to suppose that he took his wife with him4 ,he went to and arrived in the land of ,nod1 and begat a child4 ,so says the ,bible4 ,but what has all this to do with regard to the form of marriage8 ,does it prove anything8 ,no4 ,the murder that ,cain committed in slaying his brother ,abel does not prove anything against the monogamic form of marriage1 nor anything in favor of it4 ,it stands as an isolated fact1 showing that a wicked man may be a monogamist4 ,how in regard to ,lamech8 ,lamech1 so far as recorded in the ,bible1 was the first polygamist2 the first on record4 ,there may have been thousands and tens of thousands who were not recorded4 ,there were thousands and tens of thousands of monogamists1 yet1 ,i believe1 we have only three cases recorded from the creation to the flood1 a period of some sixteen hundred years or upwards4 ,the silence of ,scripture1 therefore1 in regard to the number cf polygamists in that day1 is no evidence whatever4 ,but it has been asserted before this congregation that this first case recorded of a polygamist brought in connection with it a murder2 and it has been indicated or inferred that the murder so committed was in defence of polygamy4 ,this ,i deny2 and ,i call upon the gentleman to bring forth one proof from that ,bible1 from the beginning to the end of it1 to prove that murder had anything to do in relation to the polygamic form of marriage of ,lamech4 ,it is true he revealed his crime to his wives1 but the cause of the crime is not stated in the book4 ,what1 then1 had it to do with the divinity of the great institution established called polygamy8 ,nothing at all4 ,it does not condemn polygamy nor justify it1 any more than the murder by ,cain does not condemn the other form of marriage nor justify it4 ,having disposed of these two cases1 let me come to the first monogamist1 ,adam4 ,let us examine his character1 and the character of his wife4 ,lamech slew a young man to his wounding1 a young man to his hurt4 ,that was killing one1 was it not8 ,how many did ,adam kill8 ,all mankind2 murdered the whole human race6 ,how8 by falling in the garden of ,eden4 ,would mankind have died if it had not been for the sin of this monogamist8 ,no4 ,paul says that as in ,adam all die1 so in ,christ shall all be made alive4 ,it was by the transgression of this first monogamist and his monogamic wife1 that all mankind have to undergo the penalty of death4 ,it was the cause1 and ,i presume it will be acknowledged on the part even of monogamists that it was a great crime4 ,what can be compared with it8 ,was ,cain's crime1 or ,lamech's crime to be compared with the crime of bringing death and destruction1 not only upon the people of the early ages1 but upon the whole human race8 ,but what has all that to do with regard to the divinity of marriage8 ,nothing at all4 ,it does not prove one thing or the other4 ,but when arguments of this kind are entered into by the opponents of polygamy1 it is well enough to examine them and see if they will stand the test of scripture1 and sound reason1 of sound argument and sound judgment4 ,moreover1 ,adam was not only guilty of bringing death and destruction upon the whole human race1 but he was the means of introducing fallen humanity into this world of ours4 ,why did ,cain slay ,abel8 ,because he was a descendant of that fallen being4 ,he had come forth from the loins of the man who had brought death into the world4 ,when we look abroad and see all the various crimes1 as well as murder1 that exist on the face of the globe2 when we see mankind committing them2 see all manner of degradation and lust2 see the human family destroying one another1 the question might arise1 ,what has produced all these evils among men8 ,they exist because a monogamic couple transgressed the law of heaven4 ,the learned gentleman referred us to a saying of that great man1 ,martin ,luther1 concerning the relationship that exists between husband and wife4 ,it was a beautiful argument4 ,i have no fault whatever to find with it4 ,and it is just as applicable to polygamy as to monogamy4 ,the answer of ,martin ,luther to the question put to him--,why ,god took the female from the side of man1 is just as appropriate1 just as consistent with the plural form of marriage as it is with the other form4 ,he did not take the woman from the head4 ,why8 ,the argument wad that the man should be the head1 or as ,paul says--,man is the head of the woman1 and that is his position4 ,i believe my learned opponent agrees with me perfectly in this1 so there is no dispute upon this ground4 ,why did not ,he take the woman from the foot8 ,because man is not to tyrannize over his wife1 nor tread her under foot4 ,why did ,he take her from his side8 ,because the rib lies nearest the heart1 showing the position of woman4 ,not only one woman but two women1 five women1 ten women1 twenty women1 forty women1 fifty women1 may all come under the protecting head4 ,jesus says3 ,no man can serve two masters1 because he may love the one and hate the other1 cleave unto the one and turn away from the other2 but it is not so with women under the protecting head4 ,now let us examine polyandry1 for that was referred to yesterday2 and the reverend gentleman could not see why1 if a man has the privilege of taking more wives than one1 a woman should not have the same privilege4 ,if that is expressed in the ,bible we have not found it2 the other is expressed there1 and we have proved it1 and call upon the reverend gentleman to show the opposite4 ,when we come to polyandry1 or the woman having more husbands than one1 there is no sanction for it in the ,scriptures4 ,what is the object of marriage8 ,companionship1 we are told4 ,i agree with the gentleman4 ,another object he says is procreation4 ,i agree with the gentleman also in the second object4 ,another was prevention4 ,here ,i agree with him so far as the argument is carried out in a true light4 ,let us examine the second1 namely procreation4 ,the ,lord instituted marriage--the sacred bond of marriage--for the purpose of multiplying the human species here on the earth4 ,does polyandry assist in the multiplying of the human species1 the woman having four1 or five1 or ten1 or fifty1 or sixty husbands8 ,does it tend to rapidly increase the race8 ,i think monogamists as well as polygamists1 when they reflect1 will say that a woman having more than one husband would destroy her own fruitfulness4 ,even if she did have offspring1 there would be another great difficulty in the way1 the father would be unknown4 ,would it not be so8 ,all knowledge of the father would be lost among the children4 ,is this the case with a plurality of wives8 ,no1 by no means4 ,if a man have fifty wives the knowledge of the father is as distinct as the knowledge of the mother4 ,it is not destroyed1 therefore4 ,the great principle of parentage on the part of the husband1 on the part of the father1 is preserved4 ,therefore it is more consistent1 more reasonable1 first for procreation1 and secondly for obtaining a knowledge of parentage1 that a man should have a plurality of wives than that a woman should have a plurality of husbands4 ,again2 a man with a plurality of wives is capable of raising up a very numerous household4 ,you know what the ,scriptures have said about children3 ,children are the heritage of the ,lord1 and the fruit of the womb is his reward4 ,this being the case1 a faithful1 righteous1 holy man1 who takes1 according to the great1 divine institution of polygamy1 a plurality of wives1 is capable of multiplying his offspring ten or twenty-fold more than he could by one wife4 ,can one wife do this by polyandry8 ,no4 ,here then is a great distinction between the male and the female4 ,look at that great and good and holy man1 called ,gideon in the ,scriptures2 a man to whom the angel of ,god was sent1 and who1 among all the hosts of ,israel was chosen to go forth as the servant of the ,most ,high4 ,for what purpose8 ,to deliver ,israel from their enemies1 the ,midianites and others that had gathered against them4 ,was he a polygamist8 ,yes4 ,he had many wives4 ,he had seventy-two sons4 ,how many daughters he had ,i do not know4 ,could any woman in polyandry conceive or bring forth seventy-two sons and perhaps an equal number of daughters8 ,i do not know but there might be some efficacy in that herb called mandrake1 or in some other miraculous herb that would give power and strength for one woman to bring forth seventy-two sons4 ,who knows1 in a day of wonders like this6 ,but a man has the ability1 a man has the power to beget large families and large households4 ,hence we read of many of the great and notable men who judged ,israel1 that one man had thirty sons--his name was ,jair2 you will find it recorded in the ,judges of ,israel2 and another had thirty sons and thirty daughters2 while another ,judge of ,israel had forty sons4 ,and when we come to the ,gideon we have named1 he had seventy-two4 ,now1 we have nothing to do with the righteousness of these men1 or their unrighteousness1 in this connection4 ,that has nothing to do with the marriage institution4 ,god has established it by divine command4 ,god has given it his own sanction1 whether it be the polygamic or the monogamic form4 ,if ,gideon afterwards fell into idolatry1 as the reverend gentleman may argue1 that has nothing to do with the matter4 ,he had the power to beget seventy-two sons1 showing he had a superior power to that of the female4 ,right here1 ,i may say1 ,god is a consistent ,being2 a ,being who is perfectly consistent1 and who delights in the salvation of the human family4 ,a wicked man may take unto himself a wife1 and raise unto himself a posterity4 ,he may set before that wife and her posterity a very wicked example4 ,he may lead those children by his drunkenness1 by his blasphemy1 by his immoralities1 down to destruction4 ,a righteous man may take fifty wives1 or ten1 as you choose2 and he will bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the ,lord2 he will instruct them in the great principles of righteousness and truth1 and lead them along and bring them up by his example and by his teachings to inherit eternal life at the right hand of ,god1 with those polygamists of ancient times1 ,abraham and ,jacob of old1 who are up yonder in the kingdom of ,god4 ,which of the two is the ,lord most pleased with8 ,the man who has five1 or ten1 or twenty wives1 bringing up his children1 teaching them1 instructing them1 training them so that they may obtain eternal life with the righteous in the ,kingdom of ,god2 or the monogamist that brings up his children in all manner of wickedness1 and finally leads them down to hell8 ,which would you prefer with your limited wisdom when compared with that of the great ,creator8 ,who among you would not prefer to entrust your offspring with your friends instead of your enemies8 ,would not ,god1 therefore1 upon the same principle1 do the same8 ,does ,god delight in the marriages that exist among the wicked8 ,go to the antediluvian race4 ,they married and were given in marriage until the day that ,noah entered into the ark4 ,they were not righteous men nor righteous women2 and their children were taught in the wicked precepts of their fathers1 who committed all manner of wickedness until all flesh had corrupted itself before the ,lord4 ,therefore the ,lord had to destroy those evil workers of iniquity that had received wives1 but did not honor nor regard the ,lord4 ,instead of those marriages consummated before the flood1 the marriages and intermarriages among the sons of ,god and the daughters of men1 being acceptable to the ,most ,high1 ,he was obliged to destroy those that were married and their offspring from the face of the earth4 ,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 life4 ,consequently1 when we examine the subject of polygamy in regard to this matter1 we must acknowledge1 from these scriptures1 and from various other testimonies1 that the marriages of the wicked are not approved by the ,heavens4 ,there are many passages of scripture to support me in what ,i have now said4 ,the ,lord in one place commands the destruction of a people1 parents and children1 lest they should fill the world with cities1 lest all the world should be filled with people who had married contrary to ,his law4 ,no person can pretend that a marriage consummated between an unrighteous man and an unrighteous woman1 is a marriage in which ,god has joined the parties together4 ,you might as well take the ordinance of baptism1 and say that ,simon ,magus1 when he went forward and was baptized1 had complied with the ordinance of ,heaven1 while he yet remained in a condition of hardened sinfulness2 and that because he had passed through the outward observance of the ordinance it was acceptable in the sight of ,heaven4 ,god never had anything to do with the marriages of the wicked only to permit them1 perhaps for a wise purpose1 as he permitted ,joseph to be sold into ,egypt by his brethren4 ,he permitted the deed for his own wise purposes1 but ,he did not justify the instruments who did the deed4 ,so he permits these unauthorized marriages between wicked men and wicked women1 to perpetuate the human race1 because they will not hearken to ,him1 until the time shall come when he can have a pure people who will obey his laws1 educating their posterity to honor and serve him4 ,he permits1 but ,he does not sanction such marriages4 ,if we should argue with the reverend gentleman that the census shows an equality of males and females1 this argument that ,i have now advanced will rebut the idea thus sought to be established4 ,the idea is that because there may be made to appear an equality in numbers1 therefore1 every man must be confined to one wife and every woman must have one husband4 ,is that the way ,god dispenses his gifts and blessings to the human family8 ,does he give the same amount of blessings to the wicked that ,he does to the righteous8 ,in some respects ,he does4 ,he sends the rain from heaven upon the just and the unjust4 ,but there are many great and important blessings that are bestowed more abundantly upon the righteous than upon the wicked4 ,god has holy designs to accomplish when ,he makes a distinction between the righteous and the wicked in dispensing ,his blessings4 ,therefore if the wicked take wives without their being joined together by divine authority1 those wives have allied themselves to their husbands without the ,lord's sanction4 ,because the ,lord permits this it does not prove that ,he sanctions it2 and ,he would prefer that a people should be like ,israel of old1 a nation of polygamists as well as monogamists1 and the blessings be dispensed between them1 rather than have this so-called perfect equality between the males and females1 and a wicked generation be the result4 ,to prove this ,i will refer you to the #cgth ,psalm4 ,god in that ,psalm has expressly said1 and repeated again and again1 that the seed of the evil-doers should he rooted out of the earth1 while the righteous should inherit it and should prosper4 ,he bestows ,his blessings upon the one and ,his curses upon the other4 ,i shall expect this afternoon to hear some arguments to refute those passages brought forward to sustain polygamy as well as monogamy2 and if the gentleman can find no proof to limit the passages ,i have quoted to monogamic households1 if there is no such evidence contained in the passages1 and there is nothing in the original ,hebrew as it now exists to invalidate them1 then polygamy as a divine institution stands as firm as the throne of the ,almighty4 ,and if he can find that this form of marriage is repealed in the ,new ,testament2 if he can find that ,god has in any age of the world done away with the principle and form of plural marriage1 perhaps the argument will rest with the other side4 ,i shall wait with great patience to have some arguments brought forth on this subject4 ,we are happy1 here in this ,territory1 to have the learned come among us to teach us4 ,we have embraced the ,bible as a rule of faith2 and if we misunderstand it1 if we are acting contrary to its precepts1 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 right4 ,i think this is generous on the part of those gentlemen2 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 book2 to send them for three1 or four1 or five years to prison1 tearing them from their poor wives and children1 while their families would suffer hardship and hunger1 being robbed of their natural protectors4 ,we thank ,mr4 ,newman and those who have come with him with their hearts full of philanthropy to enlighten us here in this mountain ,territory1 and if possible convince us of our errors4 ,i have many arguments that ,i have not drawn upon1 not only to reason upon1 but testimonies as well in favor of polygamy2 but ,i am informed that only seven minutes of the time remains to me4 ,i cannot1 therefore1 pretend on this occasion to enter into these arguments and examine them with that justice that should be expected before the people4 ,mr4 ,newman has said he would like nine hours to bring forth his arguments and his reasonings for the benefit of the poor people of ,utah4 ,i wish he would not only take nine hours1 but nine weeks and nine months1 and be indeed a philanthropist and missionary in our midst2 and try and reclaim this poor people from being the awful beastly people they are represented abroad4 ,we are very fond of the ,scriptures4 ,we do not feel free to comply with a great many customs and characteristics of a great many of those who call themselves ,christians4 ,much may be said upon this subject2 much1 too1 that ought to crimson the faces of those who call themselves civilized1 when they reflect upon the enormities1 the great social evils1 that exist in their midst4 ,look at the great city of ,new ,york1 the great metropolis of commerce4 ,that is a city where we might expect some of the most powerful1 and learned theologians to hold forth1 teaching and inculcating principles and lessons of ,christianity4 ,what exists in the midst of that city8 ,females by the tens of thousands1 females who are debauched by day and by night2 females who are in open day parading the streets of that great city6 ,why1 they are monogamists there6 ,it is a portion of the civilization of ,new ,york to be very pious over polygamy2 yet harlots and mistresses by the thousands and tens of thousands walk the streets by open day1 as well as by night4 ,there is sin enough committed there in one twenty-four hours to sink the city down like ,sodom and ,gomorrah4 ,we read that there was once a case of prostitution among the children of ,benjamin in ancient days4 ,some men came and took another man's wife1 or concubine1 whichever you please to call her2 some men took her and abused her all night2 and for that one sin they were called to account4 ,they were called upon to deliver up the offenders but they would not do it1 and they were viewed as confederates4 ,and what was the result of that one little crime--not a little crime--a great one2 that one crime instead of thousands8 ,the ,lord ,god said to the rest of the tribes of ,israel1 ,go forth and fight against the tribe of ,benjamin4 ,they fought against ,benjamin2 and the next day they were again commanded to go forth and fight against ,benjamin4 ,they obeyed2 and the next day they were again so commanded2 and they fought until they cut off the entire tribe except six hundred men4 ,the destruction of nearly the whole tribe of ,benjamin was the punishment for one act of prostitution4 ,compare the strictness that existed in ancient ,israel with the whoredoms1 the prostitution and even the infanticide practised in all the cities of this great nation2 and then because a few individuals in this mountain ,territory are practising ,bible marriage a law must be threatened to inflict heavy penalties upon us2 our families must be torn from us and be driven to misery1 because of the piety of a civilization in which the enormities ,i have pointed out exist4 ,to close this argument ,i now call upon the reverend gentleman1 whom ,i highly respect for his learning1 his eloquence and ability1 to bring forth proof to rebut the passages laid down in yesterday's argument in support of the position that the ,bible sanctions polygamy4 ,i ask him to prove that those laws were limited4 ,if they were limited-- 7,here the umpires announced that the time was up47 ,dr4 ,,newman ,rose and ,said3 ,messrs4 ,umpires and ,ladies and ,gentlemen3 ,i understand the gentleman to complain against me that ,i did not answer his ,scriptural arguments adduced yesterday4 ,if ,i did not the responsibility is upon him4 ,he1 being in the affirmative1 should have analyzed and defined the question under debate2 but he failed to do that4 ,it therefore fell to me1 not by right1 but by his neglecting to do his duty2 and ,i did it to the best of my ability4 ,it was of the utmost importance that this audience1 so attentive and so respectable1 should have a clear and definite understanding of the terms of the question2 and ,i desire now to inform the gentleman1 that ,i had the answers before me to the passages which he adduced1 and had ,i had another hour1 ,i would have produced them then4 ,i will do it to-day4 ,now1 my learned friend will take out his pencil1 for he will have something to do this afternoon4 ,a passing remark--a word in regard to the original manuscripts1 written by ,moses1 or ,joshua1 or ,samuel1 or the prophets4 ,you sit down to write a letter to a friend2 you take it into your head to copy that letter2 you copy that letter2 the original draft you care nothing about--whether it is given to the winds or the flames4 ,what care ,i about the two tables of stone on which the original law was written1 so that ,i have a true copy of this law8 ,a passing remark in regard to ,mother ,eve4 ,i will defend the venerable woman6 ,if the ,fall came by the influence of one woman over one man1 what would have happened to the world if ,adam had had more wives than one8 ,more1 if one woman1 under monogamy1 brought woe into the world1 then a monogamist1 the blessed virgin ,mary1 brought the ,redeemer into the world1 so ,i think they are even4 ,my friend supposes that the ,almighty might have created more women than one out of ,adam's ribs2 but ,adam had not ribs enough to create fifty women4 ,my friend speaks against polyandry1 or the right of woman to have more husbands than one4 ,he bases his argument upon the increase of progeny4 ,science affirms that where polygamy or polygyny1 or a plurality of wives prevails1 there is a tendency to a preponderance or predominance of one sex over the other1 either male or female1 which amounts to an extermination of the race4 ,i will reply1 in due time1 to the gentleman's remarks in regard to ,gideon and other ,scriptural characters1 and especially in regard to prostitution1 or what is known as the social evil4 ,but first1 what was the object of the gentleman yesterday8 ,it was to discover a general law for the sanction of polygamy4 ,did he find that law8 ,i deny it4 ,what is law8 ,law is the expression of the legislative will2 law is the manner in which an act is performed4 ,it is the law of gravitation that all things tend to a common centre4 ,it is the law in botany that the flowers open their fan-like leaves to the light1 and close them beneath the kisses of night4 ,what is the civil law8 ,simply defining how the citizens should act4 ,what is the moral law8 ,simply defining the conduct of ,god's moral subjects4 ,laws are mandatory1 prohibitory and permissive3 commanding what should be done2 prohibiting what should not be done1 and permitting what may be done4 ,and yet1 where has the gentleman produced this general law which he spent an hour in searching for yesterday8 ,and then remember1 that this law must sanction polygamy6 ,perhaps it is not necessary to repeat our definition of the word sanction4 ,my learned friend1 for whom ,i have respect1 agrees with me as to the definition of that term1 therefore we need not spend a solitary moment further touching these two points4 ,there is another vital point in reference to the nature of law4 ,in legislating upon any subject there must be a great1 organic central principle1 mandatory or prohibitory1 in reference to that subject2 and all other parts of the particular law as well as of the general code must be interpreted in harmony therewith4 ,now ,i propose to produce a law this afternoon1 simple1 direct and positive1 that polygamy is forbidden in ,god's holy word4 ,in ,leviticus xviii and #ah it is written3 ,neither shalt thou take one wife to another1 to vex her1 to uncover her nakedness1 besides the other in her life time4 ,there is a law in condemnation of polygamy4 ,it may be said that what ,i have read is as it reads in the margin1 but that in the body of the text it reads3 ,neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister1 to vex her1 to uncover her nakedness1 besides the other in her lifetime4 ,very well1 argumentum ad hominem1 ,i draw my argument from the speech of the gentleman yesterday4 ,mr4 ,pratt said1 in his comments upon the text1 ,if brethren dwell together1--,now it is well enough in the reading of this to refer to the margin1 as we have the liberty1 ,i believe1 to do so1 and you will find that in the margin the word brother is translated near kinsmen4 ,i accept his mode of reasoning3 he refers to the margin1 and ,i refer to the margin2 it is a poor rule that will not work both ways2 it is a poor rule that will not favor monogamy if it favor polygamy4 ,such then is the fact stated in this law4 ,now it is necessary for us to consider the nature of this law and to expound it to your understanding1 it may be proper for me to say that this interpretation1 as given in the margin1 is sustained by the most eminent biblical and classical scholars in the history of ,christendom--by ,bishop ,jewell1 by the learned ,cookson1 by the eminent ,dwight1 and other distinguished biblical scholars4 ,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 law1 and it is equally binding upon us to ascertain the mind of the legislator1 from the preface of the law1 when such preface is given4 ,the first few verses of the xviii chapter of ,leviticus are prefatory4 ,in the #crd verse it is stated that-- ,after the doings of the land of ,egypt1 wherein ye dwelt1 shall ye not do and after the doings of the land of ,canaan1 whither ,i bring you1 shall ye no do3 neither shall ye walk in their ordinances4 ,both the ,egyptians and the ,canaanites practised incest1 idolatry sodomy1 adultery and polygamy4 ,from verse #f to verse #ag1 inclusive1 the law of consanguinity is laid down1 and the blood relationship defined4 ,then the limits within which persons were forbidden to marry1 and in verse #ah the law against polygamy is given--neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister1 but as we have given it1 neither shalt thou take one wife to another1 etc4 ,according to ,dr4 ,edwards1 the words which are translated as wife or sister1 are found in the ,hebrew but eight times1 and in each passage they refer to inanimate objects1 such as the wings of the cherubim1 tenons1 mortises1 etc41 and signify the coupling together one to another1 the same as thou shalt not take one wife to another4 ,such then is the law4 ,such were the ordinances forbidden which the ,egyptians and the ,canaanites practised4 ,now we propose to push this argument a little further4 ,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 incestuous4 ,that is the objection of my friend4 ,to which ,i reply that such a marriage is forbidden by sequence and analogy4 ,as for example where the son1 in the #gth verse1 is prohibited from marrying his mother1 it follows that the daughter shall not marry her father2 yet it is not so given and precisely stated4 ,in verse #ad it is said--thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother2 so ,i infer that it would be equally criminal to uncover the nakedness of a mother's brother1 though it is not so stated4 ,in verse #af it is said--thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife1 so ,i infer that a man shall not uncover the nakedness of his wife's sister that is1 if two brothers shall not take the same woman1 then two women shall not take the same man1 for between one man and two sisters1 and one woman and two brothers is the same degree of proximity1 and therefore both are forbidden by the law of ,god4 ,furthermore1 if for argument's sake1 we consider this means two literal sisters1 then this prohibition is not a permission for a man to take two wives who are not sisters2 for all sound jurists will agree that a prohibition is one thing and a permission is another thing4 ,nay1 more1 the ,mormons do or do not receive the law of ,moses as binding4 ,that they do not is clear from their own practices4 ,for instance1 in ,leviticus1 xx chap4 and #ad verse it is said-- ,and if a man take a wife and her mother1 it is wickedness2 they shall be burnt with fire1 both he and they4 ,yet ,mr4 ,john ,hyde1 jr41 page #ef of his work called ,mormonism1 states that a ,mr4 ,e4 ,bolton married a woman and her daughter2 that ,captain ,brown married a woman and her two daughters4 ,these are illustrations of the violation of the law4 ,more than this ,leviticus xviii1 #ah1 prohibits a man from marrying two sisters2 yet ,mr4 ,hyde informs us that a ,mr4 ,davis married three sisters1 and a ,mr4 ,sharkey married the same number4 ,if the question is1 ,is the law of ,moses obeyed here or not8 and supposing this gentleman can prove that the text means two literal sisters1 and two literal sisters are married here1 then ,i affirm that you do not keep ,god's law1 or that which you say is ,god's law1 as given through his servant ,moses4 ,nay1 more than this3 if it here means two literal sisters1 and1 whereas1 ,jacob married two sisters2 and1 whereas1 the great ,mormon doctrine that ,god worked a miracle on ,leah and ,rachel that they might have children2 and1 whereas1 it is here said that said miracles were an approval of polygamy1 so also were such miracles an approval of incest2 if it be true that ,god did not express this approval at ,jacob having two wives1 neither did he express disapproval of his having two sisters2 therefore the ,divine silence in the one case is an offset to the ,divine silence in the other case4 ,even you are driven to this conclusion1 either my interpretation of this passage is correct1--neither shall a man take another wife1--two wives1 or you must admit that this passage means two literal sisters1 and in either case you live in violation of ,god's law4 ,it is for my distinguished friend to choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases4 ,i thank him for the compliment he paid me--that ,i came here as a philanthropist4 ,i have only kindness in my heart for these dear men and women2 and had not this kindness filled my heart2 had ,i believed in a crushing1 iron1 civil law1 ,i could have remained in ,washington4 ,but ,i came here believing the truth as it is in ,jesus1 and ,i am glad to say that ,i have the privilege of speaking what ,i believe to be ,god's truth in your hearing4 ,the gentleman quoted ,deuteronomy xxi1 #ae-ag1 which is the law of primogeniture1 and is designed to preserve the descent of property3 ,if a man have two wives1 one beloved and another hated1 and they have borne him children1 both the beloved and the hated2 and if the first-born son be hers that was hated2 ,then it shall be1 when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath1 that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated1 which is indeed the first-born3 ,but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born1 by giving him a double portion of all that he hath3 for he is the beginning of his strength2 the right of the first-born is his4 ,how did he apply this law8 ,why he first assumed the prevalence of polygamy among the ,jews in the wilderness1 and then said the law was made for polygamous families as well as for monogamous4 ,he says--inasmuch as polygamy is nowhere condemned in the law of ,god1 we are entitled to construe this law as applying to polygamists4 ,but ,i have shown already that ,leviticus xviii1 #ah1 is a positive prohibition of this law1 and therefore this passage must be interpreted by that which ,i have quoted4 ,i propose to erect the balance to-day1 and try every scriptural argument which he has produced in the scales of justice4 ,i have recited to you ,god's solemn law--,neither shall a man take one wife unto another3 and ,i will try every passage by this law4 ,my friend spent an hour here yesterday in seeking a general law2 in a minute ,i gave you a general law4 ,how natural is the supposition1 where a man has two wives in succession1 that he may love the last a little better than the first6 and ,i believe it is common out here to love the last a little better than the first4 ,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 child6 while the children of the first wife1 poor woman1 perhaps dead and gone1 are deprived of their property rights4 ,but supposing the meaning of this passage is two wives at the same time1 this cannot be construed1 by any of the accepted rules of interpretation1 into a sanction of polygamy2 if it can1 ,i can prove that sheep stealing is just as divinely authorized4 ,for it is as if ,moses had said3 for in view of the prevalence of polygamy1 and that you have so far forgotten and transgressed ,god's law of monogamy as to take two wives at the same time1 therefore this shall not work the abrogation of the law of primogeniture1 the first-born son shall not thereby be cheated out of his rights4 ,now it is said3 if a man have two wives3 very well1 if that is a privilege so also are these words3 ,if a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it and sell it1 he shall restore five oxen for the ox he stole1 and four sheep for the sheep4 ,if the former assertion is a sanction of polygamy1 then the latter assertion is a sanction of sheep stealing1 and we can all go after the flocks this afternoon4 ,the second passage1 in ,exodus xxi1 #gth to #aath verses1 referring to the laws of breach of promise1 ,mr4 ,pratt says proves or favors polygamy1 in his opinion2 but he did not dwell long upon this text4 ,he indulged in an episode on the lost manuscripts4 ,now let us inquire into the meaning of this passage4 ,and if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant1 she shall not go out as the men-servants do4 ,if she please not her master1 who hath betrothed her to himself1 then shall he let her be redeemed3 to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power1 seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her4 ,and if he hath betrothed her unto his son1 he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters4 ,if he take him another wife1 her food1 her raiment1 and her duty of marriage1 shall he not diminish4 ,and if he do not these three unto her1 then shall she go out free without money4 ,what are the significant points in this passage8 ,they are simply these--,according to the ,jewish law a destitute ,jew was permitted to apprentice his daughter for six years for a pecuniary consideration2 and to guard the rights of this girl there were certain conditions3 ,first1 the period of her indenture should not extend beyond six years2 she should be free at the death of her master1 or at the coming of the year of jubilee4 ,the next condition was that the master or his son should marry the girl4 ,what1 therefore1 are we to conclude from this passage8 ,simply this1 that neither the father nor the son marry the girl1 but simply betrothed her2 that is1 engaged her1 promised to marry her3 but before the marriage relation was consummated the young man changed his mind1 and then ,god ,almighty1 to indicate his displeasure at a man who would break the vow of engagement1 fixes the following penalties1 namely that he shall provide for this woman1 whom he has wronged1 her food1 her raiment and her dwelling1 and these are the facts3 and the gentleman has not proved1 the gentleman cannot prove1 that either the father or the son marry the girl4 ,he says the honored term wife is there4 ,honored term6 ,god bless that term6 ,it is an honored term1 sacred as the nature of angels4 ,yet ,i have to inform my distinguished friend that the word wife is neither in the ,hebrew nor in the ,greek1 but simply if he take another1 that is if he betroth another1 and then change his mind he shall do thus and so4 ,where then is the gentleman's general law in approval of polygamy8 ,the next passage is recorded in ,deuteronomy xxv chap41 and from the #eth to the #ajth verses1 referring to the preservation of families3 ,if brethren dwell together1 and one of them die1 and have no child1 the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger3 her husband's brother shall go in unto her1 and take her unto him to wife1 and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her4 ,and it shall be1 that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead1 that his name be not put out of ,israel4 ,and if the man like not to take his brother's wife1 then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders1 and say1 ,my husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in ,israel1 he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother3 ,then the elders of his city shall call him1 and speak unto him3 and if he stand to it1 and say1 ,i like not to take her2 ,then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders1 and loose his shoe from off his foot1 and spit in his face1 and shall answer and say1 ,so shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house4 ,and his name shall be called in ,israel1 the house of him that hath his shoe loosed4 ,what is the object of this law6 ,evidently the preservation of families and family inheritances4 ,and now ,i challenge the gentleman to bring forward a solitary instance in the ,bible where a married man was compelled to obey this law4 ,take the case of ,tamar6 ,certainly the brother that was to have married her could not have been a married man1 because she had to wait until he grew up4 ,then take the case of ,ruth4 ,you know how she lost her noble ,mahlon afar off beyond ,jordan1 and how she returned to ,bethlehem1 and goes to ,boaz1 a near kinsman1 and demands that he shall marry her4 ,boaz says--there is another kinsman4 ,i will speak to him4 ,it is asked--,didn't ,boaz know whether the nearer kinsman was married8 but yet that was not the business of ,boaz4 ,the divine law required that this man should appear at the gate of the city before the elders1 and there either marry her or say that he was disqualified because he was already a married man2 and there is no proof in the ,bible that ,boaz had been married2 nay1 more than this1 old ,josephus1 the ,jewish historian1 asserts that the reason why the near kinsman did not marry ,ruth was that he had a wife and children already1 so ,i judge that this law1 which is said to be general1 is that that ,i laid down--,neither shall a man take one wife unto another1 etc4 ,he refers me to ,numbers xxxi1 #agth and #ahth verses4 ,now1 therefore1 kill every male among the little ones1 and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him4 ,but all the women-children1 that have not known man by lying with him1 keep alive for yourselves4 ,this passage has nothing whatever to do with polygamy4 ,it is an account of the results of a military expedition of the ,jews against the ,midianites2 their slaughter of a portion of the people1 and their reduction of the remainder to slavery--namely the women for domestics4 ,my friend dwells upon thirty-two thousand women that were saved6 ,what were these among the ,jewish nation--a people numbering two and a half millions8 ,he quotes ,deuteronomy xxi1 #ajth and #acth verses3 ,when thou goest forth to war against thine enemies1 and the ,lord thy ,god hath delivered them into thine hands1 and thou hast taken them captive2 ,and seest among the captives a beautiful woman1 and hast a desire unto her1 that thou wouldst have her to thy wife2 ,then thou shalt bring her home to thine house2 and she shall shave her head1 and pare her nails2 ,and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her1 and shall remain in thine house1 and bewail her father and her mother a full mouth3 and after that thou shalt go in unto her1 and be her husband and she shall be thy wife4 ,this passage is designed to regulate the treatment of a captive woman by the conqueror who desires her for a wife1 and has no more to do with polygamy than it has to do with theft or murder4 ,not a solitary word is said about polygamy1 no mention is made that the man is married1 therefore every jurist will agree with me that where we find a general law we may judge a special enactment by the organic1 fundamental principle4 ,he quoted ,exodus xxii chap41 #af and #ag1 and ,deuteronomy xxii1 and #bh and #bi3 ,and if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed1 and lie with her1 he shall surely endow her to be his wife4 ,if her father utterly refuse to give her unto him1 he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins4 ,in ,deuteronomy it is said3 ,if a man find a damsel that is a virgin1 which is not betrothed1 and lay hold on her1 and lie with her1 and they be found2 ,then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver1 and she shall be his wife2 because he hath humbled her1 he may not put her away all his days4 ,my friend appeared to confound these two laws1 as if they had reference to the same crime2 but the first is the law of seduction1 while the second was the law of rape4 ,in both cases the defiler was required to marry his victim2 but in the case of seduction1 if the father of the seduced girl would not consent to the marriage1 then the sum usual for the dowry of a virgin should be paid him and the offense was expiated4 ,but what was the penalty of rape8 ,in that case there is no ambiguity--the ravisher married his victim and paid her father fifty pieces of silver besides4 ,but what has this to do with polygamy8 ,he says it is a general law and applies to married men4 ,this cannot be so1 because it is in conflict with the great law of ,leviticus xviii1 #ah4 ,i tell you1 my friends1 these are simple downright assumptions4 ,the position is first taken1 and therefore these passages are adduced to sustain that position2 and this gentleman goes on to assume that all these men are married men4 ,it is a tremendous fact1 that if a man seduced a girl or committed a rape upon her1 he was bound to marry that girl4 ,it is a tremendous fact that the same law gives to the father the right of the refusal of his daughter1 therefore the father has the power to annul ,god's law of marriage4 ,the next passage is the #bnd ,chronicles1 xxiv and #crd1 c4 ,it is the case of ,joash the king1 and when he began to reign ,jehoiada was high priest4 ,he was more than that--he was regent4 ,my friend in portraying the character of this great man said that because he took two wives for ,king ,joash1 he was so highly honored that when he died he was buried among the kings4 ,but the fact is1 he was regent1 and there was royalty in his regency1 and this royalty entitled him to be interred in the royal mausoleum4 ,all that is said in ,chronicles is simply an epitome--a summing up1 that ,king ,joash had two wives4 ,it does not say that he had them at the same time2 he might have had them in succession4 ,i give you an illustration3 ,john ,milton was born in ,london in #afji4 ,he was an eminent scholar1 a great statesman and a beautiful poet2 and ,john ,milton had three wives4 ,there ,i stop4 ,are you to infer that ,john ,milton had these three wives simultaneously8 ,why you might according to the gentleman's interpretation of this passage4 ,but ,john ,milton had them in succession4 ,but more than this1 for argument's sake grant the position assumed by my friend1 then the numerical element of the argument must come out1 and a man can only have two wives and no more4 ,do you keep that law here8 ,and yet that is the argument and that is the logical conclusion4 ,the last passage my friend referred to was the #ast chapter of ,hosea1 and #bnd verse3 ,the beginning of the word of the ,lord by ,hosea4 ,and the ,lord said to ,hosea1 ,go1 take unto thee a wife of whoredoms1 and children of whoredoms3 for the land hath committed great whoredoms1 departing from the ,lord4 ,that is1 says ,newcomb1 a wife from among the ,israelites1 who were remarkable for spiritual fornication4 ,my friend is so determined on a literal interpretation that he gives a literal interpretation1 whereas this distinguished biblical scholar says that it was not literal fornication1 but rather spiritual2 in other words1 idolatry2 for in the ,scriptures1 both the ,old and the ,new ,testament1 idolatry is mentioned under the term fornication4 ,god calls himself the husband of ,israel1 and this chosen nation owed him the fidelity of a wife4 ,exodus the xxxiv ,chapter and #aeth verse3 ,lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land1 and they go a whoring after their gods1 and do sacrifice unto their gods1 and one call thee1 and thou eat of his sacrifice4 ,the #adth verse of the same chapter says3 ,for thou shalt worship no other god3 for the ,lord1 whose name is jealous1 is a jealous ,god4 ,he therefore sees thee with indignation join thyself in marriage to one of those who had committed fornication or spiritual idolatry1 lest they should raise up children1 who1 by the power of example1 might lay themselves under the terribleness of idolatry4 ,the prophet is directed to get a wife of whoredoms2 and1 after this1 he is directed to go and love an adulterous woman4 ,my friend cites these as examples where ,god makes an exception to a general law4 ,he also cites the case of ,abraham offering up his son ,isaac1 and the case of consanguinity1 in ,deuteronomy xxv1 from #eth to #ajth verse4 ,now the first three cases were merely typical2 the first two were designed to set forth more impressively the relations between ,god and ,his people4 ,the case of consanguinity has nothing to do with polygamy4 ,it is only a modification or exception in special cases for the preservation of the families of ,israel from extinction4 ,where1 therefore1 ,i ask1 is the general law8 ,but my friend has forgotten this fact1 that after having divorced the first wife for adultery1 as he had a right to do1 in chapter ii1 #bnd and #eth verses1 he is then directed to go and take another wife4 ,this is not polygamy4 ,it was represented to us here1 yesterday1 that this prophet1 ,hosea1 was first commanded to take a woman guilty of adultery or fornication1 and then to take an adulteress1 and the representation was made that he took them and had them at the same time2 whereas1 if ,mr4 ,pratt had read a little further1 he would have found that the prophet divorced the first wife for adultery1 and he had a right to do it2 and after he divorced her1 then he went and took a second wife4 ,professor ,pratt admits1 mark you1 admits that none of these passages1 nor all of them together1 can afford in this day a warrant for the practice of polygamy4 ,gives it up6 ,turns the ,bible aside6 ,i will read to you from his own words3 ,supposing that we should prove by a thousand evidences from the ,bible that polygamy was practised by ancient ,israel1 and was sanctioned by ,god in ancient days1 would that be any reason that you and ,i should practise it8 ,by no means4 ,we must get a command independent of that1 which we have received4 ,god frequently repeats ,his commands1 and ,his servants are required to obey ,his commands when they are given4 ,the ,latter-day ,saints in this ,territory practise polygamy not because the law of ,moses commands it2 not because it was extensively practised by the best of men we know of1 mentioned in the ,bible1 the old patriarchs1 ,abraham and ,jacob and others1 who are saved in the kingdom of ,god4 ,we have no right to practise it because they did it4 ,then he yields the point6 ,i respectfully ask him1 if this is his position1 why does he attempt1 in all his writings1 and to establish it in that clever book the ,seer8 ,why did he1 in his controversy with me in the ,new ,york ,herald8 ,why has he from this stand attempted to prove that the practice of polygamy was right from the ,bible8 ,why not1 like a man1 come out and say that we practise this system here1 not because the ,jews did it2 not because the ,divine law sanctioned it years ago2 but because a certain man of the name of ,smith received a revelation that this form of marriage was to be practised8 ,you1 my friends1 can see the logical conclusion1 or in other words the illogical bearing4 ,now1 ,i come to the assumptions by the gentleman4 ,first1 that there is no law condemning or forbidding polygamy4 ,has he proved that8 ,second1 that the ,hebrew nation1 as it was in the wilderness1 when the ,mosaic code was given1 was polygamous4 ,has he proved that8 ,can he find in the whole history of the ,jewish nation1 from the time they left ,egypt to the time they entered the land of ,canaan1 can he find more than one instance of polygamy8 ,perhaps he may find two4 ,i will be glad to receive that information1 for ,i am a man seeking light1 and to-day ,i throw down a challenge to your eminent defender of the faith1 to produce more than two instances of polygamy1 from the time the ,jews left the land of ,egypt to the time they entered ,canaan4 ,i will assist him in his research and tell him one1 and that was ,caleb4 ,now supposing that a murder should be committed in your city1 would it be fair for ,eastern papers to say that the ,mormons are a murderous people8 ,no1 ,i would rise up in defence of you2 ,i would say that that is a crime and an injury to the people here6 ,yet1 during a period of forty years we find one man out of two millions and a half of people practising polygamy1 and my friend comes forward and assumes that the ,israelites were polygamists4 ,third1 that these laws were given to regulate among them an institution already existing4 ,has he proved that8 ,supposing he could prove that ,moses attempted1 or did legislate for the regulation of polygamy1 as it did exist in ,egypt and elsewhere1 would such legislation establish a sanction8 ,why in ,paris they have laws regulating the social evil2 is that an approval of the social evil8 ,there are laws in most of the ,states regulating and controling intemperance4 ,do excise laws sanction intemperance8 ,nothing of the kind4 ,for argument's sake ,i would be willing to concede that ,moses did legislate in regard to polygamy1 that is to regulate it1 to confine its evils2 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 system4 ,fourth1 that these laws were general1 applying to all men1 married and unmarried4 ,has he proved that8 ,i have proved to the contrary to-day1 showing that in the passages which he quoted there is not a solitary or remote intimation that the men were married4 ,now let us1 in opposition to these assumptions1 remember that monogamy was established by ,god in the innocence of the human race1 and that polygamy1 like idolatry1 and slavery1 blood revenge1 drunkenness and murder came into existence after the apostasy of the human family1 and that neither of these evils have any other origin so far as appears from the ,bible than in the wickedness of man4 ,we admit that polygamy existed among the corrupt nations1 just as any other evil1 or vice1 or crime existed1 and now when ,god had chosen the ,hebrews for ,his own people1 to separate them from the heathen1 ,he gives them for the first time a code of laws1 and especially on the subject of the commerce of the sexes4 ,and what is the central principle of that code on this subject8 ,read ,leviticus xviii1 #ah--,neither shall a man take one wife unto another4 ,in this code the following things are forbidden3 ,incest1 polygamy1 fornication1 idolatry1 beastliness1 c42 we therefore deny that the nation was polygamous at that time1 deny it definitely1 deny it distinctly1 and on another occasion ,i will give you the character of the monogamists and polygamists of ,bible times4 ,the ,jews had been four hundred years in slavery1 and they were brought out with a strong hand and an outstretched arm4 ,we1 to-day1 then challenge for the proof that as a nation the ,jews were polygamous4 ,one or two instances1 as ,i have already remarked1 can be adduced4 ,we may say again that if1 as he assumes1 these laws were given to regulate the existing system1 this does not sanction it any more than the same thing sanctions sheep-stealing or homicide4 ,he said these laws were general1 applying to all men1 married or unmarried4 ,has he proved it8 ,this is wholly gratuitous4 ,there is no word in either of these passages which permits or directs a married man to take more than one wife at a time4 ,i challenge the gentleman for the proof4 ,it is no evidence of the sanction of polygamy to bring passage after passage1 which he knows1 if construed in favor of polygamy1 polygamy must be in direct conflict with the great organic law recorded in ,leviticus xviii1 #ah4 ,at this point the umpires announced that the time was up4 ,,third ,,and ,,closing ,,day4 ,,prof4 ,,orson ,,pratt4 ,ladies and ,gentlemen3 ,we have assembled ourselves in this vast congregation in the third session of our discussion1 to take into consideration the ,divinity of a very important institution of the ,bible4 ,the question1 as you have already heard1 is ,does the ,bible ,sanction ,polygamy8 ,many arguments have already been adduced1 on the side of the affirmative1 and also on the side of the negative4 ,this afternoon one hour is allotted to me in the discussion1 to bring forth still further evidences1 which will close the debate1 so far as the affirmative is concerned2 then to be followed by the ,reverend ,dr4 ,newman1 which