PROF. ORSON PRATT.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have assembled ourselves in this vast congregation in the third session of our discussion, to take into consideration the Divinity of a very important institution of the Bible. The question, as you have already heard, is "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" Many arguments have already been adduced, on the side of the affirmative, and also on the side of the negative. This afternoon one hour is allotted to me in the discussion, to bring forth still further evidences, which will close the debate, so far as the affirmative is concerned; then to be followed by the Reverend Dr. Newman, which will finally close the discussion.

Polygamy is a question, or in other words, is an institution of the Bible; an institution established, as we have already shown, by Divine authority; established by law—by command; and hence, of course, must be sanctioned by the great Divine Law-Giver, whose words are recorded in the Bible.

Yesterday I was challenged by the Reverend Dr. Newman, to bring forth any evidence whatever to prove that there were more than two polygamist families in all Israel during the time of their sojourn in the wilderness. At least this is what I understood the gentleman to say. I shall now proceed to bring forth the proof.

The statistics of Israel in the days of Moses show that there were of males, over twenty years of age, Numbers 1st chapter, 49 verse:

Even all they that were numbered, were six hundred thousand and three thousand, and five hundred and fifty.

It was admitted, yesterday afternoon, by Dr. Newman, that there were two and a half millions of Israelites. Now I shall take the position that the females among the Israelites were far more numerous than the males; I mean that portion of them that were over twenty years of age. I assume this for this reason, that from the birth of Moses down until the time that the Israelites were brought out of Egypt, some eighty years had elapsed. The destruction of the male children had commenced before the birth of Moses; how many years before I know not. The order of King Pharaoh was to destroy every male child. All the people, subject to this ruler, were commanded to see that they were destroyed and thrown into the river Nile. How long a period this great destruction continued is unknown, but if we suppose that one male child to every two hundred and fifty persons was annually destroyed, it would amount to the number of ten thousand yearly. This would soon begin to tell in the difference between the numbers of males and females. Ten thousand each year would only be one male child to each two hundred and fifty persons. How many would this make from the birth of Moses, or eighty years? It would amount to 800,000 females above that of the males. But I do not wish to take advantage in this argument by assuming too high a number. I will diminish it one half, which will still leave 400,000 more females than males. This would be one male destroyed each year out of every five hundred persons. The females, then, over twenty years of age would be 603,550, added to 400,000 surplus women, making in all 1,003,550 women over twenty years of age. The children, then, under twenty years of age, to make up the two and a half millions, would be 892,900, the total population of Israel being laid down at 2,500,000 people.

Now, then, for the number of families constituting this population. The families having first-born males over one month old, see Numbers iii chapter and 43rd verse, numbered 22,273. Families having no male children over one month old we may suppose to have been in the ratio of one-third of the former class of families, which would make 7,424 additional families. Add these to the 22,273 with first-born males and we have the sum total of 20,697 as the number of the families in Israel. Now, in order to favor the monogamists' argument, and give them all the advantage possible, we will still add to this number to make it even—303 families more, making thirty thousand families in all. Now comes another species of calculation founded on this data: Divide twenty-five hundred thousand persons by 22,273 first-born males, and we find one first-born male to every 112 persons. What a large family for a monogamist! But divide 2,500,000 persons by 30,000 and the quotient gives eighty-three persons in a family. Suppose these families to have been monogamic, after deducting husband and wife, we have the very respectable number of eighty-one children to each monogamic wife. If we assume the numbers of the males and females to have been equal, making no allowance for the destruction of the male infants, we shall then have to increase the children under twenty years of age to keep good the number of two and a half millions. This would still make eighty-one children to each of the 30,000 monogamic households. Now let us examine these dates in connection with polygamy. If we suppose the average number of wives to have been seven, in each household, though there may have been men who had no wife at all, and there may have been some who had but one wife; and there may have been others having from one up to say thirty wives, yet if we average them at seven wives each, we would then have one husband, seven wives and seventy-five children to make up the average number of eighty-three in the family, in a polygamic household. This would give an average of over ten children apiece to each of the 210,000 polygamic wives. When we deduct the 30,000 husbands from the 605,550 men over twenty years old we have 573,550 unmarried men in Israel. If we deduct the 210,000 married women from the total of 1,005,550 over twenty years of age, we have 793,550 left. This would be enough to supply all the unmarried men with one wife each, leaving still a balance of 220,000 unmarried females to live old maids or enter into polygamic households.

The law guaranteeing the rights of the first-born, which has been referred to in other portions of our discussion, includes those 22,273 first-born male children in Israel, that is, one first born male child to every 112 persons in Israel; taking the population as represented by our learned friend, Mr. Newman, at two and a half millions. Thus we see that there was a law given to regulate the rights of the first-born, applying to over 22,000 first-born male children in Israel, giving them a double portion of the goods and inheritances of their fathers.

Having brought forth these statistics, let us for a few moments examine more closely these results. How can any one assume Israel to have been monogamic, and be consistent? I presume that my honored friend, notwithstanding his great desire and earnestness to overthrow the Divine evidences in favor of polygamy, would not say to this people that one wife could bring forth eighty-one children. We can depend upon these proofs—upon these biblical statistics. If he assumes that the males and females were nearly equal in number, that Israel was a monogamic people, then let Mr. Newman show how these great and wonderful households could be produced in Israel, if there were only two polygamic families in the nation. It would require something more wonderful than the herb called "mandrake," referred to by Dr. Newman in his rejoinder to my reply to him in the New York Herald. I think he will not be able to find, in our day, an herb with such wonderfully efficacious properties, which will produce such remarkable results.

I have therefore established that Israel was a polygamic nation when God gave them the laws which I have quoted, laws to govern and regulate a people among whom were polygamic and monogamic families. The nation was founded in polygamy in the days of Jacob, and was continued in polygamy until they became very numerous, very great and very powerful, while here and there might be found a monogamic family—a man with one wife. Now if God gave laws to a people having these two forms of marriage in the wilderness, He would adapt such laws to all. He would not take up isolated instances here and there of a man having one wife, but He would adapt His laws to the whole; to both the polygamic and monogamic forms of marriage throughout all Israel.

But we are informed by the reverend Doctor that the law given for the regulation of matters in the polygamic form of marriage bears upon the face of it the condemnation of polygamy. And to justify his assertion he refers to the laws that have been passed in Paris to regulate the social evil; and to the excise laws passed in our own country to regulate intemperance; and claims that these laws for the regulation of evils are condemnatory of the crimes to which they apply. But when Parisians pass laws to regulate the social evil they acknowledge it as a crime. When the inhabitants of this country pass laws to regulate intemperance, they thereby denounce it as a crime. And when God gives laws, or even when human legislatures make penal laws, they denounce as crimes the acts against which these laws are directed, and attach penalties to them for disobedience. When the law was given of God against murder, it was denounced as a crime by the very penalty attached, which was death; and when the law was given against adultery its enormity was marked by the punishment—the criminal was to be stoned to death. It was a crime, and was so denounced when the law was given. God gave laws to regulate these things in Israel; but because He has regulated many great and abominable crimes by law, has He no right to regulate that which is good and moral as well as that which is wicked and immoral? For instance, God introduced the law of circumcision and gave commands regulating it; shall we, therefore say, according to the logic of the gentleman, that circumcision was condemned by the law of God, because it was regulated by the law of God? That would be his logic, and the natural conclusion according to his logic. Again, when God introduced the Passover. He gave laws how it should be conducted. Does that condemn the Passover as being immoral because regulated by law? But, still closer home, God gave laws to regulate the monogamic form of marriage. Does that prove that monogamy is condemned by the law of God, because thus regulated? On, that kind of logic will never do!