will finally close the discussion4 ,polygamy is a question1 or in other words1 is an institution of the ,bible2 an institution established1 as we have already shown1 by ,divine authority2 established by law--by command2 and hence1 of course1 must be sanctioned by the great ,divine ,law-,giver1 whose words are recorded in the ,bible4 ,yesterday ,i was challenged by the ,reverend ,dr4 ,newman1 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 wilderness4 ,at least this is what ,i understood the gentleman to say4 ,i shall now proceed to bring forth the proof4 ,the statistics of ,israel in the days of ,moses show that there were of males1 over twenty years of age1 ,numbers #ast chapter1 #di verse3 ,even all they that were numbered1 were six hundred thousand and three thousand1 and five hundred and fifty4 ,it was admitted1 yesterday afternoon1 by ,dr4 ,newman1 that there were two and a half millions of ,israelites4 ,now ,i shall take the position that the females among the ,israelites were far more numerous than the males2 ,i mean that portion of them that were over twenty years of age4 ,i assume this for this reason1 that from the birth of ,moses down until the time that the ,israelites were brought out of ,egypt1 some eighty years had elapsed4 ,the destruction of the male children had commenced before the birth of ,moses2 how many years before ,i know not4 ,the order of ,king ,pharaoh was to destroy every male child4 ,all the people1 subject to this ruler1 were commanded to see that they were destroyed and thrown into the river ,nile4 ,how long a period this great destruction continued is unknown1 but if we suppose that one male child to every two hundred and fifty persons was annually destroyed1 it would amount to the number of ten thousand yearly4 ,this would soon begin to tell in the difference between the numbers of males and females4 ,ten thousand each year would only be one male child to each two hundred and fifty persons4 ,how many would this make from the birth of ,moses1 or eighty years8 ,it would amount to #hjj1jjj females above that of the males4 ,but ,i do not wish to take advantage in this argument by assuming too high a number4 ,i will diminish it one half1 which will still leave #djj1jjj more females than males4 ,this would be one male destroyed each year out of every five hundred persons4 ,the females1 then1 over twenty years of age would be #fjc1eej1 added to #djj1jjj surplus women1 making in all #a1jjc1eej women over twenty years of age4 ,the children1 then1 under twenty years of age1 to make up the two and a half millions1 would be #hib1ijj1 the total population of ,israel being laid down at #b1ejj1jjj people4 ,now1 then1 for the number of families constituting this population4 ,the families having first-born males over one month old1 see ,numbers iii chapter and #dcrd verse1 numbered #bb1bgc4 ,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 families1 which would make #g1dbd additional families4 ,add these to the #bb1bgc with first-born males and we have the sum total of #bj1fig as the number of the families in ,israel4 ,now1 in order to favor the monogamists' argument1 and give them all the advantage possible1 we will still add to this number to make it even--#cjc families more1 making thirty thousand families in all4 ,now comes another species of calculation founded on this data3 ,divide twenty-five hundred thousand persons by #bb1bgc first-born males1 and we find one first-born male to every #aab persons4 ,what a large family for a monogamist6 ,but divide #b1ejj1jjj persons by #cj1jjj and the quotient gives eighty-three persons in a family4 ,suppose these families to have been monogamic1 after deducting husband and wife1 we have the very respectable number of eighty-one children to each monogamic wife4 ,if we assume the numbers of the males and females to have been equal1 making no allowance for the destruction of the male infants1 we shall then have to increase the children under twenty years of age to keep good the number of two and a half millions4 ,this would still make eighty-one children to each of the #cj1jjj monogamic households4 ,now let us examine these dates in connection with polygamy4 ,if we suppose the average number of wives to have been seven1 in each household1 though there may have been men who had no wife at all1 and there may have been some who had but one wife2 and there may have been others having from one up to say thirty wives1 yet if we average them at seven wives each1 we would then have one husband1 seven wives and seventy-five children to make up the average number of eighty-three in the family1 in a polygamic household4 ,this would give an average of over ten children apiece to each of the #baj1jjj polygamic wives4 ,when we deduct the #cj1jjj husbands from the #fje1eej men over twenty years old we have #egc1eej unmarried men in ,israel4 ,if we deduct the #baj1jjj married women from the total of #a1jje1eej over twenty years of age1 we have #gic1eej left4 ,this would be enough to supply all the unmarried men with one wife each1 leaving still a balance of #bbj1jjj unmarried females to live old maids or enter into polygamic households4 ,the law guaranteeing the rights of the first-born1 which has been referred to in other portions of our discussion1 includes those #bb1bgc first-born male children in ,israel1 that is1 one first born male child to every #aab persons in ,israel2 taking the population as represented by our learned friend1 ,mr4 ,newman1 at two and a half millions4 ,thus we see that there was a law given to regulate the rights of the first-born1 applying to over #bb1jjj first-born male children in ,israel1 giving them a double portion of the goods and inheritances of their fathers4 ,having brought forth these statistics1 let us for a few moments examine more closely these results4 ,how can any one assume ,israel to have been monogamic1 and be consistent8 ,i presume that my honored friend1 notwithstanding his great desire and earnestness to overthrow the ,divine evidences in favor of polygamy1 would not say to this people that one wife could bring forth eighty-one children4 ,we can depend upon these proofs--upon these biblical statistics4 ,if he assumes that the males and females were nearly equal in number1 that ,israel was a monogamic people1 then let ,mr4 ,newman show how these great and wonderful households could be produced in ,israel1 if there were only two polygamic families in the nation4 ,it would require something more wonderful than the herb called mandrake1 referred to by ,dr4 ,newman in his rejoinder to my reply to him in the ,new ,york ,herald4 ,i think he will not be able to find1 in our day1 an herb with such wonderfully efficacious properties1 which will produce such remarkable results4 ,i have therefore established that ,israel was a polygamic nation when ,god gave them the laws which ,i have quoted1 laws to govern and regulate a people among whom were polygamic and monogamic families4 ,the nation was founded in polygamy in the days of ,jacob1 and was continued in polygamy until they became very numerous1 very great and very powerful1 while here and there might be found a monogamic family--a man with one wife4 ,now if ,god gave laws to a people having these two forms of marriage in the wilderness1 ,he would adapt such laws to all4 ,he would not take up isolated instances here and there of a man having one wife1 but ,he would adapt ,his laws to the whole2 to both the polygamic and monogamic forms of marriage throughout all ,israel4 ,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 polygamy4 ,and to justify his assertion he refers to the laws that have been passed in ,paris to regulate the social evil2 and to the excise laws passed in our own country to regulate intemperance2 and claims that these laws for the regulation of evils are condemnatory of the crimes to which they apply4 ,but when ,parisians pass laws to regulate the social evil they acknowledge it as a crime4 ,when the inhabitants of this country pass laws to regulate intemperance1 they thereby denounce it as a crime4 ,and when ,god gives laws1 or even when human legislatures make penal laws1 they denounce as crimes the acts against which these laws are directed1 and attach penalties to them for disobedience4 ,when the law was given of ,god against murder1 it was denounced as a crime by the very penalty attached1 which was death2 and when the law was given against adultery its enormity was marked by the punishment--the criminal was to be stoned to death4 ,it was a crime1 and was so denounced when the law was given4 ,god gave laws to regulate these things in ,israel2 but because ,he has regulated many great and abominable crimes by law1 has ,he no right to regulate that which is good and moral as well as that which is wicked and immoral8 ,for instance1 ,god introduced the law of circumcision and gave commands regulating it2 shall we1 therefore say1 according to the logic of the gentleman1 that circumcision was condemned by the law of ,god1 because it was regulated by the law of ,god8 ,that would be his logic1 and the natural conclusion according to his logic4 ,again1 when ,god introduced the ,passover4 ,he gave laws how it should be conducted4 ,does that condemn the ,passover as being immoral because regulated by law8 ,but1 still closer home1 ,god gave laws to regulate the monogamic form of marriage4 ,does that prove that monogamy is condemned by the law of ,god1 because thus regulated8 ,on1 that kind of logic will never do6 ,now1 then1 we come to that passage in ,leviticus1 the xviii chapter1 and the #ahth verse2 the passage that was so often referred to in the gentleman's reply yesterday afternoon4 ,i was very glad to hear the gentleman refer to this passage4 ,the law1 according to ,king ,james' translation1 as we heard yesterday afternoon1 reads thus3 ,neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her1 to uncover her nakedness1 besides the other in her life-time4 ,that was the law according to ,king ,james' translation4 ,my friend1 together with ,doctors ,dwight and ,edwards1 and several other celebrated commentators1 disagree with that interpretation2 and somebody1 ,i know not whom1 some unauthorized person1 has inserted in the margin another interpretation3 recollect1 in the margin and not in the text4 ,it is argued that this interpretation in the margin must be correct1 while ,king ,james' translators must have been mistaken4 ,now1 recollect that the great commentators who have thus altered ,king ,james' translation were monogamists4 ,so were the translators of the ,bible2 they1 too1 were monogamists4 ,but with regard to the true translation of this passage1 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' translation4 ,these are his words1 as will be found in his sermon preached at ,washington1 upon this same subject3 ,but in verse #ch the law against polygamy is given1 ',neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister2' or1 as the marginal reading is1 ',thou shalt not take one wife to another4' ,and this rendering is sustained by ,cookson1 by ,bishop ,jewell and by ,drs4 ,edwards and ,dwight1 four eminent monogamists1 interested in sustaining monogamy4 ,according to ,dr4 ,edwards1 the words which we translate 'a wife to her sister' are found in the ,hebrew but eight times4 ,now we have not been favored with these authorities1 we have had no access to them4 ,here in these mountain wilds it is very difficult to get books4 ,in each passage they refer to inanimate objects2 that is1 in each of the eight places where the words are found4 ,we have searched for them in the ,hebrew and can refer you to each passage where they occur4 ,and each time they refer to objects joined together1 such as wings1 loops1 curtains1 etc41 and signify coupling together4 ,the gentleman reads the passage ,thou shalt not take one wife to another1 and understands it as involving the likeness of one thing to another1 which is correct4 ,but does the language forbid1 as the margin expresses it1 the taking of one wife to another8 ,no2 we have the privilege1 according to the rules or articles of debate1 which have been read this afternoon1 to apply to the original ,hebrew4 ,what are the ,hebrew words--the original--that are used8 ,veishah el-ahotah lo tikkah3 this1 when literally translated and transposed is1 neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister1 veishah being translated by ,king ,james' translators a wife1 el-ahotah being translated to her sister2 lo is translated neither2 while tikkah is translated by ,king ,james' translators shalt thou take4 ,they have certainly given a literal translation4 ,appeal to the ,hebrew and you will find the word ishah occurs hundreds of times in the ,bible1 and is translated wife4 ,the word ahotah1 translated by ,king ,james' translators a sister1 occurs hundreds of times in the ,bible1 and is translated sister4 ,but are these the only translations--the only renderings8 ,ishah1 when it is followed by ahot has another rendering4 ,that is when wife is followed by sister there is another rendering4 ,translators have no right to give a double translation to the same ,hebrew word1 in the same phrase2 if they translate veishah one1 they are not at liberty to translate the same word in the same phrase over again and call it wife4 ,this ,dr4 ,edwards1 or some other monogamist1 has done1 and inserted this false translation in the margin4 ,what object such translator had in deceiving the public must be best known to himself3 he probably was actuated by a zeal to find some law against polygamy1 and concluded to manufacture the word wife1 and place it in the margin1 without any original ,hebrew word to represent it4 ,ahot1 when standing alone1 is rendered sister2 when preceded by ishah1 is rendered another2 the suffix ah1 attached to ahot1 is translated her2 both together 7ahot-ah7 are rendered her sister1 that is sister's sister2 when ahot is rendered another1 its suffix ah represents her or more properly the noun sister1 for which it stands4 ,the phrase will then read3 ,veishah 7one7 el-ahotah 7sister to another7 lo 7neither7 tikkah 7shalt thou take7 which1 when transposed1 reads thus3 ,neither shalt thou take one sister to another4 ,this form of translation agrees with the rendering given to the same ,hebrew words or phrase in the seven other passages of ,scripture1 referred to by ,dr4 ,newman and ,dr4 ,edwards4 7,see ,exodus xxvi1 #c1 #e2 ,ezekiel i1 #i1 #aa1 #bc2 also iii1 #ac47 ,it will be seen that the latter form of translation gives precisely the same idea as that given by the ,english translators in the text4 ,it also agrees with the twelve preceding verses of the law1 prohibiting intermarriages among blood relations1 and forms a part and parcel of the same code2 while the word wife1 inserted in the margin1 is not1 and cannot1 by any possible rule of interpretation1 be extorted from the original connection with the second form of translation4 ,why should ,king ,james' literal translation wife and sister be set aside for one to another8 ,because they saw a necessity for it4 ,there is this difference3 in all the other seven passages where the words ,veishah el-ahotah occur1 there is a noun in the nominative case preceding them1 denoting something to be coupled together4 ,exodus #bfth chapter1 #crd verse contains ishah el-ahotah twice1 signifying to couple together the curtains one to another1 the same words being used that are used in this text4 ,go to the fifth verse of the same chapter1 and there we have the loops of the curtains joined together one to another1 the noun in the nominative case being expressed4 ,next go to ,ezekiel1 #ast chapter1 #ith1 #aath and #bcrd verses1 and these three passages give the rendering of these same words1 coupling the wings of the cherubim one to another4 ,then go again to the #crd chapter of ,ezekiel and #acth verse1 and the wings of the living creatures were joined together one to another4 ,but in the text under consideration no such noun in the nominative case occurs2 and hence the ,english translators concluded to give each word its literal translation4 ,the law was given to prevent quarrels1 which are apt to arise among blood relations4 ,we might look for quarrels on the other side between women who were not related by blood2 but what are the facts in relation to quarrels between blood relations8 ,go back to ,cain and ,abel4 ,who was it spilled the blood of ,abel8 ,it was a blood relation1 his brother4 ,who was it that cast ,joseph into the pit to perish with hunger1 and afterwards dragged him forth from his den and sold him as a slave to persons trading through the country8 ,it was blood relations4 ,who slew the seventy sons of ,gideon upon one stone8 ,it was one of their own brothers that hired men to do it4 ,who was it that rebelled against ,king ,david1 and caused him with all his wives and household1 excepting ten concubines1 to flee out of ,jerusalem8 ,it was his blood relation1 his own son ,absalom4 ,who quarrelled in the family of ,jacob8 ,did ,bilhah quarrel with ,zilpah8 ,no4 ,did ,leah quarrel with ,bilhah or ,zilpah8 ,no such thing is recorded4 ,did ,rachel quarrel with either of the handmaidens8 ,there is not a word concerning the matter4 ,the little1 petty difficulties occurred between the two sisters1 blood relations1 ,rachel and ,leah4 ,and this law was probably given to prevent such vexations between blood relations--between sister and sister4 ,having effectually proved the marginal reading to be false1 ,i will now defy not only the learned gentleman1 but all the world of ,hebrew scholars to find any word in the original to be translated wife if ishah be first translated one4 ,i am informed ,i have only fifteen minutes4 ,i was not aware ,i had spoken a quarter of the time4 ,i shall have to leave this subject and proceed to another4 ,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 quoted4 ,if a man shall commit rape1 if a man shall entice a maid1 if a man shall do this1 or that1 or the other1 is the language of these passages4 ,will any person pretend to say that a married man is not a man8 ,and if a married person is a man1 it proves that the law is applicable to married men1 and if so it rests with my learned friend to prove that it is limited4 ,moreover1 the passage from the margin in ,leviticus was quoted by ,dr4 ,newman as a great fundamental law by which all the other passages were to be overturned4 ,but it has failed2 and1 therefore1 the other passages quoted by me1 stand good unless something else can be found by the learned gentleman to support his forlorn hope4 ,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 himself4 ,that was the law4 ,the word multiply is construed by those opposed to polygamy to mean that twice one make two1 and hence that he was not to multiply wives1 or1 in other words1 that he was not to take two4 ,but the command was also given that the future king of ,israel was not to multiply horses anymore than wives4 ,twice one make two again4 ,was the future king of ,israel not to have more than one horse8 ,the idea is ridiculous6 ,the future king of ,israel was not to multiply them2 not to have them in multitude1 that is1 only to take such a number as ,god saw proper to give him4 ,we might next refer you to the uncle of ,ruth's dead husband1 old ,boaz1 who represented himself as not being the nearest kin4 ,there was another nearer who had the ,divine right to take her1 and this other happened to be the brother of ,boaz1 perhaps a little older4 ,josephus tells us1 according to the learned gentleman1 that this oldest brother was a married man4 ,suppose we admit it4 ,did ,boaz not know that his brother was married when he represented him as the nearest of kin and had the right before him8 ,and even the brother acknowledges his right1 and says to ,boaz3 ,redeem thou my right to thyself4 ,he had the right to marry her4 ,this1 then1 we arrive at by the assistance of ,josephus2 and it proves that married men were required to comply with the law4 ,i have no further time to remark on this passage4 ,i wish now to examine a passage that is contained in ,matthew1 in regard to divorces1 and also in ,malachi1 on the same subject4 ,malachi1 or the ,lord by the mouth of ,malachi1 informs the people that the ,lord hated putting away4 ,he gave the reason why a wife should not be put away4 ,not a word against polygamy in either passage4 ,but there is certain reasoning introduced to show that a wife should not be put away4 ,in the beginning the ,lord made one1 that is a wife for ,adam1 that he might not be alone4 ,woman was given to man for a companion1 that he might protect her1 and for other holy purposes1 but not to be put away for trivial causes2 and it was cause of condemnation in those days for a man to put away his wife4 ,but there is not a word in ,malachi condemnatory of a man marrying more than one wife4 ,jesus also gives the law respecting divorces1 that they should not put away their wives for any other cause than that of fornication2 and he that took a wife that was put away would commit adultery4 ,jesus says1 in the #eth chapter1 that he that putteth away his wife for any other cause than fornication causes her to commit adultery4 ,then the husband is a guilty accomplice1 and if he puts away his wife unjustly he is guilty of adultery himself1 the same as a confederate in murder is himself a murderer4 ,as an adulterer he has no right to take another wife2 he has not the right to take even one wife4 ,his right is to be stoned to death2 to suffer the penalty of death for his sin of adultery4 ,consequently1 if he has no right to even life itself1 he has no right to a wife4 ,but the case of such a man1 who has become an adulterer by putting away his wife1 and has no right to marry another1 has no application1 nor has the argument drawn from it any application1 to the man who keeps his wife and takes another4 ,the law referred to by my learned opponent1 in ,leviticus xviii and #ah1 shows that polygamy was in existence1 but was to be kept within the circle of those who were not blood relations4 ,concerning the phrase duty of marriage1 occurring in the passage1 ,if a man take another wife1 her food1 her raiment and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish4 ,the condition here referred to is sometimes more than mere betrothal4 ,it is something showing that the individual has been not merely previously betrothed1 but is actually in the married state1 and the duty of marriage is clearly expressed4 ,what is the meaning of the original word8 ,it does not mean dwelling nor refuge1 as asserted in the ,new ,york ,herald by ,dr4 ,newman4 ,four passages are quoted by him in which the ,hebrew word for dwelling occurs1 but the word translated duty of marriage1 is entirely a distinct word from that used in the four passages referred to4 ,does not the learned ,dr4 know the difference between two ,hebrew words8 ,or what was his object in referring to a word elsewhere in the ,scripture that does not even occur in the text under consideration8 ,in a ,hebrew and ,english ,lexicon1 7published by ,josiah ,w4 ,gibbs1 ,a4 ,m41 ,prof4 of ,sacred ,liter41 in the ,theology ,school in ,yale ,college17 page #afj1 it refers to this very ,hebrew word and to the very passage1 ,ex4 xxxi1 #aj1 and translates it thus3--cohabitation1--duty of marriage4 ,duty of marriage then is cohabitation3 thus ,god commands a man who takes another wife1 not to diminish the duty of cohabitation with the first4 ,would ,god command undiminished cohabitation with a woman merely betrothed and not married8 ,while ,i have a few moments left let me refer you to ,hosea4 ,i wish all of you1 when you go home1 to read the second chapter of ,hosea1 and you will find1 with regard to ,hosea's having divorced his first wife because of her whoredoms1 that no such thing is recorded as stated by ,mr4 ,newman yesterday4 ,the ,lord tells ,hosea to go and speak to his brethren1 7not to his son17 to his sisters1 7not his daughter17 of the house of ,israel1 and tell them what the ,lord will do2 that he may not acknowledge them any longer as a wife4 ,hosea bore the word of the ,lord to ,israel1 whom his own two wives represented1 saying that their whoredoms1 their wickedness and idolatries had kindled the anger of the ,lord against them4 ,having discussed the subject so far ,i leave it now with all candid persons to judge4 ,here is the law of ,god2 here is the command of the ,most ,high1 general in its nature1 not limited1 nor can it be proved to be so4 ,there is no law against it1 but it stands as immovable as the ,rock of ,ages1 and will stand when all things on the earth and the earth itself shall pass away4 ,dr4 ,j4 ,f4 ,,newman ,said3 ,respected ,umpires1 and ,ladies and ,gentlemen3 ,i had heard1 prior to my coming to your city1 that my distinguished opponent was eminent in mathematics1 and certainly his display to-day confirms that reputation4 ,unfortunately1 however1 he is incorrect in his statements4 ,first1 he assumes that the slaying of all the male children of the ,hebrews was continued through eighty years2 but he has failed to produce the proof4 ,to do this was his starting point4 ,he assumes it2 where is the proof1 either in the ,bible or in ,josephus8 ,and until he can prove that the destruction of the male children went on for eighty years1 ,i say this argument has no more foundation than a vision4 ,then he makes another blunder3 the #cjc1eej1 the number of men above twenty years of age1 mentioned in this case1 were men to go to war2 they were not the total population of the ,jewish nation1 and yet my mathematical friend stands up here to-day and declares that the whole male population above twenty years of age consisted of #cjc1eej1 whereas it is a fact that this number did not include all the males4 ,then again the #bb1bgc first-born do not represent the number of families in ,israel at that time1 for many of the first-born were dead4 ,these are the blunders that the gentleman has made to-day1 and ,i challenge him to produce the contrary and prove that he is not guilty of these numerical blunders4 ,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 ,canaan4 ,has he disproved that8 ,he has attempted to prove it by a mathematical problem1 which problem is based on error3 his premises are wrong1 therefore his conclusions are false4 ,why didn't he turn to ,king ,james' translation8 ,i will help him to one polygamist1 that is ,caleb4 ,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 wilderness8 ,ladies and gentlemen1 he had none to give1 and therefore the assertion made yesterday is true1 that during the sojourn of the children of ,israel in the wilderness there is but one instance of polygamy recorded4 ,now we come to the law that ,i laid down yesterday--,neither shalt thou take one wife to another4 ,i reaffirm that the translation in the margin is perfect to a word4 ,he labors to show that ,god does not mean what ,he says4 ,that the phrase one wife to another1 may be equally rendered one woman to another1 or one wife to her sister4 ,the very same phrase is used in the other seven passages named by ,dr4 ,dwight4 ,for example1 ,exodus xxvi1 #c1 ,ezekiel i1 #i1 etc4 ,he admits the translation in these passages to be correct4 ,if it is correct in these passages1 why is it not correct in the other8 ,his very admission knocks to pieces his argument4 ,why then does he labor to create the impression that the ,hebrew ishau means woman1 or wife8 ,what is the object of the travail of his soul8 ,the word ahoot1 he contends1 means sister2 but sister itself1 is a word which means a specific relation1 and a generic relation4 ,every woman is sister to every other woman1 and ,i challenge the gentleman to meet me on paper at any time1 in the newspapers of your city or elsewhere upon the ,hebrew of this text4 ,i reaffirm it1 reaffirm it in the hearing of this learned gentleman1 reaffirm it in the hearing of these ,hebraists1 that as it is said in the margin1 is the true rendering1 namely1 neither shalt thou take one wife to another4 ,but supposing that is incorrect1 permit me1 before ,i pass on1 to remind you of this fact1 he refers1 ,i think1 in his first speech1 to the margin2 the margin was correct then and there1 but it is not here4 ,it is a poor rule that will not work both ways2 correct when he wants to quote from the margin1 but not when ,i want to do so4 ,he quoted from the margin1 and ,i followed his illustrious example4 ,and now1 my friends1 supposing that the text means just what he says1 namely1 neither shalt thou take a wife unto her sister1 to vex her2 supposing that is the rendering1 and he asserts it is1 and he is a ,hebraist1 ,i argued and brought the proof yesterday that this law of ,moses is not kept by the ,mormons2 in other words there are men in your very midst who have married sisters4 ,where was the gentleman's solemn denunciation of the violation of ,god's law8 ,why did he not lift his voice and vindicate the ,divine law8 ,but not a solitary word of disapproval is uttered6 ,yesterday he pronounced a curse--cursed is he that conforms not to the words of this law1 to do them4 ,does not the curse rest upon him and upon his people8 ,i gave him the liberty to choose whether this text condemned polygamy1 or whether it condemned a man for marrying two sisters2 he must take his choice1 the horns of the dilemma are before him4 ,for the sake of saving polygamy he stands up here1 in the presence of ,almighty ,god and ,his holy angels1 and before this intelligent congregation he admits that in this church1 and with this people1 ,god's holy law is set at defiance4 ,what respect1 therefore1 can we have for the gentleman's argument1 drawn from the teachings of ,moses1 in support of polygamy8 ,he refers us to the multiplication of horses4 ,i suppose a king may have one horse or two1 there is no special rule2 but there is a special rule as to the number of wives4 ,neither shall the king multiply wives4 ,god1 in the beginning1 gave the first man one wife1 and ,christ and ,paul sustain that law as binding upon us4 ,and now1 supposing that that is not accepted as a law1 what then8 ,why there is no limit to the number of wives1 none at all4 ,how many shall a man have8 ,seven1 twenty1 fifty1 sixty1 a hundred8 ,why1 they somewhere quote a passage that if a man forsake his wife he shall have a hundred4 ,well1 he ought to go on forsaking2 for if he will forsake a hundred he will have ten thousand2 and if he forsake ten thousand he will have so many more in proportion4 ,it is his business to go on forsaking4 ,that is in the ,professor's book called the ,seer4 ,such a man would keep the ,almighty busy creating women for him4 ,i regret very much that ,i have not time to notice all the points which have been brought forward4 ,i desired to do so4 ,i plead for more time2 my friends plead for more time2 but time was denied us1 ,i am therefore restricted to an hour4 ,now1 ,i propose to follow out the line of argument which ,i was pursuing yesterday when my time expired1 and ,i propose to carry out and apply the great law brought forward yesterday--,neither shall a man take one wife unto another2 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 polygamy1 all told1 out of thousands and millions of people4 ,i say twenty-five or thirty specially recorded cases1 which polygamists of our day claim in support of their position4 ,i propose to take up1 say half a dozen of the most prominent ones4 ,i divide the period1 before the law and after the law4 ,i take up ,abraham4 ,it is asserted that he was a polygamist4 ,i deny it4 ,there is no proof that ,abraham was guilty of polygamy4 ,what are the facts8 ,when he was called of the ,almighty to be the founder of a great nation1 a promise was given him that he should have a numerous posterity4 ,at that time he was a monogamist1 had but one wife--the noble ,sarah4 ,six years passed and the promise was not fulfilled4 ,then ,sarah1 desiring to help the ,lord to keep ,his promise1 brought her ,egyptian maid ,hagar1 and offered her as a substitute for herself to ,abraham4 ,mind you1 ,abraham did not go after ,hagar1 but ,sarah produced her as a substitute4 ,immediately after the act was performed ,sarah discovered her sin and said1 ,my wrong be upon thee4 ,i have committed sin1 but ,i did it for thy sake1 and therefore the wrong that ,i have committed is upon thee4 ,then look at the subsequent facts3 by the ,divine command this ,egyptian girl was sent away from the abode of ,abraham by the mutual consent of the husband and the wife2 by the ,divine command1 it is said that she was recognized as the wife of ,abraham1 but ,i say you cannot prove it from the ,bible2 but it is said that she was promised a numerous posterity4 ,it was also foretold that ,ishmael should be a wild man--his hand against every man and every man's hand against him4 ,did that prediction justify ,ishmael in being a robber and a murderer8 ,no1 certainly not2 neither did the other prediction1 that ,hagar should have a numerous posterity1 justify the action of ,abraham in taking her4 ,after she had been sent away by ,divine command1 ,god said unto ,abraham--now walk before me and be thou perfect4 ,these are the facts my friends4 ,i know that some will refer you to ,keturah2 but this is the fact in regard to her3 ,abraham lived thirty-eight years after the death of ,sarah2 the energy miraculously given to ,abraham's body for the generation of ,isaac was continued after ,sarah's death2 but to suppose that he took ,keturah during ,sarah's lifetime is to do violence to his moral character4 ,but it is said he sent away the sons of ,keturah with presents during his lifetime1 therefore it must have been during the life time of ,sarah4 ,he lived thirty-eight years after the death of ,sarah1 and he sent these sons away eight years before his death1 and they were from twenty-five to thirty years old4 ,then this venerable ,patriarch stands forth as a monogamist and not as a polygamist4 ,then we come to the case of ,jacob4 ,what are the facts in regard to him8 ,brought up in the sanctity of monogamy1 after having robbed his brother of his birth-right1 after having lied to his blind old father1 he then steals away and goes to ,padan-aram and there falls in love with ,rachel2 but in his bridal bed he finds ,rachel's sister ,leah4 ,he did not enter polygamy voluntarily but he was imposed upon4 ,as he had taken advantage of the blindness of his father and thereby imposed upon him1 so also was he imposed upon by ,laban in the darkness of the night4 ,but ,i hold this to be true that ,jacob is nowhere regarded as a saintly man prior to his conversion at the brook ,jabbok4 ,after that he appears to us in a saintly character4 ,it is a remarkable fact that ,jacob lived #adg years all told1 eighty-seven of which he lived before he became a polygamist4 ,he lived twenty-two years in polygamy1 he lived forty years after he had abandoned polygamy1 so that out of #adg years there were only twenty-two years during which he had any connection with polygamy4 ,i wish my friend had referred to the case of ,moses4 ,in his sermon on celestial marriage he claims that ,moses was a polygamist1 and he declares that the leprosy that was sent upon ,miriam was for her interference with the polygamous marriage of ,moses4 ,what are the facts8 ,there is no record of a second marriage4 ,zipporah is the only name given as the wife of ,moses4 ,what1 then1 is the assertion made8 ,simply this3 ,it is recorded3 and ,moses was content to dwell with ,jethro4 ,he gave ,moses ,zipporah1 his daughter4 ,josephus speaks of ,jethro having two daughters1 and distinctly says that he gave ,moses one of them4 ,in ,numbers xii and #ast1 it is said3 ,and ,miriam and ,aaron spake against ,moses because of the ,ethiopian woman whom he had married3 for he had married an ,ethiopian woman4 ,now it is affirmed that two women are here mentioned1 whereas nothing can be more untrue4 ,zipporah and the ,ethiopian woman are one and identical2 it is one and the same person called by different names4 ,let us see3 ,the father of ,zipporah was the priest of ,midian2 and according to the best authorities ,midian and ,ethiopia are identical terms1 and apply to that portion of ,arabia where ,jethro lived4 ,so the appellation ,midian1 ,ethiopia and ,arabia are applied to the ,arabian peninsula4 ,see ,appleton's ,american ,encyclopedia1 volumes #f1 #g and #aa4 ,then ,moses1 the ,jewish law-giver1 stands forth as a monogamist1 having but one wife4 ,moses was not a polygamist4 ,surely the founder of a polygamist nation and the revealer of a polygamist law1 as this gentleman claims1 should have set an example1 and should have had a dozen or a hundred wives4 ,this son of ,jochebed2 he was a monogamist1 and stands forth as being a reproof to polygamists in all generations4 ,now we come to ,gideon4 ,and what about this man8 ,an angel appeared to him1 that is true2 but if the practice of polygamy by ,gideon is a law to us1 then the practice of idolatry by ,gideon is also a law to us4 ,if there is silence in the ,bible touching the polygamy of ,gideon1 there is also silence in the ,bible touching his idolatry1 and if one is sanctioned so also is the other4 ,i wish my friend had brought up the case of ,hannah1 the wife of ,elkanah4 ,i can prove to a demonstration that ,hannah was the first wife of ,elkanah2 but being barren ,elkanah takes another wife4 ,but ,hannah1 in the anxiety of her heart1 pleads to the ,almighty1 and ,god honored her motherhood by answering her prayer4 ,it is asked ,is not this a sanction of polygamy8 ,nay1 a sanction of monogamy1 because she was the first wife of ,elkanah1 and because ,elkanah had been guilty of infidelity and married another wife1 was that a reason why ,hannah should not have her rights from ,high ,heaven1 why ,god ,almighty should not answer her prayer8 ,you ask me why did not she pray before4 ,can you tell me why ,isaac did not pray twenty years sooner for his wife1 ,rebecca1 that she might have children8 ,i can not tell and you can not tell1 all that ,i assert is that ,hannah was the first wife of ,elkanah1 and ,god honored and blessed the beautiful ,samuel4 ,now we come to ,david4 ,why did not my friend bring up ,david1 the great warrior1 king and poet1 the ruler of ,israel8 ,he might have mentioned him1 with ten wives all told2 he might also have mentioned him as the adulterer1 who committed one of the most premeditated1 cold-blooded murders on record1 simply to cover up his crime of adultery4 ,how often do you hear quoted the words and ,i gave thy master's wives into thy bosom68 ,is this an approval of polygamy8 ,if you will read on you will find also that ,god also promises to give his 7,david's7 wives to another1 and that another should lie with them in the sight of the sun4 ,surely if one is an approval of polygamy the other is an approval of rebellion and incest6 ,david lived to be seventy-five years old4 ,he was twenty-seven years old when he took his first wife ,michael1 the daughter of ,saul4 ,for the next forty years we find him complicated with the evils1 crimes and sorrows of polygamy2 and the old man1 seeing its great sin1 thoroughly repented of it and put it away from him1 and for the last eight years of his life endeavored to atone1 as best he could1 for his troubled and guilty experience4 ,and what of ,solomon8 ,he is the greatest polygamist--the possessor of a thousand wives6 ,had this gentleman told me that ,solomon's greatness was predicted1 and therefore his polygamic birth was approved1 and his polygamic marriage also approbated1 ,i can remind him of the fact that the future greatness of ,christ was foretold2 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 ,jews4 ,neither was the mere foretelling of the future greatness of ,solomon an approval of the polygamic character of his birth4 ,i suppose the gentleman on this occasion would have referred to the law of bastardy and have said1 if my doctrine is true1 then ,solomon and others were bastards4 ,i could have wished that he had produced that point4 ,he did quote and declare in this temple1 not long since1 in reference to the law touching bastardy1 that a bastard should be branded with infamy to the tenth generation4 ,but it is plain that he has misunderstood the law respecting bastards1 as contained in ,deuteronomy xxiii and #bnd4 ,it is known from history that the same signification has not always been attached to this term4 ,we say a bastard is one born out of wedlock1 that is monogamous matrimony4 ,in ,athens1 in the days of ,pericles1 five centuries before ,christ1 all were declared bastards by law who were not the children of native ,athenians4 ,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 ,jewess1 whether married or not1 was a bastard4 ,the only child recognized as a bastard by ,jewish law is a child born of a ,jew and a ,pagan woman2 therefore the objection falls to the ground1 and ,solomon and others1 who were not to blame for the character of their birth1 are exonerated4 ,the geometrical progression of evil in this system of polygamy is seen in the first three kings1 ,saul1 ,david and ,solomon4 ,saul had a wife and a concubine--two women2 ,david had ten women1 ,solomon had a thousand1 and it broke the kingdom asunder4 ,god says it was for that very cause4 ,he had multiplied his wives to such an extent1 that they had not only led him astray from ,god into idolatry1 but the very costliness of his harem was a burden upon the people too heavy for them to bear4 ,i said the other day that polygamy might do for kings and priests and nabobs1 but could not do for poor men2 it costs too much and the people are taxed too much to support the harem4 ,ah6 you bring forward these few cases of polygamy6 ,name them if you please4 ,lamech the murderer2 ,jacob1 who deceived his blind old father1 and robbed his brother of his birthright2 ,david1 who seduced another man's wife and murdered that man by putting him in front of the battle1 and old ,solomon1 who turned to be an idolater4 ,these are some polygamists6 ,now let me call the roll of honor3 ,there were ,adam1 ,enoch1 ,noah1 ,abraham1 ,isaac1 ,moses1 ,aaron1 ,joshua and ,joseph and ,samuel and all the prophets and apostles4 ,you are accustomed to hear1 from this sacred place1 that all the patriarchs and all the kings and all the prophets were polygamists4 ,i assert to the contrary1 and these great and eminent men whom ,i have just mentioned1 belonging to the roll of honor1 were monogamists4 ,yesterday the gentleman gave me three challenges2 he challenged me to show that the ,new ,testament condemned polygamy4 ,i now proceed to do it4 ,i quote ,paul's words1 #ast ,corinthians1 #gth chap41 #bnd and #dth verses3 ,nevertheless to avoid fornication1 let every man have his own wife1 and let every woman have her own husband4 ,the wife hath not power of her own body1 but the husband2 and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body1 but the wife4 ,marriage is a remedy against fornication1 and this is the subject of the chapter4 ,this is the opinion of ,clark1 ,henry1 ,whitby1 ,langley and others4 ,one great evil prevailed at ,corinth--a community of wives1 which the apostle here calls fornication4 ,st4 ,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 husband3 that is1 let every man have his own peculiar1 proper and appropriate wife1 and the wife her own proper1 peculiar and appropriate husband4 ,in this there is mutual appropriation and exclusiveness of right2 and this command of ,paul agrees with the law of ,moses in ,leviticus xviii1 #ah3 ,neither shalt thou take one wife unto another1 and the two are one statute1 clear and unquestionable for monogamy and against polygamy4 ,the apostle teaches the reciprocal duties of husband and wife1 and the exclusive right of each4 ,in verse four it is distinctly affirmed that the husband has exclusive power over the body of his wife1 as the wife has exclusive power over the body of her husband4 ,it is universally admitted that this passage proves the exclusive right of the husband to the wife1 and by parity it also proves the exclusive right of the wife to the husband4 ,these relations are mutual1 and if the husband can claim a whole wife1 the wife can claim a whole husband4 ,she has just as good a right to a whole husband as he has a right to a whole wife4 ,first ,corinthians1 #fth chapter1 #aeth1 #afth and #agth verses says3 ,know ye not that your bodies are the members of ,christ8 ,shall ,i then take the members of ,christ and make them the members of an harlot8 ,god forbid4 ,what6 know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body8 for two 7saith he7 shall be one flesh4 ,but he that is joined unto the ,lord is one spirit4 ,this passage is brought against the idea1 but what are the facts8 ,it is objected that if one flesh is conclusively expressive of wedlock1 that ,st4 ,paul affirms that sexual commerce with a harlot is marriage4 ,for argument's sake ,i accept the assertion4 ,the passage in question is3 ,what6 know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body8 ,for two1 says he1 shall be one flesh1 but he which is joined to the ,lord is one spirit4 ,now look at the facts of the position1 showing the true relation of the believer to ,christ4 ,it is illustrated under the figure of marriage4 ,the design of this figure is to show that the believer becomes one with ,christ2 and the apostle further explains1 in reproof of the ,corinthians mingling with idolaters and adulterers1 that by this mingling they become assimilated and identical4 ,he brings up an illustration that if a man is married to a harlot1 not simply joined1 but cohabit with or married to a harlot1 he becomes identical with her2 in other words1 one flesh4 ,there is a passage which declares that a bishop must be blameless1 the husband of one wife4 ,it is asserted that he must have one wife anyhow and as many more as he pleases4 ,it is supposed that this very caution indicates the prevalence of polygamy in that day2 but no proof can be brought to bear that polygamy prevailed extensively at that time2 on the contrary ,i am prepared to prove that polygamists were not admitted into the ,christian ,church1 for ,paul lays down the positive command3 ,let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband2 so that if you say the former applies to the priest1 and the latter1 applies to the layman1 what is good for the priest is good for the layman1 and vice versa4 ,how often is it asserted here that monogamy has come from the ,greeks and ,romans4 ,but look at the palpable contradiction in the assertion4 ,it is asserted that monogamy came from those nations2 it is also asserted that polygamy was universal at the time of ,christ and his apostles4 ,if monogamy came from the ,greeks and ,romans1 then polygamy could not have been universally prevalent1 for it is admitted that at that time the ,romans held universal sway1 and wherever they held sway their laws prevailed1 hence the two statements cannot be reconciled4 ,now we come to the words of the ,savior1 ,matthew v1 #bg and #bh2 and xix1 #h and #i1 and ,mark x1 and #aa and #ab4 ,at that time1 when the ,savior was discoursing with the ,pharisees1 as recorded in ,matthew xix1 the ,jews were divided as to the interpretation of the law of ,moses touching divorce3 when a man hath taken a wife and married her1 and it comes to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her1 then let him write her a bill of divorcement4 ,upon the meaning of the word uncleanness1 the ,jews differed3 some agreed with the school of ,rabbi ,hillel3 that a man might dismiss his wife for the slightest offence1 or for no offence at all1 if he found another woman that pleased him better2 but the school of ,rabbi ,shammai held that the term uncleanness means moral delinquency4 ,the ,pharisees came to ,christ1 hoping to involve him in this controversy2 ,he declined1 but took advantage of the opportunity to give them a discourse on marriage1 and in doing so1 he refers to the original institution1 saying have ye not read that in the beginning ,god made them male and female8 ,thus ,he brings out the great law of monogamy4 ,grant that the allusion is incidental1 nevertheless1 it is all-important as falling from the lips of the ,great ,master4 ,i was challenged to show that polygamy is adultery4 ,the gentleman challenged me1 and ,i will now proceed to prove it4 ,as adultery is distinguished in ,scripture from whoredom and fornication1 it is proper to ascertain the exact meaning of the words as used by the sacred writers4 ,the word translated whoredom is from the ,hebrew verb ,zanah and the ,greek pornica1 and means pollution1 defilement1 lewdness1 prostitution and1 in common parlance1 whoredom1 the prostitution of the body for gain4 ,the word translated fornication is from the same ,hebrew verb1 and in general1 signifies criminal1 sexual intercourse without the formalities of marriage4 ,adultery is from the ,hebrew word ,naaph and the ,greek word ,moicheia1 and is the criminal intercourse of a married woman with another man than her husband1 or of a married man with any other woman than his wife4 ,this is indicated by the philological significance of the term adulterate1 compounded of two words meaning to another1 as the addition of pure and impure liquors1 or of an alloy with pure metal4 ,adulterer is from the ,hebrew ,naaph and the ,greek ,moichos1 which mean as above4 ,the material question to be settled is1 ,is the ,hebrew word ,naaph and the ,greek word ,moichos or ,moicheia confined to the criminal sexual intercourse between a man1 married or unmarried1 with a married woman8 ,this is the theory of the ,mormon polygamists2 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 wife1 whether said woman is married or unmarried4 ,it is conceded that he is an adulterer who has carnal connection with a woman married or betrothed4 ,thus far we agree4 ,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 betrothed6 ,to prove this point ,i argue3 ,first1 that the ,hebrew word ,naaph1 translated in the seventh commandment1 adultery1 does include all criminal sexual intercourse4 ,it is a generic term and the whole includes the parts4 ,it is like the word kill in the sixth commandment1 which includes all those passions and emotions of the human soul which lead to murder1 such as jealousy1 envy1 malice1 hatred1 revenge4 ,so this word ,naaph includes whoredom1 fornication1 adultery1 and even salacial lust4 ,matthew v1 #bg1 #bi4 ,second4 ,the terms adultery and fornication are used interchangeably by our ,lord1 and mean the same thing4 ,a married woman copulating with a man other than her husband is admitted to be adultery1 but the highest authority we can bring forward calls the act fornication4 ,matthew v1 #c1 #b4 ,romans vii1 #b1 #c4 #ast ,corinthians vii1 #a1 #d4 ,third4 ,the carnal connection of a man with an unmarried woman is positively declared to be adultery in ,god's holy word4 ,it is so recorded in ,job xxiv1 from the #aeth to the #bast verse2 and in ,isaiah lvii and #crd it is taught that the adulterer commits his sin with the whore4 ,therefore ,i conclude that the term ,naaph1 as used in the seventh commandment1 comprehends all those modifications of that crime1 down to the salacial lust that a man may feel in his soul for a woman4 ,but it may be asked3 ,if this is so1 why then1 does the ,mosiac law mention a married woman8 ,we deny that such a distinction is made4 ,we do admit1 however1 that special penalties were pronounced on such an action with a married woman1 but for special reasons4 ,what were they8 ,to preserve the genealogy1 parentage and birth of ,christ from interruption and confusion1 which were in imminent danger when intercourse with a married woman was had by a man other than her husband4 ,and no such danger could arise from the intercourse with a married man with an unmarried woman4 ,that law was temporary1 and was abolished and passed away when ,christ came4 ,under the ,jewish dispensation he that cohabited with a woman other than his wife was responsible to ,god for the violation of the seventh commandment2 the woman was also responsible to ,god for the violation of the seventh commandment and this special law4 ,but here you say if this be true1 then some great men in ,bible times were guilty of the violation of the seventh commandment4 ,i say they were2 but they were not all polygamists3 that ,i have demonstrated to you to-day4 ,but take the facts3 ,abraham1 when convinced of his sin1 put away ,hagar2 ,jacob lived several years out of the state of polygamy2 ,david put away all his wives eight years before he died2 and if there is no account that ,solomon put away his1 neither is there the assurance that he abandoned his idolatry4 ,this then1 my friend1 is the argument2 and as a ,christian minister1 desiring only your good1 ,i proclaim the fact that polygamy is adultery4 ,i do it in all kindness1 but ,i assert it as a doctrine taught in the ,bible4 ,i am challenged again to prove that polygamy is no prevention of prostitution4 ,it has been affirmed time and time again1 not only in this discussion1 but in the written works of these distinguished gentlemen around me1 that in monogamic countries prostitution1 or what is known as the social evil1 is almost universally prevalent4 ,i perceive that ,i have not time to follow out this in arguments2 but ,i am prepared to prove1 and ,i will prove it in your daily papers1 that prostitution is as old as authentic history2 that prostitution has been and is to-day more prevalent in polygamic countries than in monogamic countries4 ,i can prove that the figures representing prostitution in monogamic countries are all overdrawn4 ,they are overdrawn in regard to my native city1 that the gentleman brought up1 ,new ,york1 and of the million and over of population he can not find six thousand recorded prostitutes4 ,i can go1 for instance1 to ,st4 ,louis1 where they have just taken the census