Now, then, we come to that passage in Leviticus, the xviii chapter, and the 18th verse; the passage that was so often referred to in the gentleman's reply yesterday afternoon. I was very glad to hear the gentleman refer to this passage. The law, according to King James' translation, as we heard yesterday afternoon, reads thus: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time." That was the law according to King James' translation. My friend, together with Doctors Dwight and Edwards, and several other celebrated commentators, disagree with that interpretation; and somebody, I know not whom, some unauthorized person, has inserted in the margin another interpretation: recollect, in the margin and not in the text. It is argued that this interpretation in the margin must be correct, while King James' translators must have been mistaken. Now, recollect that the great commentators who have thus altered King James' translation were monogamists. So were the translators of the Bible; they, too, were monogamists. But with regard to the true translation of this passage, it has been argued by my learned friend that the Hebrew—the original Hebrew—signifies something a little different from that which is contained in King James' translation. These are his words, as will be found in his sermon preached at Washington, upon this same subject: "But in verse 38 the law against polygamy is given, 'Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister;' or, as the marginal reading is, 'Thou shalt not take one wife to another.' And this rendering is sustained by Cookson, by Bishop Jewell and by Drs. Edwards and Dwight," four eminent monogamists, interested in sustaining monogamy. According to Dr. Edwards, the words which we translate 'a wife to her sister' are found in the Hebrew but eight times. Now we have not been favored with these authorities, we have had no access to them. Here in these mountain wilds it is very difficult to get books. In each passage they refer to inanimate objects; that is, in each of the eight places where the words are found. We have searched for them in the Hebrew and can refer you to each passage where they occur. And each time they refer to objects joined together, such as wings, loops, curtains, etc., and signify coupling together. The gentleman reads the passage "Thou shalt not take one wife to another," and understands it as involving the likeness of one thing to another, which is correct. But does the language forbid, as the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife to another? No; we have the privilege, according to the rules or articles of debate, which have been read this afternoon, to apply to the original Hebrew. What are the Hebrew words—the original—that are used? Veishah el-ahotah lo tikkah: this, when literally translated and transposed is, "neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister," veishah being translated by King James' translators "a wife," el-ahotah being translated "to her sister;" lo is translated "neither;" while tikkah is translated by King James' translators "shalt thou take." They have certainly given a literal translation. Appeal to the Hebrew and you will find the word ishah occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "wife." The word "ahotah", translated by King James' translators "a sister," occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "sister." But are these the only translations—the only renderings? Ishah, when it is followed by ahot has another rendering. That is when "wife" is followed by "sister" there is another rendering.

Translators have no right to give a double translation to the same Hebrew word, in the same phrase; if they translate veishah one, they are not at liberty to translate the same word in the same phrase over again and call it wife. This Dr. Edwards, or some other monogamist, has done, and inserted this false translation in the margin. What object such translator had in deceiving the public must be best known to himself: he probably was actuated by a zeal to find some law against polygamy, and concluded to manufacture the word "wife," and place it in the margin, without any original Hebrew word to represent it. Ahot, when standing alone, is rendered sister; when preceded by ishah, is rendered another; the suffix ah, attached to ahot, is translated "her;" both together (ahot-ah) are rendered "her sister," that is sister's sister; when ahot is rendered "another," its suffix ah represents "her" or more properly the noun sister, for which it stands. The phrase will then read: Veishah (one) el-ahotah (sister to another) lo (neither) tikkah (shalt thou take) which, when transposed, reads thus: Neither shalt thou take one sister to another. This form of translation agrees with the rendering given to the same Hebrew words or phrase in the seven other passages of Scripture, referred to by Dr. Newman and Dr. Edwards. (See Exodus xxvi, 3, 5; Ezekiel i, 9, 11, 23; also iii, 13.)

It will be seen that the latter form of translation gives precisely the same idea as that given by the English translators in the text. It also agrees with the twelve preceding verses of the law, prohibiting intermarriages among blood relations, and forms a part and parcel of the same code; while the word "wife," inserted in the margin, is not, and cannot, by any possible rule of interpretation, be extorted from the original connection with the second form of translation.

Why should King James' literal translation "wife" and "sister" be set aside for "one to another?" Because they saw a necessity for it. There is this difference: in all the other seven passages where the words Veishah el-ahotah occur, there is a noun in the nominative case preceding them, denoting something to be coupled together. Exodus 26th chapter, 3rd verse contains ishah el-ahotah twice, signifying to couple together the curtains one to another, the same words being used that are used in this text. Go to the fifth verse of the same chapter, and there we have the loops of the curtains joined together one to another, the noun in the nominative case being expressed. Next go to Ezekiel, 1st chapter, 9th, 11th and 23rd verses, and these three passages give the rendering of these same words, coupling the wings of the cherubim one to another. Then go again to the 3rd chapter of Ezekiel and 13th verse, and the wings of the living creatures were joined together one to another. But in the text under consideration no such noun in the nominative case occurs; and hence the English translators concluded to give each word its literal translation.