of the prostitutes of that city1 and with a population of three hundred thousand1 there are but #fej courtesans4 ,you may go through the length and breadth of this land1 and in villages containing from one thousand to ten thousand inhabitants1 you cannot find a house of prostitution4 ,the truth is1 my friends1 they would not allow it for a moment4 ,those men who assert that our monogamous country is full of prostitutes put forth a slander upon our country4 ,our distinguished friend referred to religious liberty1 and claimed that he had a right under the ,federal ,constitution to enjoy religious liberty and to practise polygamy4 ,i am proud as he is that we have religious liberty here4 ,i rejoice that a man can worship ,god after his own heart2 but ,i affirm that the law of limitation is no less applicable to religious liberty than it is to the revolution of the heavenly bodies4 ,the law of limitation is as universal as creation1 and religious liberty must be practised within the bounds of decency1 and the wellbeing of society2 and civil authority may extend or restrict this religious liberty within due bounds4 ,why1 the ,hindoo mother may come here with her ,shasta--with her ,bible--and she may throw her babe into your river or lake1 and the civil authorities1 according to your theory1 could not interpose and say to that mother1 ,you shall not do it4 ,that is the theory4 ,you say it is murder1 ,i say it is not4 ,i say the act is stripped of the attributes of murder2 it is a religious act4 ,she turns to her bible or ,shasta1 and says3 ,i am commanded to do this by my bible4 ,what will you do8 ,you will turn away from the ,shasta and say1 ,the interests of society demand that you shall not murder that child4 ,so civil government has the right to legislate in regard to marriage1 and restrict the number of wives to one1 according to ,god's law4 ,but ,i am not an advocate of stringent legislation4 ,i agree with my friend1 that the law should not incarcerate men1 women and children in dungeons6 ,no1 my friends1 if ,i can say a word to induce humane and kind legislation toward the people of ,utah ,i shall do it1 and do it most gladly4 ,but ,i assert this principle1 that civil government has the right to limit religious liberty within due bounds4 ,there was another point that ,i desired to touch upon1 and that is as to the longevity of nations4 ,we are told repeatedly here1 in printed works1 that monogamic nations are short-lived1 and that polygamic nations are long-lived4 ,i am prepared to go back to the days of ,nimrod1 come down to the days of ,ninus ,sardanapalus1 and down to the days of ,cyrus the ,great1 and all through those ancient polygamic nations1 and show that they were short-lived2 while on the other hand ,i am prepared to prove that ,greece and ,rome outlived the longest-lived polygamic nations of the past4 ,greece1 from the days of ,homer down to the third century of the ,christian era2 and ,rome at from seven hundred and fifty years before the coming of ,christ down to the dissolution of the old empire4 ,but that old empire finds a resurrection in the ,italians under ,victor ,emanuel and ,garibaldi2 and ,england1 ,germany and ,france are all proofs of the longevity of monogamic nations4 ,babylon is a ruin to-day1 and ,babylon was polygamic4 ,egypt1 to-day1 is a ruin6 ,her massy piles of ruin bespeak her former glory and her pristine beauty4 ,and the last edition of the polygamic nations--,turkey--is passing away4 ,from the ,golden ,horn and the ,bosphorus1 from the ,danube1 and the ,jordan and the ,nile1 the power of ,mahommedanism is passing away before the advance of the monogamic nations of the old world4 ,our own country is just in its youth2 but monogamic as it is1 it is destined to live on1 to outlive the hoary past1 to live on in its greatness1 in its benificence1 in its power2 to live on until it has demonstrated all those great problems committed to our trust for human rights1 religion1 liberty and the advancement of the race4 ,my friends1 these are the arguments in favor of ,monogamy2 and when they can be overthrown1 then it will be time enough for us to receive the system of ,polygamy as it is taught here4 ,but until that great law that we have quoted can be proved to be not a law3 until it can be proved that there is no distinction between law and practice2 until it can be proved that there is a positive command for polygamy2 until it can be proved that ,christ did not refer to the original marriage2 until it can be proved that ,paul does not demand that every man shall have his own wife and every woman her own husband2 until it can be proved that polygamy is a prevention of prostitution2 until it can be proved that monogamic nations are not as long-lived as polygamous nations2 until it can be proved that monogamy is not in harmony with civil liberty2 until all these points can be demonstrated beyond a doubt2 until then1 we can't give up this grand idea that ,god's law condemns polygamy1 and that ,god's law commends monogamy2 that the highest interests of man1 that the dearest interests of the rising generation1 that all that binds us to earth and points us to heaven are not subserved and promoted under the monogamic system4 ,all these great interests demand the practice of monogamy in marriage--one man and one wife4 ,then indeed shall be realized the picture portrayed in ,scripture of the happy family--the family where the wife is one and the husband one1 and the two are equivalent2 then1 when father and mother1 centered in the family1 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 doctrine4 ,,discourse ,,on ,,celestial ,,marriage1 ,,delivered ,,by ,,elder ,,orson ,,pratt1 ,,in ,,the ,,new ,,tabernacle1 ,,salt ,,lake ,,city1 ,,october #gth1 #ahfi4 ,it was announced at the close of the forenoon meeting that ,i would address the congregation this afternoon upon the subject of ,celestial ,marriage2 ,i do so with the greatest pleasure4 ,in the first place1 let us enquire whether it is lawful and right1 according to the ,constitution of our country1 to examine and practise this ,bible doctrine8 ,our fathers1 who framed the ,constitution of our country1 devised it so as to give freedom of religious worship of the ,almighty ,god2 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 family4 ,i do not think however that our forefathers1 in framing that instrument1 intended to embrace all the religions of the world4 ,i mean the idolatrous and pagan religions4 ,they say nothing about those religions in the ,constitution2 but they give the express privilege in that instrument to all people dwelling under this ,government and under the institutions of our country1 to believe in all things which the ,almighty has revealed to the human family4 ,there is no restriction or limitation1 so far as ,bible religion is concerned1 on any principle or form of religion believed to have emanated from the ,almighty2 but yet they would not admit idolatrous nations to come here and practise their religion1 because it is not included in the ,bible2 it is not the religion of the ,almighty4 ,those people worship idols1 the work of their own hands2 they have instituted rights and ceremonies pertaining to those idols1 in the observance of which they1 no doubt1 suppose they are worshipping correctly and sincerely1 yet some of them are of the most revolting and barbarous character4 ,such1 for instance1 as the offering up of a widow on a funeral pile1 as a burnt sacrifice1 in order to follow her husband into the eternal worlds4 ,that is no part of the religion mentioned in the ,constitution of our country1 it is no part of the religion of ,almighty ,god4 ,but confining ourselves within the limits of the ,constitution1 and coming back to the religion of the ,bible1 we have the privilege to believe in the ,patriarchal1 in the ,mosaic1 or in the ,christian order of things2 for the ,god of the patriarchs1 and the ,god of ,moses is also the ,christians' ,god4 ,it is true that many laws were given1 under the ,patriarchal or ,mosaic dispensations1 against certain crimes1 the penalties for violating which1 religious bodies1 under our ,constitution1 have not the right to inflict4 ,the ,government has reserved1 in its own hands1 the power1 so far as affixing the penalties of certain crimes is concerned4 ,in ancient times there was a law strictly enforcing the observance of the ,sabbath day1 and the man or woman who violated that law was subjected to the punishment of death4 ,ecclesiastical bodies have the right1 under our government and ,constitution1 to observe the ,sabbath day1 or to disregard it1 but they have not the right to inflict corporeal punishment for its non-observance4 ,the subject proposed to be investigated this afternoon is that of ,celestial ,marriage1 as believed in by the ,latter-day ,saints1 and which they claim is strictly a ,bible doctrine and part of the revealed religion of the ,almighty4 ,it is well known by all the ,latter-day ,saints that we have not derived all our knowledge concerning ,god1 heaven1 angels1 this life and the life to come1 entirely from the books of the ,bible2 yet we believe that all of our religious principles and notions are in accordance with and are sustained by the ,bible2 consequently1 though we believe in new revelation1 and believe that ,god has revealed many things pertaining to our religion1 we also believe that ,he has revealed none that are inconsistent with the worship of ,almighty ,god1 a sacred right guaranteed to all religious denominations by the ,constitution of our country4 ,god created man1 male and female4 ,he is the author of our existence4 ,he placed us on this creation4 ,he ordained laws to govern us4 ,he gave to man1 whom he created1 a help-meet--a woman1 a wife to be one with him1 to be a joy and a comfort to him2 and also for another very great and wise purpose--namely1 that the human species might be propagated on this creation1 that the earth might teem with population according to the decree of ,god before the foundation of the world2 that the intelligent spirits whom ,he had formed and created1 before this world was rolled into existence1 might have their probation1 might have an existence in fleshly bodies on this planet1 and be governed by laws emanating from their ,great ,creator4 ,in the breast of male and female he established certain qualities and attributes that never will be eradicated--namely love towards each other4 ,love comes from ,god4 ,the love which man possesses for the opposite sex came from ,god4 ,the same ,god who created the two sexes implanted in the hearts of each love towards the other4 ,what was the object of placing this passion or affection within the hearts of male and female8 ,it was in order to carry out1 so far as this world was concerned1 ,his great and eternal purposes pertaining to the future4 ,but ,he not only did establish this principle in the heart of man and woman1 but gave divine laws to regulate them in relation to this passion or affection1 that they might be limited and prescribed in the exercise of it towards each other4 ,he therefore ordained the ,marriage ,institution4 ,the marriage that was instituted in the first place was between two immortal beings1 hence it was marriage for eternity in the very first case which we have recorded for an example4 ,marriage for eternity was the order ,god instituted on our globe2 as early as the ,garden of ,eden1 as early as the day when our first parents were placed in the garden to keep it and till it1 they1 as two immortal beings1 were united in the bonds of the ,new and ,everlasting ,covenant4 ,this was before man fell1 before the forbidden fruit was eaten1 and before the penalty of death was pronounced upon the heads of our first parents and all their posterity1 hence1 when ,god gave to ,adam his wife ,eve1 ,he gave her to him as an immortal wife1 and there was no end contemplated of the relation they held to each other as husband and wife4 ,by and bye1 after this marriage had taken place1 they transgressed the law of ,god1 and by reason of that transgression the penalty of death came1 not only upon them1 but also upon all their posterity4 ,death1 in its operations1 tore asunder1 as it were1 these two beings who had hitherto been immortal1 and if ,god had not1 before the foundation of the world1 provided a plan of redemption1 they would perhaps have been torn asunder forever2 but inasmuch as a plan of redemption had been provided1 by which man could be rescued from the effects of the ,fall1 ,adam and ,eve were restored to that condition of union1 in respect to immortality1 from which they had been separated for a short season of time by death4 ,the ,atonement reached after them and brought forth their bodies from the dust1 and restored them as husband and wife1 to all the privileges that were pronounced upon them before the ,fall4 ,that was eternal marriage2 that was lawful marriage ordained by ,god4 ,that was the divine institution which was revealed and practised in the early period of our globe4 ,how has it been since that day8 ,mankind have strayed from that order of things1 or1 at least1 they have done so in latter times4 ,we hear nothing among the religious societies of the world which profess to believe in the ,bible about this marriage for eternity4 ,it is among the things which are obsolete4 ,now all marriages are consummated until death only2 they do not believe in that great pattern and prototype established in the beginning2 hence we never hear of their official characters1 whether civil or religious1 uniting men and women in the capacity of husband and wife as immortal beings4 ,no1 they marry as mortal beings only1 and until death does them part4 ,what is to become of them after death8 ,what will take place among all those nations who have been marrying for centuries for time only8 ,do both men and women receive a resurrection8 ,do they come forth with all the various affections1 attributes and passions that ,god gave them in the beginning8 ,does the male come forth from the grave with all the attributes of a man8 ,does the female come forth from her grave with all the attributes of a woman8 ,if so1 what is their future destiny8 ,is there no object or purpose in this new creation save to give them life1 a state of existence8 or is there a more important object in view in the mind of ,god1 in thus creating them anew8 ,will that principle of love which exists now1 and which has existed from the beginning1 exist after the resurrection8 ,i mean this sexual love4 ,if that existed before the ,fall1 and if it has existed since then1 will it exist in the eternal worlds after the resurrection8 ,this is a very important question to be decided4 ,we read in the revelations of ,god that there are various classes of beings in the eternal worlds4 ,there are some who are kings1 priests1 and ,gods1 others that are angels2 and also among them are the orders denominated celestial1 terrestrial1 and telestial4 ,god1 however1 according to the faith of the ,latter-day ,saints1 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 wives1 and that they alone should have the privilege of propagating their species--intelligent1 immortal beings4 ,now it is wise1 no doubt1 in the ,great ,creator to thus limit this great and ,heavenly principle to those who have arrived or come to the highest state of exaltation1 excellency1 wisdom1 knowledge1 power1 glory and faithfulness1 to dwell in his presence1 that they by this means shall be prepared to bring up their spirit offspring in all pure and holy principles in the eternal worlds1 in order that they may be made happy4 ,consequently he does not entrust this privilege of multiplying spirits with the terrestrial or telestial1 or the lower order of beings there1 nor with angels4 ,but why not8 ,because they have not proved themselves worthy of this great privilege4 ,we might reason1 of the eternal worlds1 as some of the enemies of polygamy reason of this state of existence1 and say that there are just as many males as females there1 some celestial1 some terrestrial and some telestial2 and why not have all these paired off1 two by two8 ,because ,god administers ,his gifts and ,his blessings to those who are most faithful1 giving them more bountifully to the faithful1 and taking away from the unfaithful that with which they had been entrusted1 and which they had not improved upon4 ,that is the order of ,god in the eternal worlds1 and if such an order exist there1 it may in a degree exist here4 ,when the sons and daughters of the ,most ,high ,god come forth in the morning of the resurrection1 this principle of love will exist in their bosoms just as it exists here1 only intensified according to the increased knowledge and understanding which they possess2 hence they will be capacitated to enjoy the relationships of husband and wife1 of parents and children a hundred fold degree greater than they could in mortality4 ,we are not capable1 while surrounded with the weaknesses of our flesh1 to enjoy these eternal principles in the same degree that will then exist4 ,shall these principles of conjugal and parental love and affection be thwarted in the eternal worlds8 ,shall they be rooted out and overcome8 ,no1 most decidedly not4 ,according to the religious notions of the world these principles will not exist after the resurrection2 but our religion teaches the fallacy of such notions4 ,it is true that we read in the ,new ,testament that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage1 but are as the angels in heaven4 ,these are the words of our ,savior when ,he was addressing himself to a very wicked class of people1 the ,sadducees1 a portion of the ,jewish nation1 who rejected ,jesus1 and the counsel of ,god against their own souls4 ,they had not attained to the blessings and privileges of their fathers1 but had apostatized2 and ,jesus1 in speaking to them1 says that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of ,god4 ,i am talking1 to-day1 to ,latter-day ,saints2 ,i am not reasoning with unbelievers4 ,if ,i were1 ,i should appeal more fully to the ,old ,testament ,scriptures to bring in arguments and testimonies to prove the divine authenticity of polygamic marriages4 ,perhaps ,i may touch upon this for a few moments1 for the benefit of strangers1 should there be any in our midst4 ,let me say1 then1 that ,god's people1 under every dispensation since the creation of the world1 have1 generally1 been polygamists4 ,i say this for the benefit of strangers4 ,according to the good old book1 called the ,bible1 when ,god saw proper to call out ,abraham from all the heathen nations1 and made him a great man in the world1 ,he saw proper1 also1 to make him a polygamist1 and approbated him in taking unto himself more wives than one4 ,was it wrong in ,abraham to do this thing8 ,if it were1 when did ,god reprove him for so doing8 ,when did ,he ever reproach ,jacob for doing the same thing8 ,who can find the record in the lids of the ,bible of ,god reproving ,abraham1 as being a sinner1 and having committed a crime1 in taking to himself two living wives8 ,no such thing is recorded4 ,he was just as much blessed after doing this thing as before1 and more so1 for ,god promised blessings upon the issue of ,abraham by his second wife the same as that of the first wife1 providing he was equally faithful4 ,this was a proviso in every case4 ,when we come down to ,jacob1 the ,lord permitted him to take four wives4 ,they are so called in holy writ4 ,they are not denominated prostitutes1 neither are they called concubines1 but they are called wives1 legal wives2 and to show that ,god approved of the course of ,jacob in taking these wives1 ,he blessed them abundantly1 and hearkened to the prayer of the second wife just the same as to the first4 ,rachel was the second wife of ,jacob1 and our great mother1 for you know that many of the ,latter-day ,saints by revelation know themselves to be the descendants of ,joseph1 and he was the son of ,rachel1 the second wife of ,jacob4 ,god in a peculiar manner blessed the posterity of this second wife4 ,instead of condemning the old patriarch1 ,he ordained that ,joseph1 the first-born of this second wife1 should be considered the first-born of all the twelve tribes1 and into his hands was given the double birthright1 according to the laws of the ancients4 ,and yet he was the offspring of plurality--of the second wife of ,jacob4 ,of course1 if ,reuben1 who was indeed1 the first-born unto ,jacob1 had conducted himself properly1 he might have retained the birthright and the greater inheritance2 but he lost that through his transgression1 and it was given to a polygamic child1 who had the privilege of inheriting the blessing to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills2 the great continent of ,north and ,south ,america was conferred upon him4 ,another proof that ,god did not disapprove of a man having more wives than one1 is to be found in the fact that1 ,rachel1 after she had been a long time barren1 prayed to the ,lord to give her seed4 ,the ,lord hearkened to her cry and granted her prayer2 and when she received seed from the ,lord by her polygamic husband1 she exclaimed--the ,lord hath hearkened unto me and hath answered my prayer4 ,now do you think the ,lord would have done this if ,he had considered polygamy a crime8 ,would ,he have hearkened to the prayer of this woman if ,jacob had been living with her in adultery8 and he certainly was doing so if the ideas of this generation are correct4 ,again1 what says the ,lord in the days of ,moses1 under another dispensation8 ,we have seen that in the days of ,abraham1 ,isaac and ,jacob1 ,he approved of polygamy and blessed ,his servants who practised it1 and also their wives and children4 ,now1 let us come down to the days of ,moses4 ,we read that1 on a certain occasion1 the sister of ,moses1 ,miriam1 and certain others in the great congregation of ,israel1 got very jealous4 ,what were they jealous about8 ,about the ,ethiopian woman that ,moses had taken to wife1 in addition to the daughter of ,jethro1 whom he had taken before in the land of ,midian4 ,how dare the great law-giver1 after having committed1 according to the ideas of the present generation1 a great crime1 show his face on ,mount ,sinai when it was clothed with the glory of the ,god of ,israel8 ,but what did the ,lord do in the case of ,miriam1 for finding fault with her brother ,moses8 ,instead of saying you are right1 ,miriam1 he has committed a great crime1 and no matter how much you speak against him1 ,he smote her with a leprosy the very moment she began to complain1 and she was considered unclean for a certain number of days4 ,here the ,lord manifested1 by the display of a signal judgment1 that ,he disapproved of any one speaking against ,his servants for taking more wives than one1 because it may not happen to suit their notion of things4 ,i make these remarks and wish to apply them to fault-finders against plural marriages in our day4 ,are there any ,miriams in our congregation to-day1 any of those who1 professing to belong to the ,israel of the latter-days1 sometimes find fault with the man of ,god standing at their head1 because he1 not only believes in but practises this divine institution of the ancients8 ,if there be such in our midst1 ,i say1 remember ,miriam the very next time you begin to talk with your neighboring women1 or any body else against this holy principle4 ,remember the awful curse and judgment that fell on the sister of ,moses when she did the same thing1 and then fear and tremble before ,god1 lest ,he1 in his wrath1 may swear that you shall not enjoy the blessings ordained for those who inherit the highest degree of glory4 ,let us pass along to another instance under the dispensation of ,moses4 ,the ,lord says1 on a certain occasion1 if a man have married two wives1 and he should happen to hate one and love the other1 is he to be punished--cast out and stoned to death as an adulterer8 ,no2 instead of the ,lord denouncing him as an adulterer because of having two wives1 ,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 children1 compelling him to give just as much to the son of the hated wife as to the son of the one beloved2 and1 if the son of the hated woman happened to be the first-born1 he should actually inherit the double portion4 ,consequently1 the ,lord approved1 not only the two wives1 but their posterity also4 ,now1 if the women had not been considered wives by the ,lord1 their children would have been bastards1 and you know that ,he has said that bastards shall not enter into the congregation of the ,lord1 until the tenth generation1 hence you see there is a great distinction between those whom the ,lord calls legitimate or legal1 and those who were bastards--begotten in adultery and whoredom4 ,the latter1 with their posterity1 were shut out of the congregation of the ,lord until the tenth generation1 while the former were exalted to all the privileges of legitimate birthright4 ,again1 under that same law and dispensation1 we find that the ,lord provided for another contingency among the hosts of ,israel4 ,in order that the inheritances of the families of ,israel might not run into the hands of strangers1 the ,lord1 in the book of ,deuteronomy1 gives a command that if a man die1 leaving a wife1 but no issue1 his brother shall marry his widow and take possession of the inheritance2 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 husband4 ,the law was in full force at the time of the introduction of ,christianity--a great many centuries after it was given4 ,the reasoning of the ,sadducees on one occasion when conversing with ,jesus proves that the law was then observed4 ,said they3 ,there were seven brethren who all took a certain woman1 each one taking her in succession after the death of the other1 and they inquired of ,jesus which of the seven would have her for a wife in the resurrection4 ,the ,sadducees1 no doubt1 used this figure to prove1 as they thought1 the fallacy of the doctrine of the resurrection1 but it also proves that this law1 given by the ,creator while ,israel walked acceptably before ,him1 was acknowledged by their wicked descendants in the days of the ,savior4 ,i merely quote the passage to show that the law was not considered obsolete at that time4 ,a case like this1 when six of the brethren had died1 leaving the widow without issue1 the seventh1 whether married or unmarried1 must fulfill this law and take the widow to wife1 or lay himself liable to a very severe penalty4 ,what was that penalty8 ,according to the testimony of the law of ,moses he would be cursed1 for ,moses says--cursed be he that doth not all things according as it is written in this book of the law1 and let all the people say ,amen4 ,there can be no doubt that many men in those days were compelled to be polygamists in the fulfillment of this law1 for any man who would not take the childless wife of a deceased brother and marry her1 would come under tho tremendous curse recorded in the book of ,deuteronomy1 and all the people would be obliged to sanction the curse1 because he would not obey the law of ,god and become a polygamist4 ,they were not all congressmen in those days1 nor ,presidents1 nor ,presbyterians1 nor ,methodists1 nor ,roman ,catholics2 but they were the people of ,god1 governed by divine law1 and were commanded to be polygamists2 not merely suffered to be so1 but actually commanded to be4 ,there are some ,latter-day ,saints who1 perhaps1 have not searched these things as they ought1 hence we occasionally find some who will say that ,god suffered these things to be4 ,i will go further1 and say that ,he commanded them1 and ,he pronounced a curse1 to which all the people had to say amen1 if they did not fulfill the commandment4 ,coming down to the days of the prophets we find that they were polygamists2 also to the days of the kings of ,israel1 whom ,god appointed ,himself1 and approbated and blessed4 ,this was especially the case with one of them1 named ,david1 who1 the ,lord said1 was a man after ,his own heart4 ,david was called when yet a youth1 to reign over the whole twelve tribes of ,israel2 ,but ,saul1 the reigning king of ,israel1 persecuted him1 and sought to take away his life4 ,david fled from city to city throughout all the coasts of ,judea in order to get beyond the reach of the relentless persecutions of ,saul4 ,while thus fleeing1 the ,lord was with him1 hearing his prayers1 answering his petitions1 giving him line upon line1 precept upon precept2 permitting him to look into the ,urim and ,thummin and receive revelations1 which enabled him to escape from his enemies4 ,in addition to all these blessing that ,god bestowed upon him in his youth1 before he was exalted to the throne1 ,he gave him eight wives2 and after exalting him to the throne1 instead of denouncing him for having many wives1 and pronouncing him worthy of fourteen or twenty-one years of imprisonment1 the ,lord was with ,his servant ,david1 and1 thinking he had not wives enough1 ,he gave to him all the wives of his master ,saul1 in addition to the eight ,he had previously given him4 ,was the ,lord to be considered a criminal1 and worthy of being tried in a court of justice and sent to prison for thus increasing the polygamic relations of ,david8 ,no1 certainly not2 it was in accordance with his own righteous laws1 and ,he was with ,his servant1 ,david the king1 and blessed him4 ,by and by1 when ,david transgressed1 not in taking other wives1 but in taking the wife of another man1 the anger of the ,lord was kindled against him and ,he chastened him and took away all the blessings ,he had given him4 ,all the wives ,david had received from the hand of ,god were taken from him4 ,why8 ,because he had committed adultery4 ,here then is a great distinction between adultery and plurality of wives4 ,one brings honor and blessing to those who engage in it1 the other degradation and death4 ,after ,david had repented with all his heart of his crime with the wife of ,uriah1 he1 notwithstanding the number of wives he had previously taken1 took ,bathsheba legally1 and by that legal marriage ,solomon was born2 the child born of her unto ,david1 begotten illegally1 being a bastard1 displeased the ,lord and ,he struck it with death2 but with ,solomon1 a legal issue from the same woman1 the ,lord was so pleased that he ordained ,solomon and set him on the throne of his father ,david4 ,this shows the difference between the two classes of posterity1 the one begotten illegally1 the other in the order of marriage4 ,if ,solomon had been a bastard1 as this pious generation would have us suppose1 instead of being blessed of the ,lord and raised to the throne of his father1 he would have been banished from the congregation of ,israel and his seed after him for ten generations4 ,but1 notwithstanding that he was so highly blessed and honored of the ,lord1 there was room for him to transgress and fall1 and in the end he did so4 ,for a long time the ,lord blessed ,solomon1 but eventually he violated that law which the ,lord had given forbidding ,israel to take wives from the idolatrous nations1 and some of these wives succeeded in turning his heart from the ,lord and induced him to worship the heathen gods1 and the ,lord was angry with him and1 as it is recorded in the ,book of ,mormon1 considered the acts of ,solomon an abomination in ,his sight4 ,let us now come to the record in the ,book of ,mormon1 when the ,lord led forth ,lehi and ,nephi1 and ,ishmael and his two sons and five daughters out of the land of ,jerusalem to the land of ,america4 ,the males and females were about equal in number3 there were ,nephi1 ,sam1 ,laman and ,lemuel1 the four sons of ,lehi1 and ,zoram1 brought out of ,jerusalem4 ,how many daughters of ,ishmael were unmarried8 ,just five4 ,would if have been just under these circumstances1 to ordain plurality among them8 ,no4 ,why8 ,because the males and females were equal in number and they were all under the guidance of the ,almighty1 hence it would have been unjust1 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 system4 ,in this case the ,lord1 through ,his servant ,lehi1 gave a command that they should have but one wife4 ,the ,lord had a perfect right to vary ,his commands in this respect according to circumstances1 as ,he did in others1 as recorded in the ,bible4 ,there we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind and will of ,god1 and were varied according to circumstances1 as ,he thought proper4 ,by and by1 after the death of ,lehi1 some of his posterity began to disregard the strict law that ,god had given to their father1 and took more wives than one1 and the ,lord put them in mind1 through ,his servant ,jacob1 one of the sons of ,lehi1 of this law1 and told them that they were transgressing it1 and then referred to ,david and ,solomon1 as having committed abomination in his sight4 ,the ,bible also tells us that they sinned in the sight of ,god2 not in taking wives legally but only in those they took illegally1 in doing which they brought wrath and condemnation upon their heads4 ,but because the ,lord dealt thus with the small branch of the ,house of ,israel that came to ,america1 under their peculiar circumstances1 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 relations4 ,the same ,god that commanded one branch of the ,house of ,israel in ,america1 to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal1 gave a different command to the hosts of ,israel in ,palestine4 ,but let us see the qualifying clause given in the ,book of ,mormon on this subject4 ,after having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by ,lehi1 in regard to monogamy1 the ,lord says--,for if ,i will raise up seed unto me ,i will command my people1 otherwise they shall hearken unto these things2 that is1 if ,i will raise up seed among my people of the ,house of ,israel1 according to the law that exists among the tribes of ,israel1 ,i will give them a commandment on the subject1 but if ,i do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which ,i give unto their father ,lehi4 ,that is the meaning of the passage1 and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle ,god did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by ,him4 ,in the early rise of this church1 ,february1 #ahca1 ,god gave a commandment to its members1 recorded in the ,book of ,covenants1 wherein ,he says--,thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart1 and shalt cleave unto her and to none else2 and then ,he gives a strict law against adultery4 ,this you have1 no doubt1 all read2 but let me ask whether the ,lord had the privilege and the right to vary from this law4 ,it was given in #ahca1 when the one-wife system alone prevailed among this people4 ,i will tell you what the ,prophet ,joseph said in relation to this matter in #ahca1 also in #ahcb1 the year in which the law commanding the members of this church to cleave to one wife only was given4 ,joseph was then living in ,portage ,county1 in the town of ,hyrum1 at the house of ,father ,john ,johnson4 ,joseph was very intimate with that family1 and they were good people at that time1 and enjoyed much of the spirit of the ,lord4 ,in the fore part of the year #ahcb1 ,joseph told individuals1 then in the ,church1 that he1 had enquired of the ,lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives1 and he received for answer that the principle of taking more wives than one is a true principle1 but the time had not yet come for it to be practised4 ,that was before the ,church was two years old4 ,the ,lord has ,his own time to do all things pertaining to ,his purposes in the last dispensation4 ,his own time for restoring all things that have been predicted by the ancient prophets4 ,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 apparel1 only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach2 and that1 in that day the branch of the ,lord should be beautiful and glorious and the fruits of the earth should be excellent and comely1 the ,lord has the right to say when that time shall be4 ,now1 supposing the members of this ,church had undertaken to vary from that law given in #ahca1 to love their one wife with all their hearts and to cleave to none other1 they would have come under the curse and condemnation of ,god's holy law4 ,some twelve years after that time the revelation on ,celestial ,marriage was revealed4 ,this is just republished at the ,deseret ,news office1 in a pamphlet entitled ,answers to ,questions1 by ,president ,george ,a4 ,smith1 and heretofore has been published in pamphlet form and in the ,millennial ,star1 and sent throughout the length and breadth of our country1 being included in our works and published in the works of our enemies4 ,then came the ,lord's time for this holy and ennobling principle to be practised again among ,his people4 ,we have not time to read the revelation this afternoon2 suffice it to say that ,god revealed the principle through ,his servant ,joseph in #ahdc4 ,it was known by many individuals while the ,church was yet in ,illinois2 and though it was not then printed1 it was a familiar thing through all the streets of ,nauvoo1 and indeed throughout all ,hancock county4 ,did ,i hear about it8 ,i verily did4 ,did my brethren of the ,twelve know about it8 ,they certainly did4 ,were there any females who knew about it8 ,there certainly were1 for some received the revelation and entered into the practice of the principle4 ,some may say1 ,why was it not printed1 and made known to the people generally1 if it was of such importance8 ,i reply by asking another question3 ,why did not the revelations in the book of ,doctrine and ,covenants come to us in print years before they did8 ,why were they shut up in ,joseph's cupboard years and years without being suffered to be printed and sent broadcast throughout the land8 ,because the ,lord had again ,his own time to accomplish ,his purposes1 and ,he suffered the revelations to be printed just when ,he saw proper4 ,he did not suffer the revelation on the great ,american war to be published until sometime after it was given4 ,so in regard to the revelation on plurality1 it was only a short time after ,joseph's death that we published it1 having a copy thereof4 ,but what became of the original8 ,an apostate destroyed it2 you have heard her name4 ,that same woman1 in destroying the original1 thought she had destroyed the revelation from the face of the earth4 ,she was embittered against ,joseph1 her husband1 and at times fought against him with all her heart3 and then again she would break down in her feelings1 and humble herself before ,god and call upon ,his holy name1 and would then lead forth ladies and place their hands in the hands of ,joseph1 and they were married to him according to the law of ,god4 ,that same woman has brought up her children to believe that no such thing as plurality of wives existed in the days of ,joseph1 and has instilled the bitterest principles of apostasy into their minds1 to fight against the ,church that has come to these mountains according to the predictions of ,joseph4 ,in the year #ahdd1 before his death1 a large company was organized to come and search out a location1 west of the ,rocky ,mountains4 ,we have been fulfilling and carrying out his predictions in coming here and since our arrival4 ,the course pursued by this woman shows what apostates can do1 and how wicked they can become in their hearts4 ,when they apostatize from the truth they can come out and swear before ,god and the heavens that such and such things never existed1 when they know1 as well as they know they exist themselves1 that they are swearing falsely4 ,why do they do this8 ,because they have no fear of ,god before their eyes2 because they have apostatized from the truth2 because they have taken it upon themselves to destroy the revelations of the ,most ,high1 and to banish them from the face of the earth1 and the ,spirit of ,god withdraws from them4 ,we have come here to these mountains1 and have continued to practise the principle of ,celestial ,marriage from the day the revelation was given until the present time2 and we are a polygamic people1 and a great people1 comparatively speaking1 considering the difficult circumstances under which we came to this land4 ,let us speak for a few moments upon another point connected with this subject--that is1 the reason why ,god has established polygamy under the present circumstances among this people4 ,if all the inhabitants of the earth1 at the present time1 were righteous before ,god1 and both males and females were faithful in keeping ,his commandments1 and the numbers of the sexes of a marriageable age were exactly equal1 there would be no necessity for any such institution4 ,every righteous man could have his wife and there would be no overplus of females4 ,but what are the facts in relation to this matter8 ,since old ,pagan ,rome and ,greece--worshippers of idols--passed a law confining a man to one wife1 there has been a great surplus of females1 who have had no possible chance of getting married4 ,you may think this a strange statement1 but it is a fact that those nations were the founders of what is termed monogamy4 ,all other nations1 with few exceptions1 had followed the scriptural plan of having more wives than one4 ,these nations1 however1 were very powerful1 and when ,christianity came to them1 especially the ,roman nation1 it had to bow to their mandates and customs1 hence the ,christians gradually adopted the monogamic system4 ,the consequence was that a great many marriageable ladies of those days1 and of all generations from that time to the present have not had the privilege of husbands1 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 ,states4 ,this law of monogamy1 or the monogamic system1 laid the foundation for prostitution and evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character1 under which modern ,christendom groans1 for as ,god has implanted1 for a wise purpose1 certain feelings in the breasts of females as well as males1 the gratification of which is necessary to health and happiness1 and which can only be accomplished legitimately in the married state1 myriads of those who have been deprived of the privilege of entering that state1 rather than be deprived of the gratification of those feelings altogether1 have1 in despair1 given way to wickedness and licentiousness2 hence the whoredoms and prostitution among the nations of the earth where the ,mother of ,harlots has her seat4 ,when the religious ,reformers came out1 some two or three centuries ago1 they neglected to reform the marriage system--a subject demanding their urgent attention4 ,but leaving these ,reformers and their doings1 let us come down to our own times and see whether1 as has been often said by many1 the numbers of the sexes are equal2 and let us take as a basis for our investigations on this part of our subject1 the censuses taken by several of the ,states in the ,american ,union4 ,many will tell us that the number of males and the number of females born are just about equal1 and because they are so it is not reasonable to suppose that ,god ever intended the nations to practise plurality of wives4 ,let me say a few words on that4 ,supposing we should admit1 for the sake of argument1 that the sexes are born in equal numbers1 does that prove that the same equality exists when they come to a marriageable age8 ,by no means4 ,there may be about equal numbers born1 but what do the statistics of our country show in regard to the deaths8 ,do as many females as males die during the first year of their existence8 ,if you go to the published statistics you will find1 almost without exception1 that in every ,state a greater number of males die the first year of their existence than females4 ,the same holds good from one year to five years1 from five years to ten1 from ten to fifteen1 and from fifteen to twenty4 ,this shows that the number of females is greatly in excess of the males when they reach a marriageable age4 ,let us elucidate still further1 in proof of the position here assumed4 ,let us take1 for instance1 the census of the ,state of ,pennsylvania in the year #ahfj1 and we shall find that there were #ag1ehh more females than males between the age of twenty and thirty years1 which may strictly be termed a marriageable age4 ,says one1 ,probably the great war made that difference4 ,no1 this was before the war4 ,now let us go to the statistics of the ,state of ,new ,york1 before the war1 and we find1 according to the official tables of the census taken in #ahfj1 that there were #de1ajd more females than males in that one ,state1 between the ages of twenty and thirty years--a marriageable age recollect4 ,now let us go to the ,state of ,massachusetts and look at the statistics there4 ,in the year #ahfe1 there were #cc1deb more females than males between the age of twenty and thirty4 ,we might go on from ,state to ,state1 and then to the census taken by the ,united ,states1 and a vast surplus would be shown of females over males of a marriageable age4 ,what is to be done with them8 ,i will tell you what ,pennsylvania1 ,massachusetts and ,new ,york say3 they say1 virtually1 ,we will pass a law so strict1 that if these females undertake to marry a man who has another wife1 both they and the men they marry shall be subject to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary4 ,indeed6 ,then what are you going to do with these hundreds of thousands of females of a marriageable age8 ,we are going to make them either old maids or prostitutes1 and we would a little rather have them prostitutes1 then we men would have no need to marry4 ,this is the conclusion many of these marriageable males1 between twenty and thirty years of age1 have come to4 ,they will not marry because the laws of the land have a tendency to make prostitutes1 and they can purchase all the animal gratification they desire without being bound to any woman2 hence many of them have mistresses1 by whom they raise children1 and1 when they get tired of them1 turn both mother and children into the street1 with nothing to support them1 the law allowing them to do so1 because the women are not wives4 ,thus the poor creatures are plunged into the depths of misery1 wretchedness1 and degradation1 because at all risks they have followed the instincts implanted within them by their ,creator1 and not having the opportunity to do so legally have done so unlawfully4 ,there are hundreds and thousands of females in this boasted land of liberty1 through the narrow1 contracted1 bigoted state laws1 preventing them from ever getting husbands4 ,that is what the ,lord is fighting against2 we1 also1 are fighting against it1 and for the re-establishment of the ,bible religion and the ,celestial or ,patriarchal order of marriage4 ,it is no matter according to the ,constitution whether we believe in the patriarchal parts of the ,bible1 in the ,mosiac or in the ,christian part2 whether we believe in one-half1 two-thirds1 or in the whole of it2 that is nobody's business4 ,the ,constitution never granted power to ,congress to prescribe what part of the ,bible any people should believe in or reject2 it never intended any such thing4 ,much more might be said1 but the congregation is large1 and a speaker1 of course1 will weary4 ,though my voice is tolerably good1 ,i feel weary in making a congregation of from eight to ten thousand people hear me1 ,i have tried to do so4 ,may ,god bless you1 and may ,he pour out ,his ,spirit upon the rising generation among us1 and upon the missionaries who are about to be sent to the ,united ,states1 and elsewhere1 that the great principles1 political1 religious and domestic1 that ,god has ordained and established1 may be made known to all people4 ,in this land of liberty in religious worship1 let us boldly proclaim our rights1 to believe in and practise any ,bible precept1 command or doctrine1 whether in the ,old or ,new ,testament1 whether relating to ceremonies1 ordinances1 domestic relations1 or anything else1 not incompatible with the rights of others1 and the great revelations of ,almighty ,god manifested in ancient and modern times4 ,amen4 ,,discourse ,,on ,,celestial ,,marriage1 ,,delivered ,,by ,,president ,,geo4 ,a4 ,,smith1 ,,in ,,the ,,new ,,tabernacle1 ,,salt ,,lake ,,city1 ,,october #hth1 #ahfi4 ,it is a difficult undertaking to address this immense audience4 ,if a man commences speaking loud1 in a short time his voice gives out2 whereas1 if he commences rather low1 he may raise his voice by degrees1 and be able to sustain himself in speaking some length of time4 ,but with children crying1 a few persons whispering1 and some shuffling their feet1 it is indeed a difficult task to make an audience of ten thousand persons hear4 ,i have listened with pleasure to the instructions of our brethren from the commencement of our ,conference to the present time4 ,i have rejoiced in their testimonies4 ,i have felt that the ,elders are improving in wisdom1 in knowledge1 in power and in understanding2 and ,i rejoice in the privilege1 which we have at the present day1 of sending out to our own country1 a few hundred of the ,elders who have had experience--who have lived in ,israel long enough to know1 to feel and to realize the importance of the work in which they are engaged--to understand its principles and comprehend the way of life4 ,they can bear testimony to a generation that has nearly grown from childhood since the death of the ,prophet ,joseph ,smith4 ,the ,lord said in relation to those who have driven the ,saints that he would visit judgment1 wrath and indignation1 wailing and anguish1 and gnashing of teeth upon their heads unto the third and fourth generation1 so long as they repent not and hate me1 saith the ,lord your ,god4 ,i am a native of ,potsdam1 ,st4 ,lawrence ,county1 ,new ,york--a town somewhat famous for its literary institutions1 its learning and the religion and morality of its inhabitants4 ,i left there in my youth1 with my father's family1 because we had received the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ1 as revealed through ,joseph ,smith2 and followed with the ,saints through their drivings and trials unto the present day4 ,i have never seen the occasion1 nor let the opportunity slip1 from the time when ,i first came to a knowledge of the truth of the work of the ,lord in the last days1 that ,i understood it was in my power to do good for the advancement of this work1 but what ,i have used my utmost endeavors to accomplish that good4 ,i have never failed to bear a faithful testimony to the work of ,god1 or to carry out1 to all intents and purposes1 the wishes and designs of the ,prophet ,joseph ,smith4 ,i was his kinsman2 was familiar with him1 though several years his junior2 knew his views1 his sentiments1 his ways1 his designs1 and many of the thoughts of his heart1 and ,i do know that the servants of ,god1 the ,twelve ,apostles1 upon whom ,he laid the authority to bear off the ,kingdom of ,god1 and fulfill the work which he had commenced1 have done according to his designs1 in every particular1 up to the present time1 and are continuing to do so4 ,and ,i know1 furthermore1 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 it2 and that he rejoiced in the fact that the servants of ,god were ready prepared1 having the keys1 to bear off the work he had commenced4 ,previous to my leaving ,potsdam1 there was but one man that ,i heard of in that town who did not believe the ,bible4 ,he proclaimed himself an atheist and he drowned himself4 ,the ,latter-day ,saints believe the ,bible4 ,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 ,territory8 ,i replied yes1 by all means1 for it was the book from which we were enabled to set forth our doctrines1 and especially the doctrine of plural marriage4 ,there is an opinion in the breasts of many persons--who suppose that they believe the ,bible--that ,christ1 when ,he came1 did away with plural marriage1 and that ,he inaugurated what is termed monogamy2 and there are certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view of the subject1 one of which is found in ,paul's first epistle to ,timothy 7iii chap4 #b vs471 where ,paul says3 ,a ,bishop should be blameless1 the husband of one wife4 ,the friends of monogamy render it in this way3 ,a ,bishop should be blameless1 the husband of but one wife4 ,that would imply that any one but a bishop might have more4 ,but they will say1 ,we mean--a bishop should be blameless1 the husband of one wife only4 ,well1 that would also admit of the construction that other people might have more than one4 ,i understand it to mean that a bishop must be a married man4 ,a short time ago1 the ,minister from the ,king of ,greece to the ,united ,states called on ,president ,young4 ,i inquired of him in relation to the religion of his country1 and asked him if the clergy were allowed to marry4 ,it is generally understood that the ,roman ,catholic clergy are not allowed to marry4 ,how is it with the ,greek clergy8 ,well1 said he1 all the clergy marry except the ,bishop4 ,i replied1 you render the saying of ,paul differently from what we do4 ,we interpret it to mean--a bishop should be blameless1 the husband of one wife at least2 and we construe it said he directly the opposite4 ,now this passage does not prove that a man should have but one wife4 ,it only proves that a bishop should be a married man4 ,the same remark is made of deacons1 that they also should have wives4 ,another passage is brought up where the ,savior speaks of divorce4 ,he tells us that it is very wrong to divorce1 and that ,moses permitted it because of the hardness of their 7the children of ,israel7 hearts4 ,a man should leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife1 and they twain should be one flesh4 ,that is the principal argument raised that a man should have but one wife4 ,in the ,new ,testament1 in various places1 certain eminent men are referred to as patterns of faith1 purity1 righteousness and piety4 ,for instance1 if you read the epistle of ,paul to the ,hebrews1 the #aath chap41 you find therein selected those persons who through faith subdued kingdoms1 wrought righteousness1 obtained promises1 stopped the mouths of lions1 quenched the violence of fire1 escaped the edge of the sword1 out of weakness were made strong1 waxed valiant in fight1 turning to flight the armies of the aliens2 and it is said that by faith ,jacob blessed the two sons of ,joseph1 and that he conferred upon them a blessing to the uttermost bounds of the everlasting hills4 ,who was ,joseph8 ,why1 ,joseph was the son of ,rachel4 ,and who was ,rachel8 ,rachel was the second wife of ,jacob1 a polygamist4 ,jacob had four wives2 and after he had taken the second1 7,rachel7 she1 being barren1 gave a third wife unto her husband that she might bear children unto him for her2 and instead of being displeased with her for giving her husband another wife1 ,god heard her prayer1 blessed her1 worked a miracle in her favor1 by opening her womb1 and she bear a son1 and called his name ,joseph1 rejoicing in ,god1 whom she testified would give her another son4 ,the question now arises--were not ,rachel and ,jacob one flesh8 ,yes4 ,leah and ,jacob were also one flesh4 ,jacob is selected by the ,apostle ,paul as a pattern of faith for ,christians to follow2 he blessed his twelve sons1 whom he had by four wives4 ,the law of ,god1 as it existed in those days1 and as laid down in this book1 7the ,bible7 makes children born of adultery or of fornication bastards2 and they were prohibited from entering into the congregation of the ,lord unto the fourth generation4 ,now1 instead of ,god blessing ,rachel and ,jacob and their offspring1 as we are told ,he did1 we might have expected something entirely different1 had it not been that ,god was pleased with and approbated and sustained a plurality of wives4 ,while we are considering this subject1 we will enquire1 did the ,savior in any place that we read of1 in the course of ,his mission on the earth1 denounce a plurality of wives8 ,he lived in a nation of ,jews2 the law of ,moses was in force1 plurality of wives was the custom1 and thousands upon thousands of people1 from the highest to the lowest in the land1 were polygamists4 ,the ,savior denounced adultery2 ,he denounced fornication2 ,he denounced lust2 also1 divorce2 but is there a single sentence asserting that plurality of wives is wrong8 ,if so1 where is it8 ,who can find it8 ,why did ,he not say it was wrong8 ,think not1 said ,he1 that ,i am come to destroy the law or the ,prophets4 ,i am not come to destroy1 but to fulfil4 ,not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law and the ,prophets1 but all shall be fulfilled4 ,of what does the ,savior speak when ,he refers to the law8 ,why1 of the ,ten ,commandments1 and other rules of life commanded by ,god and adopted by the ancients1 and which ,bro4 ,pratt referred to yesterday1 showing you from the sacred book that ,god legislated and made laws for the protection of a plurality of wives1 7,exod4 #ba1 #aj7 and that ,he commanded men to take a plurality under some circumstances4 ,brother ,pratt further showed that the ,lord made arrangements to protect1 to all intents and purposes1 the interests of the first wife2 and to shield and protect the children of a wife from disinheritance who might be unfortunate enough not to have the affections of her husband4 7,deut41 #ba4ae47 ,these things were plainly written in the law--that law of which the ,savior says not one jot or one tittle shall pass away4 ,continuing our inquiry1 we pass on to the epistles of ,john the ,evangelist1 which we find in the book of ,revelations1 written to the seven churches of ,asia4 ,in them we find the ,evangelist denounces adultery1 fornication1 and all manner of iniquities and abominations of which these churches were guilty4 ,anything against a plurality of wives8 ,no2 not a syllable4 ,yet those churches were in a country in which plurality was the custom4 ,hundreds of ,saints had more wives than one2 and if it had been wrong1 what would have been the result8 ,why1 ,john would have denounced the practice1 the same as the children of ,israel were denounced for marrying heathen wives1 had it not been that the law of plurality was the commandment of ,god4 ,again1 on this point1 we can refer to the ,prophets of the ,old ,testament--,isaiah1 ,jeremiah1 ,ezekiel and others4 ,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 heads4 ,these are his words to ,ezekiel3 ,son of man1 ,i have made thee a watchman unto the house of ,israel3 therefore hear the word at my mouth1 and give them warning from me4 ,when ,i say unto the wicked1 ,thou shalt surely die2 and thou givest him not warning1 nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way1 to save his life2 the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity2 but his blood will ,i require at thine hand4 ,yet if thou warn the wicked1 and he turn not from his wickedness1 nor from his wicked way1 he shall die in his iniquity2 but thou hast delivered thy soul4 7,ezek4 iii4#ag4ah4bi47 ,how do we find these ,prophets of the ,lord fulfilling the commandments of the ,almighty8 ,we find them pouring out denunciations upon the heads of the people--against adultery1 fornication and every species of wickedness4 ,all this1 too1 in a country in which1 from the ,king down to the lowest orders of the people1 a plurality of wives was practised4 ,do they say anything against plurality of wives8 ,not one word4 ,it was only in cases where men and women took improper license with each other1 in violation of the holy law of marriage1 that they were guilty of sin4 ,if plurality of wives had been a violation of the seventh commandment those prophets would have denounced it1 otherwise their silence on the matter would have been dangerous to themselves1 inasmuch as the blood of the people would have been required at their hands4 ,the opposers of ,celestial ,marriage sometimes quote a passage in the seventh chapter of ,romans1 second and third verses1 to show that a plurality of wives is wrong2 but when we come to read the passage it shows that a plurality of husbands is wrong4 ,you can rend the passage for yourselves4 ,in the forcible parable used by the ,savior in relation to the rich man and ,lazarus1 we find recorded that the poor man ,lazarus was carried to ,abraham's bosom--,abraham the father of the faithful4 ,the rich man calls unto ,father ,abraham to send ,lazarus1 who is afar off4 ,who was ,abraham8 ,he was a man who had a plurality of wives4 ,and yet all good ,christians1 even pious church deacons1 expect when they die to go to ,abraham's bosom4 ,i am sorry to say1 however1 that thousands of them will be disappointed1 from the fact that they cannot and will not go where any one has a plurality of wives2 and ,i am convinced that ,abraham will not turn out his own wives to receive such unbelievers in ,god's law4 ,one peculiarity of this parable is the answer of ,abraham to the application of the rich man1 to send ,lazarus to his five brothers lest they come into this place of torment1 which was--they have ,moses and the prophets1 let them hear them2 and if they hear not ,moses and the prophets1 neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead4 ,moses' law provided for a plurality of wives1 and the prophets observed that law1 and ,isaiah predicts its observance even down to the latter-days4 ,isaiah1 in his #dth chap4 and #ast and #bnd verses1 says seven women shall take hold of one man1 saying1 we will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel1 only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach4 ,in that day shall the branch of the ,lord be beautiful and glorious and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent4 ,a reference to the ,scriptures shows that the reproach of woman is to be childless1 ,gen4 c4 #cj1 v4 #bc2 ,luke c4 #a1 v4 #be4 ,we will now refer to ,john the ,baptist4 ,he came as the forerunner of ,christ4 ,he was a lineal descendant of the house of ,levi4 ,his father was a priest4 ,john the ,baptist was a child born by miracle1 ,god having revealed to his father that ,elizabeth1 who had been many years barren1 should bear a son4 ,john feared not the world1 but went forth preaching in the wilderness of ,judea1 declaiming against wickedness and corruption in the boldest terms4 ,he preached against extortion2 against the cruelty exercised by the soldiers and tax gatherers4 ,he even was so bold as to rebuke the king on his throne1 to his face1 for adultery4 ,did he say anything against a plurality of wives8 ,no3 it cannot be found4 ,yet thousands were believers in and practised this order of marriage1 under the law of ,moses that ,god had revealed4 ,in bringing this subject before you1 we cannot help saying that ,god knew what was best for ,his people4 ,hence ,he commanded them as ,he would have them act4 ,the law1 regulating marriage previous to ,moses1 recognized a plurality of wives4 ,abraham and ,jacob and others had a plurality4 ,these are the men who are referred to in scripture as patterns of piety and purity4 ,david had many wives4 ,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 life1 save in the matter of ,uriah the ,hittite1 #a ,kings1 #ae chap4 #e vs4 ,i have found ,david the son of ,jesse1 a man after mine own heart which shall fulfill all my will4 ,of this man's seed hath ,god1 according to ,his promise1 raised unto ,israel a ,savior1 ,jesus4 ,acts #ac chap41 #bb and #bc vs4 ,did ,david sin in taking so many wives8 ,no4 ,in what1 then1 did his sin consist8 ,it was because he took the wife of ,uriah1 the ,hittite--that is1 violated the law of ,god in taking her4 ,the ,lord had given him the wives of ,saul and would have given him many more2 but he had no right to take one who belonged to another4 ,when he did so the curse of adultery fell upon his head1 and his wives were taken from him and given to another4 ,we will now inquire in relation to the ,savior himself4 ,from whom did he descend8 ,from the house of ,david1 a polygamist2 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 wives4 ,how appropriate it would have been for ,jesus1 descending as he did from a race of polygamists1 to denounce this institution of plural marriage and show its sinfulness1 had it been a sin6 ,can we suppose1 for one moment1 if ,patriarchal ,marriage were wrong1 that ,he would1 under the circumstances have been silent concerning it or failed to denounce it in the most positive manner8 ,then if plural marriage be adultery and the offspring spurious1 ,christ ,jesus is not the ,christ2 and we must look for another4 ,all good ,christians are flattering themselves with the hope that they will finally enter the gates of the ,new ,jerusalem4 ,i presume this is the hope of all denominations--,catholics1 ,protestants1 ,greeks1 and all who believe the ,bible4 ,suppose they go there1 what will they find8 ,they will find at the twelve gates twelve angels1 and names written thereon1 which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of ,israel4 ,the names of the twelve sons of ,jacob1 the polygamist4 ,can a monogamist enter there8 ,and the walls of the city had twelve foundations1 and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb2 and at the gates the names of the twelve tribes of ,israel--from the twelve sons of the four wives of ,jacob4 ,those who denounce ,patriarchal ,marriage will have to stay without and never walk the golden streets4 ,and any man or woman that lifts his or her voice to proclaim against a plurality of wives under the ,government of ,god1 will have to seek an inheritance outside of that city4 ,for there shall in no wise enter into it1 anything that defileth1 neither whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie1 for without are sorcerers1 whoremongers1 and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie4 ,is not the man that denounces ,celestial ,marriage a liar8 ,does he not work abomination8 ,i1 ,jesus1 have sent mine ,angel to testify unto you these things in the churches4 ,i am the root and offspring of the polygamist ,david1 the bright and the morning star4 ,may ,god enable us to keep ,his law1 for blessed are they that do ,his commandments1 that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gate into the city4 ,amen4 ,,discourse ,,on ,,celestial ,,marriage1 ,,delivered ,,by ,,elder ,,george ,q4 ,,cannon1 ,,in ,,the ,,new ,,tabernacle1 ,,salt ,,lake ,,city1 ,,october #ith1 #ahfi4 ,i will repeat a few verses in the tenth chapter of ,mark1 commencing at the twenty-eighth verse3 ,then ,peter began to say unto him1 ,lo1 we have left all1 and have followed thee4 ,and ,jesus answered and said1 verily ,i say unto you1 ,there is no man that hath left house1 or brethren1 or sisters1 or father1 or mother1 or wife1 or children1 or lands1 for my sake1 and the gospel's1 ,but he shall receive an hundred-fold now in this time1 houses1 and brethren1 and sisters1 and mothers1 and children1 and lands1 with persecutions2 and in the world to come eternal life4 ,in rising to address you this morning1 my brethren and sisters1 ,i rely upon your faith and prayers and the blessing of ,god4 ,we have heard1 during ,conference1 a great many precious instructions1 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 ,marriage4 ,i am interested in this doctrine1 because ,i see salvation1 temporal and spiritual1 embodied therein4 ,i know1 pretty well1 what the popular feelings concerning this doctrine are2 ,i am familiar with the opinions of the world1 having traveled and mingled with the people sufficiently to be conversant with their ideas in relation to this subject4 ,i am also familiar with the feelings of the ,latter-day ,saints upon this point4 ,i know the sacrifice of feeling which it has caused for them to adopt this principle in their faith and lives4 ,it has required the revelation of ,god1 our ,heavenly ,father1 to enable ,his people to receive this principle and carry it out4 ,i wish1 here1 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 doctrine1 still it is not because it was practised four thousand years ago by the servants and people of ,god1 or because it has been practised by any people or nation in any period of the world's history1 that the ,latter-day ,saints have adopted it and made it part of their practice1 but it is because ,god1 our ,heavenly ,father1 has revealed it unto us4 ,if there were no record of its practice to be found1 and if the ,bible1 ,book of ,mormon and ,book of ,doctrine and ,covenants were totally silent in respect to this doctrine1 it would nevertheless be binding upon us as a people1 ,god himself having given a revelation for us to practise it at the present time4 ,this should be understood by us as a people4 ,it is gratifying to know1 however1 that we are not the first of ,god's people unto whom this principle has been revealed2 it is gratifying to know that we are only following in the footsteps of those who have preceded us in the work of ,god1 and that we1 to-day1 are only carrying out the principle which ,god's people observed1 in obedience to revelation received from ,him1 thousands of years ago4 ,it is gratifying to know that we are suffering persecution1 that we are threatened with lines and imprisonment for the practice of precisely the same principle which ,abraham1 the friend of ,god1 practised in his life and taught to his children after him4 ,the discourses of ,brother ,orson ,pratt and of ,president ,george ,a4 ,smith have left but very little to be said in relation to the scriptural arguments in favor of this doctrine4 ,i know that the general opinion among men is that the ,old ,testament1 to some extent1 sustains it2 but that the ,new ,testament--,jesus and the ,apostles1 were silent concerning it4 ,it was clearly proved in our hearing yesterday1 and the afternoon of the day previous1 that the ,new ,testament1 though not so explicit in reference to the doctrine1 is still decidedly in favor of it and sustains it4 ,jesus very plainly told the ,jews1 when boasting of being the seed of ,abraham1 that if they were1 they would do the works of ,abraham4 ,he and the ,apostles1 in various places1 clearly set forth that ,abraham was the great exemplar of faith for them to follow1 and that they must follow him if they ever expected to participate in the glory and exaltation enjoyed by ,abraham and his faithful seed4 ,throughout the ,new ,testament ,abraham is held up to the converts to the doctrines which ,jesus taught1 as an example worthy of imitation1 and in no place is there a word of condemnation uttered concerning him4 ,the ,apostle ,paul1 in speaking of him says3 ,know ye1 therefore1 that they which are of the faith1 the same are the children of ,abraham4 99 99 99 99 ,so then they which be of the faith are blessed with faithful ,abraham4 ,he also says that the ,gentiles1 through adoption1 became ,abraham's seed2 that the blessing of ,abraham1 says he1 might come upon the ,gentiles through ,jesus ,christ1 shewing plainly that ,jesus and all the ,apostles who alluded to the subject1 held the deeds of ,abraham to be1 in every respect1 worthy of imitation4 ,who was this ,abraham8 ,i have heard the saying frequently advanced1 that in early life1 being an idolater1 it was an idolatrous1 heathenish principle which he adopted in taking to himself a second wife while ,sarah still lived4 ,those who make this assertion in reference to the great patriarch1 seem to be ignorant of the fact that he was well advanced in life and had served ,god faithfully many years1 prior to making any addition to his family4 ,he did not have a plurality of wives until years after the ,lord had revealed ,himself to him1 commanding him to leave ,ur1 of the ,chaldees1 and go forth to a land which ,he would give to him and his posterity for an everlasting possession4 ,he went forth and lived in that land many long years before the promise of ,god was fulfilled unto him--namely1 that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed2 and ,abraham was still without any heir1 except ,eliezer1 of ,damascus1 the steward of his house4 ,at length1 after living thus for ten years1 ,god commanded him to take to himself another wife1 who was given to him by his wife ,sarah4 ,when the offspring of this marriage was born1 ,abraham was eighty-six years old4 ,we read of no word of condemnation from the ,lord for this act--something which we might naturally expect if1 as this unbelieving and licentious generation affirm1 the act of taking more wives than one be such a vile crime1 and so abominable in the sight of ,god2 for if it be evil in the sight of the ,lord to-day it was then1 for the scriptures inform us that ,he changes not1 ,he is the same yesterday1 today and forever1 and is without variableness or the shadow of turning4 ,but instead of condemnation1 ,god revealed himself continually to his friend ,abraham1 teaching ,his will unto him1 revealing all things concerning the future which it was necessary for him to understand1 and promising him that1 though he had been blessed with a son1 ,ishmael1 yet in ,isaac1 a child of promise1 not yet born1 should his seed be called4 ,abraham was to have yet another son4 ,sarah1 in her old age1 because of her faithfulness1 because of her willingness to comply with the requirements and revelations of ,god1 was to have a son given unto her4 ,such an event was so unheard of among women at her time of life that1 though the ,lord promised it1 she could not help laughing at the idea4 ,but ,god fulfilled ,his promise1 and in due time ,isaac was born1 and was greatly blessed of the ,lord4 ,determined to try ,his faithful servant ,abraham to the uttermost1 the ,lord1 some years after the birth of this son1 in whom ,he had promised that ,abraham's seed should be called1 required him to offer up this boy as a burnt offering to ,him2 and ,abraham1 nothing doubting1 but full of faith and integrity1 and of devotion to his ,god1 proved himself worthy of the honored title that had been conferred upon him1 namely1 the ,friend of ,god1 by taking his son ,isaac1 in whom most of his hopes for the future centred1 up the mountain1 and there1 having built the altar1 he bound the victim and1 with knife uplifted1 was about to strike the fatal blow1 when the angel of the ,lord cried out of heaven1 commanding him not to slay his son4 ,the ,lord was satisfied1 having tried him to the uttermost1 and found him willing even to shed the blood of his well beloved son4 ,the ,lord was so pleased with the faithfulness of ,abraham1 that ,he gave unto him the greatest promise ,he could give to any human being on the face of the earth4 ,what do you think was the nature of that promise8 ,did ,he promise to ,abraham a crown of eternal glory8 ,did ,he promise to him that he should be in the presence of the ,lamb1 that he should tune his harp1 and sing praises to ,god and the ,lamb1 throughout the endless ages of eternity8 ,let me quote it to you1 and it would be well if all the inhabitants of the earth would reflect upon it4 ,said the ,lord3 ,in blessing ,i will bless thee1 and in multiplying ,i will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven1 and as the sand which is upon the sea shore3 and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies4 ,this was the promise which ,god gave to ,abraham1 in that hour of his triumph1 in that hour when there was joy in heaven over the faithfulness of one of ,god's noblest and most devoted sons4 ,think of the greatness of this blessing6 ,can you count the stars of heaven1 or even the grains of a handful of sand8 ,no1 it is beyond the power of earth's most gifted sons to do either1 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-shore4 ,how similar was this promise of ,god to ,abraham to that made by ,jesus as a reward for faithfulness to those who followed ,him6 ,said ,jesus1 ,he that forsakes brothers or sisters1 houses or lands1 father or mother1 wives or children1 shall receive a hundred fold in this life with persecution1 and eternal life in the world to come4 ,a very similar blessing to that which ,god1 long before1 had made to ,abraham1 and couched in very similar terms4 ,it is pertinent for us to enquire1 on the present occasion1 how the promises made by ,jesus and ,his ,father1 in ages of the world separated by a long interval the one from the other1 could be realized under the system which prevails throughout ,christendom at the present day8 ,in the monogamic system1 under which the possession of more than one living wife is regarded as such a crime1 and as being so fearfully immoral1 how could the promise of the ,savior to his faithful followers1 that they should have a hundredfold of wives and children1 in this present life1 ever be realized8 ,there is a way which ,god has provided in a revelation given to this ,church1 in which ,he says3 ,strait is the gate1 and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives1 and few there be that find it1 because ye receive me not in this world1 neither do ye know me4 ,god revealed that strait and narrow way to ,abraham1 and taught him how he could enter therein4 ,he taught him the principle of plurality of wives2 ,abraham practised it and bequeathed it to his children as a principle which they were to practise4 ,under such a system it was a comparatively easy matter for men to have a hundred fold of wives1 children1 fathers1 mothers1 brothers1 sisters and everything else in proportion2 and in no other way could the promises of ,jesus be realized by ,his followers1 than in the way ,god has provided1 and which ,he has revealed to ,his ,church and people in these latter-days4 ,i have felt led to dwell on these few passages from the sayings of ,jesus1 to show you that there is abundance of scriptural proofs in favor of this principle and the position this ,church has assumed1 in addition to those previously referred to4 ,it is a blessed thing to know that1 in this as in every other doctrine and principle taught by us as a ,church1 we are sustained by the revelations ,god gave to ,his people anciently4 ,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 people4 ,when they preached faith1 repentance1 baptism for the remission of sins1 the laying on of hands for the reception of the ,holy ,ghost1 the gathering of the people from the nations1 the re-building of ,jerusalem1 the second coming of ,christ1 and every other principle ever touched upon by them1 it was gratifying to know that they were sustained by the scriptures1 and that they could turn to chapter and verse among the sayings of ,jesus and ,his ,apostles1 or among those of the ancient prophets1 in confirmation of every doctrine they ever attempted to bring to the attention of those to whom they ministered4 ,there is nothing with which the ,latter-day ,saints can1 with more confidence1 refer to the scriptures for confirmation and support1 than the doctrine of plural marriage1 which1 at the present time1 among one of the most wicked1 adulterous and corrupt generations the world has ever seen1 is so much hated1 and for which mankind generally1 are so anxious to cast out and persecute the ,latter-day ,saints4 ,if we look abroad and peruse the records of everyday life throughout the whole of ,christendom1 we find that crimes of every hue1 and of the most appalling and revolting character are constantly committed1 exciting neither surprise nor comment4 ,murder1 robbery1 adultery1 seduction and every species of villany known in the voluminous catalogue of crime1 in modern times1 are regarded as mere matters of ordinary occurrence1 and yet there is a hue and cry raised1 almost as wide as ,christendom1 for the persecution1 by fine1 imprisonment1 proscription1 outlawry or extermination1 of the people of ,utah because1 knowing that ,god1 the ,eternal ,father1 has spoken in these days and revealed his mind and will to them1 they dare to carry out ,his behests4 ,for years they have meekly submitted to this persecution and contumely1 but they appeal now1 as ever1 to all rational1 reflecting men1 and invite comparison between the state of society here and in any portion of this or any other country1 knowing that the verdict will be unanimous and overwhelming in their favor4 ,in every civilized country on the face of the earth the seducer plies his arts to envelop his victim within his meshes1 in order to accomplish her ruin most completely2 and it is well known that men holding positions of trust and responsibility1 looked upon as honorable and highly respectable members of society1 violate their marriage vows by carrying on their secret amours and supporting mistresses2 yet against the people of ,utah1 where such things are totally unknown1 there is an eternal and rabid outcry because they practise the heaven-revealed system of a plurality of wives4 ,it is a most astonishing thing1 and no greater evidence