The law was given to prevent quarrels, which are apt to arise among blood relations. We might look for quarrels on the other side between women who were not related by blood; but what are the facts in relation to quarrels between blood relations? Go back to Cain and Abel. Who was it spilled the blood of Abel? It was a blood relation, his brother. Who was it that cast Joseph into the pit to perish with hunger, and afterwards dragged him forth from his den and sold him as a slave to persons trading through the country? It was blood relations. Who slew the seventy sons of Gideon upon one stone? It was one of their own brothers that hired men to do it. Who was it that rebelled against King David, and caused him with all his wives and household, excepting ten concubines, to flee out of Jerusalem? It was his blood relation, his own son Absalom. Who quarrelled in the family of Jacob? Did Bilhah quarrel with Zilpah? No. Did Leah quarrel with Bilhah or Zilpah? No such thing is recorded. Did Rachel quarrel with either of the handmaidens? There is not a word concerning the matter. The little, petty difficulties occurred between the two sisters, blood relations, Rachel and Leah. And this law was probably given to prevent such vexations between blood relations—between sister and sister.

Having effectually proved the marginal reading to be false, I will now defy not only the learned gentleman, but all the world of Hebrew scholars to find any word in the original to be translated "wife" if ishah be first translated "one."

I am informed I have only fifteen minutes. I was not aware I had spoken a quarter of the time. I shall have to leave this subject and proceed to another.

The next subject to which I will call your attention is in regard to the general or unlimited language of the laws given in the various passages which I have quoted. If a man shall commit rape, if a man shall entice a maid, if a man shall do this, or that, or the other, is the language of these passages. Will any person pretend to say that a married man is not a man? And if a married person is a man, it proves that the law is applicable to married men, and if so it rests with my learned friend to prove that it is limited. Moreover, the passage from the margin in Leviticus was quoted by Dr. Newman as a great fundamental law by which all the other passages were to be overturned. But it has failed; and, therefore, the other passages quoted by me, stand good unless something else can be found by the learned gentleman to support his forlorn hope.

Perhaps we may hear quoted in the answer to my remarks the passage that the future king of Israel was not to multiply wives to himself. That was the law. The word multiply is construed by those opposed to polygamy to mean that twice one make two, and hence that he was not to multiply wives, or, in other words, that he was not to take two. But the command was also given that the future king of Israel was not to multiply horses anymore than wives. Twice one make two again. Was the future king of Israel not to have more than one horse? The idea is ridiculous! The future king of Israel was not to multiply them; not to have them in multitude, that is, only to take such a number as God saw proper to give him.

We might next refer you to the uncle of Ruth's dead husband, old Boaz, who represented himself as not being the nearest kin. There was another nearer who had the Divine right to take her, and this other happened to be the brother of Boaz, perhaps a little older. Josephus tells us, according to the learned gentleman, that this oldest brother was a married man. Suppose we admit it. Did Boaz not know that his brother was married when he represented him as the nearest of kin and had the right before him? And even the brother acknowledges his right, and says to Boaz: "Redeem thou my right to thyself." He had the right to marry her. This, then, we arrive at by the assistance of Josephus; and it proves that married men were required to comply with the law. I have no further time to remark on this passage. I wish now to examine a passage that is contained in Matthew, in regard to divorces, and also in Malachi, on the same subject. Malachi, or the Lord by the mouth of Malachi, informs the people that the Lord hated putting away. He gave the reason why a wife should not be put away. Not a word against polygamy in either passage.

But there is certain reasoning introduced to show that a wife should not be put away. In the beginning the Lord made one, that is a wife for Adam, that he might not be alone. Woman was given to man for a companion, that he might protect her, and for other holy purposes, but not to be put away for trivial causes; and it was cause of condemnation in those days for a man to put away his wife. But there is not a word in Malachi condemnatory of a man marrying more than one wife. Jesus also gives the law respecting divorces, that they should not put away their wives for any other cause than that of fornication; and he that took a wife that was put away would commit adultery. Jesus says, in the 5th chapter, that he that putteth away his wife for any other cause than fornication causes her to commit adultery. Then the husband is a guilty accomplice, and if he puts away his wife unjustly he is guilty of adultery himself, the same as a confederate in murder is himself a murderer. As an adulterer he has no right to take another wife; he has not the right to take even one wife. His right is to be stoned to death; to suffer the penalty of death for his sin of adultery. Consequently, if he has no right to even life itself, he has no right to a wife. But the case of such a man, who has become an adulterer by putting away his wife, and has no right to marry another, has no application, nor has the argument drawn from it any application, to the man who keeps his wife and takes another. The law referred to by my learned opponent, in Leviticus xviii and 18, shows that polygamy was in existence, but was to be kept within the circle of those who were not blood relations.

Concerning the phrase "duty of marriage," occurring in the passage, "If a man take another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." The condition here referred to is sometimes more than mere betrothal. It is something showing that the individual has been not merely previously betrothed, but is actually in the married state, and the duty of marriage is clearly expressed. What is the meaning of the original word? It does not mean dwelling nor refuge, as asserted in the New York Herald by Dr. Newman. Four passages are quoted by him in which the Hebrew word for dwelling occurs, but the word translated "duty" of marriage, is entirely a distinct word from that used in the four passages referred to. Does not the learned Dr. know the difference between two Hebrew words? Or what was his object in referring to a word elsewhere in the Scripture that does not even occur in the text under consideration? In a Hebrew and English Lexicon, (published by Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M., Prof. of Sacred Liter., in the Theology School in Yale College,) page 160, it refers to this very Hebrew word and to the very passage, Ex. xxxi, 10, and translates it thus:—"cohabitation,"—"duty of marriage." "Duty of marriage" then is "cohabitation:" thus God commands a man who takes another wife, not to diminish the duty of cohabitation with the first. Would God command undiminished "cohabitation" with a woman merely betrothed and not married?

While I have a few moments left let me refer you to Hosea. I wish all of you, when you go home, to read the second chapter of Hosea, and you will find, with regard to Hosea's having divorced his first wife because of her whoredoms, that no such thing is recorded as stated by Mr. Newman yesterday. The Lord tells Hosea to go and speak to his brethren, (not to his son,) to his sisters, (not his daughter,) of the house of Israel, and tell them what the Lord will do; that he may not acknowledge them any longer as a wife. Hosea bore the word of the Lord to Israel, whom his own two wives represented, saying that their whoredoms, their wickedness and idolatries had kindled the anger of the Lord against them.

Having discussed the subject so far I leave it now with all candid persons to judge. Here is the law of God; here is the command of the Most High, general in its nature, not limited, nor can it be proved to be so. There is no law against it, but it stands as immovable as the Rock of Ages, and will stand when all things on the earth and the earth itself shall pass away.

Dr. J. F. NEWMAN Said:

Respected Umpires, and Ladies and Gentlemen:

I had heard, prior to my coming to your city, that my distinguished opponent was eminent in mathematics, and certainly his display to-day confirms that reputation. Unfortunately, however, he is incorrect in his statements. First, he assumes that the slaying of all the male children of the Hebrews was continued through eighty years; but he has failed to produce the proof. To do this was his starting point. He assumes it; where is the proof, either in the Bible or in Josephus? And until he can prove that the destruction of the male children went on for eighty years, I say this argument has no more foundation than a vision. Then he makes another blunder: the 303,550, the number of men above twenty years of age, mentioned in this case, were men to go to war; they were not the total population of the Jewish nation, and yet my mathematical friend stands up here to-day and declares that the whole male population above twenty years of age consisted of 303,550, whereas it is a fact that this number did not include all the males.

Then again the 22,273 first-born do not represent the number of families in Israel at that time, for many of the first-born were dead. These are the blunders that the gentleman has made to-day, and I challenge him to produce the contrary and prove that he is not guilty of these numerical blunders. Then he denies the assertion made yesterday that there could not be brought forward more than one or two instances of polygamy in the history of Israel from the time the Hebrews left Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. Has he disproved that? He has attempted to prove it by a mathematical problem, which problem is based on error: his premises are wrong, therefore his conclusions are false. Why didn't he turn to King James' translation? I will help him to one polygamist, that is Caleb. Why didn't he start with old Caleb and go down and give us name after name and date after date of the polygamists recorded in the history of the Jews while they were in the wilderness? Ladies and gentlemen, he had none to give, and therefore the assertion made yesterday is true, that during the sojourn of the children of Israel in the wilderness there is but one instance of polygamy recorded.