could be given that ,satan reigns in the hearts of the children of men1 and that he is determined1 if possible1 to destroy the work of ,god from the face of the earth4 ,the ,bible1 the only work accepted by the nations of ,christendom1 as a divine revelation1 sustains this doctrine1 from beginning to end4 ,the only revelation on record that can be quoted against it came through the ,prophet ,joseph ,smith1 and is contained in the ,book of ,mormon2 and strange to say1 here in ,salt ,lake ,city1 a day or or two since1 one of the leading men of the nation1 in his eager desire and determination to cast discredit on this doctrine1 unable to do so by reference to the ,bible1 which he no doubt1 in common with all ,christians1 acknowledges as divine1 was compelled to have recourse to the ,book of ,mormon1 a work which on any other point1 he would most unquestionably have scouted and ridiculed1 as an emanation from the brain of an impostor4 ,what consistency6 ,a strange revolution this1 that men should have recourse to our own works1 whose authenticity they most emphatically deny1 to prove us in the wrong4 ,yet this attempt1 whenever made1 cannot be sustained1 for ,brother ,pratt clearly showed to you1 in his remarks the other day1 that instead of the ,book of ,mormon being opposed to this principle1 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 seed1 ,he would command ,his people to that effect4 ,plainly setting forth that a time would come when ,he would command ,his people to do so4 ,it is necessary that this principle should be practised under the auspices and control of the priesthood4 ,god has placed that priesthood in the ,church to govern and control all the affairs thereof1 and this is a principle which1 if not practised in the greatest holiness and purity1 might lead men into great sin1 therefore the priesthood is the more necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this principle4 ,there might be circumstances and situations in which it would not be wisdom in the mind of ,god for his people to practise this principle1 but so long as a people are guided by the priesthood and revelations of ,god there is no danger of evil arising therefrom4 ,if we1 as a people1 had attempted to practise this principle without revelation1 it is likely that we should have been led into grievous sins and the condemnation of ,god would have rested upon us2 but the ,church waited until the proper time came1 and then the people practised it according to the mind and will of ,god1 making a sacrifice of their own feelings in so doing4 ,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 nations4 ,to-day1 ,christendom holds itself and its institutions aloft as a pattern for all men to follow4 ,if you travel throughout the ,united ,states and through the nations of ,europe in which ,christianity prevails1 and talk with the people about their institutions1 they will boast of them as being the most permanent1 indestructible and progressive of any institutions existing upon the earth2 yet it is a fact well known to historians1 that the ,christian nations of ,europe are the youngest nations on the globe4 ,where are the nations which have existed from time immemorial8 ,they are not to be found in ,christian monogamic ,europe1 but in ,asia1 among the polygamic races--,china1 ,japan1 ,hindostan and the various races of that vast continent4 ,those nations1 from the most remote times1 practised plural marriage handed down to them by their forefathers4 ,although they are looked upon by the nations of ,europe as semi-civilized1 you will not find among them1 woman prostituted1 debased and degraded as she is through ,christendom4 ,she may be treated coldly1 and degraded1 but among them1 except where the ,christian element to a large extent prevails1 she is not debased and polluted as she is among the so-called ,christian nations4 ,it is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic4 ,rome1 with her arts1 sciences1 and war-like instincts1 was once the mistress of the world2 but her glory faded4 ,she was a monogamic nation1 and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her4 ,the strongest sayings of ,jesus1 recorded in the ,new ,testament1 were levelled against the dreadful corruptions practised in ,rome and wherever the ,romans held sway4 ,the leaven of their institutions had worked its way into the ,jewish nation1 ,jewry or ,palestine being then a ,roman province1 and governed by ,roman officers1 who brought with them their wicked institutions1 and ,jesus denounced the practices which prevailed there4 ,a few years before the birth of the ,savior1 ,julius ,caesar was ,first ,consul at ,rome2 he aimed at and obtained imperial power4 ,he had four wives during his life and committed numerous adulteries4 ,his first wife he married early2 but1 becoming ambitious1 the alliance did not suit him1 and1 as the ,roman law did not permit him to retain her and to marry another1 he put her away4 ,he then married the daughter of a consul1 thinking to advance his interests thereby4 ,she died1 and a third was married4 ,the third was divorced1 and he married a fourth1 with whom he was living at the time he was murdered4 ,his grand-nephew1 the ,emperor ,augustus ,caesar1 reigned at the time of the birth of ,christ4 ,he is alluded to in history as one of the greatest of the ,caesars2 he also had four wives4 ,he divorced one after another1 except the last1 who out-lived him4 ,these men were not singular in this practice2 it was common in ,rome2 the ,romans did not believe in plurality of wives1 but in divorcing them2 in taking wives for convenience and putting them away when they got tired of them4 ,in our country divorces are increasing1 yet ,roman-like1 men expect purity and chastity from their wives they do not practise themselves4 ,you recollect1 doubtless1 the famous answer of ,caesar when his wife was accused of an intrigue with an infamous man4 ,some one asked ,caesar why he had put away his wife4 ,said he1 ,the wife of ,caesar must not only be incorrupt but unsuspected4 ,he could not bear to have the virtue of his wife even suspected1 yet his own life was infamous in the extreme4 ,he was a seducer1 adulterer and is reported to have practised even a worse crime1 yet he expected his wife to possess a virtue which1 in his highest and holiest moments1 was utterly beyond his conception in his own life4 ,this leaven was spreading itself over every country where the ,roman ,empire had jurisdiction4 ,it had reached ,palestine in the days of the ,savior1 hence by understanding the practices prevalent in those times amongst that people1 you will be better able to appreciate the strong language used by ,jesus against putting away1 or divorcing wives4 ,rome continued to practise corruption until she fell beneath the weight of it1 and was overwhelmed1 not by another monogamic race1 but by the vigorous polygamic hordes from the north1 who swept away ,roman imperialism1 establishing in the place thereof institutions of their own4 ,but they speedily fell into the same habit of having one wife and multitudes of courtesans1 and soon1 like ,rome1 fell beneath their own corruptions4 ,when courtesans were taught every accomplishment and honored with the society of the leading men of the nation1 and wives were deprived of these privileges1 is it any wonder that ,rome should fall8 or that the more pure1 or barbarous nations1 as they were called1 overwhelmed and destroyed her8 ,i have had it quoted to me many times that no great nations ever practised plural marriage4 ,they who make such an assertion are utterly ignorant of history4 ,what nations have left the deepest impress on the history of our race8 ,those which have practised plurality of marriage4 ,they have prevented the dreadful crime of prostitution by allowing men to have more wives than one4 ,i know we are dazzled by the glory of ,christendom2 we are dazzled with the glory of our own age4 ,like every generation that has preceded it1 the present generation thinks it is the wisest and best1 and nearer to ,god than any which has preceded it4 ,this is natural2 it is a weakness of human nature4 ,this is the case with nations as well as generations4 ,china1 to-day1 calls all western nations outside barbarians4 ,japan1 ,hindostan and all other polygamic nations do the same1 and in very many respects they have as much right to say that of monogamic nations1 as the latter have to say it of them4 ,i heard a traveller remark a few days ago1 while in conversation with him1 ,i have travelled through ,asia ,minor and ,turkey1 and ,i have blushed many times when contrasting the practices and institutions of those people with those of my own country1 the ,united ,states4 ,he is a gentleman with whom ,i had a discussion some years ago on the principle of plural marriage4 ,he has traveled a good deal since then1 and he remarked to me3 ,travel enlarges a man's head and his heart4 ,i have learned a great many things since we had a discussion together1 and ,i have modified my views and opinions very materially with regard to the excellence of the institutions1 habits and morals which prevail in ,christendom4 ,this gentleman told me that among those nations1 which we call semi-civilized1 there are no drinking saloons1 no brothels1 nor drunkenness1 and an entire absence of many other evils which exist in our own nation4 ,i think this testimony1 coming from a man who1 previously1 had such strong prejudices1 was very valuable4 ,he is not the only one who has borne this testimony1 but all reliable travelers1 who have lived in ,oriental nations1 vouch for the absence of those monstrous evils which flourish in and fatten and fester upon the vitals of all civilized or ,christian nations4 ,in speaking of ,utah and this peculiar practice amongst its people it is frequently said1 ,look at the ,turks and other ,oriental nations and see how women are degraded and debased among them1 and deprived of many privileges which they enjoy among us6 ,but if it be true that woman does not occupy her true position among those nations1 is this not more attributable to their rejection of the gospel than to their practice of having a plurality of wives8 ,whatever her condition may be there1 however1 ,i do not therefore accept1 as a necessary conclusion1 that she must be degraded among us4 ,we have received the gospel of the ,lord ,jesus1 the principles of which elevate all who honor them1 and will impart to our sisters every blessing necessary to make them noble and good in the presence of ,god and man4 ,look at the efforts which are being made to elevate the sex among the ,latter-day ,saints6 ,see the privileges that are given them1 and listen to the teachings imparted to them day by day1 week by week1 and year by year1 to encourage them to press forward in the march of improvement6 ,the elevation of the sex must follow as a result of these instructions4 ,the practice in the world is to select a few of the sex and to elevate them4 ,there is no country in the world1 probably1 where women are idolized to the extent they are in the ,united ,states4 ,but is the entire sex in the ,united ,states thus honored and respected8 ,no2 it is not4 ,any person who will travel1 and observe while he is travelling1 will find that thousands of women are degraded and treated as something very vile1 and are terribly debased in consequence of the practices of men towards them4 ,but the gospel of ,jesus1 and the revelations which ,god has given unto us concerning ,patriarchal ,marriage have a tendency to elevate the entire sex1 and give all the privilege of being honored matrons and respected wives4 ,there are no refuse among us--no class to be cast out1 scorned and condemned2 but every woman who chooses1 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 equal4 ,this is the result of the revelations of the gospel unto us1 and the effect of the preaching and practice of this principle in our midst4 ,i know1 however1 that there are those who shrink from this1 who feel their hearts rebel against the principle1 because of the equality which it bestows on the sex4 ,they would like to be the honored few--the aristocrats of society as it were1 while their sisters might perish on every hand around them4 ,they would not1 if they could1 extend their hands to save their sisters from a life of degradation4 ,this is wrong and a thing which ,god is displeased at4 ,he has revealed this principle and commanded ,his servants to take wives4 ,what for8 ,that they may obey his great command--a command by which ,eternity is peopled1 a command by which ,abraham's seed shall become as the stars of heaven for multitude1 and as the sand on the sea shore that cannot be counted4 ,he has given to us this command1 and shall we1 the sterner sex1 submit to all the difficulties and trials entailed in carrying it out8 ,shall we submit to all the afflictions and labor incident to this life to save our sisters1 while many of you who are of the same sex1 whose hearts ought to beat for their salvation as strongly as ours do1 will not help us8 ,i leave you all to answer4 ,there is a day of reckoning coming when you will be held accountable as well as we4 ,every woman in this ,church should join heart and hand in this great work1 which has for its result1 the redemption of the sexes1 both male and female4 ,no woman should slacken her hand or withhold her influence1 but every one should seek by prayer and faith unto ,god for the strength and grace necessary to enable her to do so4 ,but1 says one1 is not this a trial1 and does it not inflict upon us unnecessary trials8 ,there are afflictions and trials connected with this principle4 ,it is necessary there should be4 ,is there any law that ,god reveals unattended with a trial of some kind8 ,think of the time1 you who are adults1 and were born in the nations1 when you joined the ,church6 ,think of the trials connected with your espousal of the gospel4 ,did it not try you to go forth and be baptized8 ,did it not try you1 when called upon to gather1 to leave your homes and nearest and dearest friend1 as many of you have done8 ,did it not try you to do a great many things you have been required to do in the gospel8 ,every law of the gospel has a trial connected with it1 and the higher the law the greater the trial2 and as we ascend nearer and nearer to the ,lord our ,god we shall have greater trials to contend with in purifying ourselves before ,him4 ,he has helped us this far4 ,he has helped us to conquer our selfish feelings1 and when our sisters seek unto ,him ,he helps them to overcome their feelings2 ,he gives them strength to overcome their selfishness and jealousy4 ,there is not a woman under the sound of my voice to-day1 but can bear witness of this if she has tried it4 ,you1 sisters1 whose husbands have taken other wives1 can you not bear testimony that the principle has purified your hearts1 made you less selfish1 brought you nearer to ,god and given you power you never had before8 ,there are hundreds within the sound of my voice to day1 both men and women1 who can testify that this has been the effect that the practice of this principle has had upon them4 ,i am speaking now of what are called the spiritual benefits arising from the righteous practice of this principle4 ,i am sure that through the practice of this principle1 we shall have a purer community1 a community more experienced1 less selfish and with a higher knowledge of human nature than any other on the face of the earth4 ,it has already had this effect to a great extent1 and its effects in these directions will increase as the practice of the principle becomes more general4 ,a lady visitor remarked to me not long ago1 in speaking upon this subject3 ,were ,i a man1 ,i should feel differently probably to what ,i do2 to your sex the institution cannot be so objectionable4 ,this may be the case to some extent1 but the practice of this principle is by no means without its trials for the males4 ,the difficulties and perplexities connected with the care of a numerous family1 to a man who has any ambition1 are so great that nothing short of the revelations of ,god or the command of ,jesus ,christ1 would tempt men to enter this order2 the mere increase of facilities to gratify the lower passions of our natures would be no inducement to assume such an increase of grave responsibilities4 ,these desires have been implanted in both male and female for a wise purpose1 but their immoderate and illegal gratification is a source of evil equal to that system of repression prevalent in the world1 to which thousands must submit or criminate themselves4 ,just think1 in the single ,state of ,massachusetts1 at the last census1 there were #fc1jaa females more than males4 ,brother ,pratt1 in his remarks on this subject1 truly remarked that the law of ,massachusetts makes these #fc1jaa females either old maids or prostitutes1 for that law says they shall not marry a man who has a wife4 ,think of this6 ,and the same is true to a greater or less degree throughout all the older ,states1 for the females preponderate in every one4 ,thus far ,i have referred only to the necessity and benefit of this principle being practised in a moral point of view4 ,i have said nothing about the physiological side of the question4 ,this is one of if not the strongest sources of argument in its favor2 but ,i do not propose to enter into that branch of the subject to any great extent on the present occasion4 ,we are all1 both men and women1 physiologists enough to know that the procreative powers of man endure much longer than those of woman4 ,granting1 as some assert1 that an equal number of the sexes exist1 what would this lead to8 ,man must practise that which is vile and low or submit to a system of repression2 because if he be married to a woman who is physically incapable1 he must either do himself violence or what is far worse1 he must have recourse to the dreadful and damning practice of having illegal connection with women1 or become altogether like the beasts4 ,do you not see that if these things were introduced among our society they would be pregnant with the worst results8 ,the greatest conceivable evils would result therefrom6 ,how dreadful are the consequences of this system of which ,i am now speaking1 as witnessed at the present time throughout all the nations of ,christendom6 ,you may see them on every hand4 ,yet the attempt is being continually made to bring us to the same standard1 and to compel us to share the same evils4 ,when the principle of plurality of wives was revealed ,i was but a boy4 ,when reflecting on the subject of the sealing power which was then being taught1 the case of ,jacob1 who had four wives1 occurred to me1 and ,i immediately concluded that the time would come when light connected with this practice would be revealed to us as a people4 ,i was therefore prepared for the principle when it was revealed1 and ,i know it is true on the principle that ,i know that baptism1 the laying on of hands1 the gathering1 and everything connected with the gospel is true4 ,if there were no books in existence1 if the revelation itself were blotted out1 and there was nothing written in its favor1 extant among men1 still ,i could bear testimony for myself that ,i know this is a principle which1 if practised in purity and virtue1 as it should be1 will result in the exaltation and benefit of the human family2 and that it will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the ,fall1 and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning4 ,i believe the correct practice of this principle will redeem woman from the effects of that curse--namely1 ,thy desire shall be to thy husband1 and he shall rule over thee4 ,all the evils connected with jealousy have their origin in this4 ,it is natural for woman to cleave to man2 it was pronounced upon her in the beginning1 seemingly as a punishment4 ,i believe the time will come when1 by the practise of the virtuous principles which ,god has revealed1 woman will be emancipated from that punishment and that feeling4 ,will she cease to love man8 ,no1 it is not necessary for her to cease to love4 ,how is it among the nations of the earth8 ,why1 women1 in their yearning after the other sex and in their desire for maternity1 will do anything to gratify that instinct of their nature1 and yield to anything and be dishonored even rather than not gratify it2 and in consequence of that which has been pronounced upon them1 they are not held accountable to the same extent that men are4 ,man is strong1 he is the head of woman1 and ,god will hold him responsible for the use of the influence he exercises over the opposite sex4 ,hence we were told by ,brother ,pratt that there are degrees of glory1 and that the faithful man may receive the power of ,god--the greatest ,he has ever bestowed upon man--namely1 the power of procreation4 ,it is a god-like power1 but how it is abused6 ,how men debase themselves and the other sex by its unlawful and improper exercise6 ,we were told there is a glory to which alone that power will be accorded in the life to come4 ,still there will be millions of women saved in the kingdom of ,god1 while men1 through the abuse of this precious gift1 will not be counted worthy of such a privilege4 ,and this very punishment will1 in the end1 be woman's salvation1 because she is not held accountable to the same degree that men are4 ,this is a subject that we should all do well to reflect upon4 ,there are many points connected with the question physiologically1 that might be dwelt upon with great advantage4 ,i have heard it said1 and seen it printed1 that the children born here under this system are not so smart as others2 that their eyes lack lustre and that they are dull in intellect2 and many strangers1 especially ladies1 when arriving here1 are anxious to see the children1 having read accounts which have led them to expect that most of the children born here are deficient4 ,but the testimony of ,professor ,park1 the principal of the ,university of ,deseret1 and of other leading teachers of the young here1 is that they never saw children with a greater aptitude for the acquisition of knowledge than the children raised in this ,territory4 ,there are no brighter children to be found in the world than those born in this ,territory4 ,under the system of ,patriarchal ,marriage1 the offspring1 besides being equally as bright and brighter intellectually1 are much more healthy and strong4 ,need ,i go into particulars to prove this8 ,to you who are married there is no necessity of doing so2 you know what ,i mean4 ,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 lactation1 and their children often sustain irremediable injury4 ,another good effect of the institution here is that you may travel throughout our entire ,territory1 and virtue prevails4 ,our young live virtuously until they marry4 ,but how is it under the monogamic system8 ,temptations are numerous on every hand and young men fall a prey to vice4 ,an eminent medical professor in ,new ,york recently declared1 while delivering a lecture to his class in one of the colleges there1 that if he wanted a man twenty-five years of age1 free from a certain disease1 he would not know where to find him4 ,what a terrible statement to make6 ,in this community no such thing exists4 ,our boys grow up in purity1 honoring and respecting virtue2 our girls do the same1 and the great mass of them are pure4 ,there may be impurities4 ,we are human1 and it would not be consistent with our knowledge of human nature to say that we are entirely pure1 but we are the most pure of any people within the confines of the ,republic4 ,we have fewer unvirtuous boys and girls in our midst than any other community within the range of my knowledge4 ,both sexes grow up in vigor1 health and purity4 ,these1 my brethren and sisters1 are some of the results which ,i wanted to allude to in connection with this subject4 ,much more might be said4 ,there is not a man or woman who has listened to me to-day1 but he and she have thoughts1 reasons and arguments to sustain this principle passing through their minds which ,i have not touched upon1 or1 if touched upon at all1 in a very hasty manner4 ,the question arises1 ,what is going to be done with this institution8 ,will it be overcome8 ,the conclusion arrived at long ago is that it is ,god and the people for it4 ,god has revealed it1 ,he must sustain it1 we can not2 we cannot bear it off1 ,he must4 ,i know that ,napoleon said ,providence was on the side of the heaviest artillery1 and many men think that ,god is on the side of the strongest party4 ,the ,midianites probably thought so when ,gideon fell upon them with three hundred men4 ,sennacherib and the ,assyrians thought so when they came down in their might to blot out ,israel4 ,but ,god is mighty2 ,god will prevail2 ,god will sustain that which he has revealed1 and ,he will uphold and strengthen ,his servants and bear off ,his people4 ,we need not be afflicted by a doubt2 a shadow of doubt need not cross our minds as to the result4 ,we know that ,god can sustain us3 ,he has borne off ,his people in triumph thus far and will continue to do so4 ,i did intend1 when ,i got up1 to say something in relation to the effects of the priesthood2 but as the time is so far gone1 ,i feel that if ,i say anything it must be very brief4 ,but in connection with the subject of plural marriage1 the priesthood is intimately interwoven4 ,it is the priesthood which produces the peace1 harmony1 good order1 and everything which make us as a people peculiar1 and for which our ,territory has become remarkable4 ,it is that principle--the priesthood1 which governs the heavenly hosts4 ,god and ,jesus rule through this power1 and through it we are made1 so for as we have received it and rendered obedience to its mandates1 like our ,heavenly ,father and ,god4 ,he is our ,father and our ,god4 ,he is the ,father of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ2 ,he is the ,father of all the inhabitants of the earth1 and we inherit ,his divinity1 if we choose to seek for and cultivate it4 ,we inherit ,his attributes2 we can1 by taking the proper course1 inherit the priesthood by which ,he exercises control2 by which the heavenly orbs in the immensity of space are governed1 and by which the earth revolves in its seasons4 ,it is the ,holy ,priesthood that controls all the creations of the ,gods1 and though men fight against it1 and1 if they could1 would blot it out of existence1 it will prevail and go on increasing in power and strength until the sceptre of ,jesus is acknowledged by all1 and the earth is redeemed and sanctified4 ,that this day may be brought about speedily1 is my prayer in the name of ,jesus1 ,amen4 ,transcriber's ,note3 ,some obvious typographical errors have been corrected as seemed reasonable4 ,throughout the source text practice is spelled as both practice and practise4 ,this inconsistency has been preserved in this electronic edition4