Now we come to the law that I laid down yesterday—"Neither shalt thou take one wife to another." I reaffirm that the translation in the margin is perfect to a word. He labors to show that God does not mean what He says. That the phrase "one wife to another," may be equally rendered one woman to another, or one wife to her sister. The very same phrase is used in the other seven passages named by Dr. Dwight. For example, Exodus xxvi, 3, Ezekiel i, 9, etc. He admits the translation in these passages to be correct. If it is correct in these passages, why is it not correct in the other? His very admission knocks to pieces his argument. Why then does he labor to create the impression that the Hebrew ishau means woman, or wife? What is the object of the travail of his soul? The word ahoot, he contends, means sister; but sister itself, is a word which means a specific relation, and a generic relation. Every woman is sister to every other woman, and I challenge the gentleman to meet me on paper at any time, in the newspapers of your city or elsewhere upon the Hebrew of this text. I reaffirm it, reaffirm it in the hearing of this learned gentleman, reaffirm it in the hearing of these Hebraists, that as it is said in the margin, is the true rendering, namely, "neither shalt thou take one wife to another." But supposing that is incorrect, permit me, before I pass on, to remind you of this fact, he refers, I think, in his first speech, to the "margin;" the "margin" was correct then and there, but it is not here. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways; correct when he wants to quote from the "margin," but not when I want to do so. He quoted from the margin, and I followed his illustrious example.

And now, my friends, supposing that the text means just what he says, namely, "neither shalt thou take a wife unto her sister, to vex her;" supposing that is the rendering, and he asserts it is, and he is a Hebraist, I argued and brought the proof yesterday that this law of Moses is not kept by the Mormons; in other words there are men in your very midst who have married sisters. Where was the gentleman's solemn denunciation of the violation of God's law? Why did he not lift his voice and vindicate the Divine law? But not a solitary word of disapproval is uttered! Yesterday he pronounced a curse—"cursed is he that conforms not to the words of this law, to do them." Does not the curse rest upon him and upon his people? I gave him the liberty to choose whether this text condemned polygamy, or whether it condemned a man for marrying two sisters; he must take his choice, the horns of the dilemma are before him. For the sake of saving polygamy he stands up here, in the presence of Almighty God and His holy angels, and before this intelligent congregation he admits that in this church, and with this people, God's holy law is set at defiance. What respect, therefore, can we have for the gentleman's argument, drawn from the teachings of Moses, in support of polygamy?

He refers us to the multiplication of horses. I suppose a king may have one horse or two, there is no special rule; but there is a special rule as to the number of wives. Neither shall the king multiply wives. God, in the beginning, gave the first man one wife, and Christ and Paul sustain that law as binding upon us. And now, supposing that that is not accepted as a law, what then? Why there is no limit to the number of wives, none at all. How many shall a man have? Seven, twenty, fifty, sixty, a hundred? Why, they somewhere quote a passage that if a man forsake his wife he shall have a hundred. Well, he ought to go on forsaking; for if he will forsake a hundred he will have ten thousand; and if he forsake ten thousand he will have so many more in proportion. It is his business to go on forsaking. That is in the Professor's book called the Seer. Such a man would keep the Almighty busy creating women for him.

I regret very much that I have not time to notice all the points which have been brought forward. I desired to do so. I plead for more time; my friends plead for more time; but time was denied us, I am therefore restricted to an hour. Now, I propose to follow out the line of argument which I was pursuing yesterday when my time expired, and I propose to carry out and apply the great law brought forward yesterday—"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another;" and in doing this we call your attention to the fact that in the Bible there are only twenty-five or thirty specially recorded cases of polygamy, all told, out of thousands and millions of people. I say twenty-five or thirty specially recorded cases, which polygamists of our day claim in support of their position. I propose to take up, say half a dozen of the most prominent ones. I divide the period, before the law and after the law. I take up Abraham. It is asserted that he was a polygamist. I deny it. There is no proof that Abraham was guilty of polygamy. What are the facts? When he was called of the Almighty to be the founder of a great nation, a promise was given him that he should have a numerous posterity. At that time he was a monogamist, had but one wife—the noble Sarah. Six years passed and the promise was not fulfilled. Then Sarah, desiring to help the Lord to keep His promise, brought her Egyptian maid Hagar, and offered her as a substitute for herself to Abraham. Mind you, Abraham did not go after Hagar, but Sarah produced her as a substitute. Immediately after the act was performed Sarah discovered her sin and said, "My wrong be upon thee." "I have committed sin, but I did it for thy sake, and therefore the wrong that I have committed is upon thee." Then look at the subsequent facts: by the Divine command this Egyptian girl was sent away from the abode of Abraham by the mutual consent of the husband and the wife; by the Divine command, it is said that she was recognized as the wife of Abraham, but I say you cannot prove it from the Bible; but it is said that she was promised a numerous posterity. It was also foretold that Ishmael should be a wild man—"his hand against every man and every man's hand against him." Did that prediction justify Ishmael in being a robber and a murderer? No, certainly not; neither did the other prediction, that Hagar should have a numerous posterity, justify the action of Abraham in taking her. After she had been sent away by Divine command, God said unto Abraham—"now walk before me and be thou perfect."

These are the facts my friends. I know that some will refer you to Keturah; but this is the fact in regard to her: Abraham lived thirty-eight years after the death of Sarah; the energy miraculously given to Abraham's body for the generation of Isaac was continued after Sarah's death; but to suppose that he took Keturah during Sarah's lifetime is to do violence to his moral character. But it is said he sent away the sons of Keturah with presents during his lifetime, therefore it must have been during the life time of Sarah. He lived thirty-eight years after the death of Sarah, and he sent these sons away eight years before his death, and they were from twenty-five to thirty years old. Then this venerable Patriarch stands forth as a monogamist and not as a polygamist.

Then we come to the case of Jacob. What are the facts in regard to him? Brought up in the sanctity of monogamy, after having robbed his brother of his birth-right, after having lied to his blind old father, he then steals away and goes to Padan-aram and there falls in love with Rachel; but in his bridal bed he finds Rachel's sister Leah. He did not enter polygamy voluntarily but he was imposed upon. As he had taken advantage of the blindness of his father and thereby imposed upon him, so also was he imposed upon by Laban in the darkness of the night. But I hold this to be true that Jacob is nowhere regarded as a saintly man prior to his conversion at the brook Jabbok. After that he appears to us in a saintly character. It is a remarkable fact that Jacob lived 147 years all told, eighty-seven of which he lived before he became a polygamist. He lived twenty-two years in polygamy, he lived forty years after he had abandoned polygamy, so that out of 147 years there were only twenty-two years during which he had any connection with polygamy.

I wish my friend had referred to the case of Moses. In his sermon on celestial marriage he claims that Moses was a polygamist, and he declares that the leprosy that was sent upon Miriam was for her interference with the polygamous marriage of Moses. What are the facts? There is no record of a second marriage. Zipporah is the only name given as the wife of Moses. What, then, is the assertion made? Simply this: It is recorded: and Moses was content to dwell with Jethro. He gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter. Josephus speaks of Jethro having two daughters, and distinctly says that he gave Moses one of them. In Numbers xii and 1st, it is said:

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Now it is affirmed that two women are here mentioned, whereas nothing can be more untrue. Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman are one and identical; it is one and the same person called by different names. Let us see: The father of Zipporah was the priest of Midian; and according to the best authorities Midian and Ethiopia are identical terms, and apply to that portion of Arabia where Jethro lived. So the appellation Midian, Ethiopia and Arabia are applied to the Arabian peninsula. See Appleton's American Encyclopedia, volumes 6, 7 and 11. Then Moses, the Jewish law-giver, stands forth as a monogamist, having but one wife. Moses was not a polygamist. Surely the founder of a polygamist nation and the revealer of a polygamist law, as this gentleman claims, should have set an example, and should have had a dozen or a hundred wives. This son of Jochebed; he was a monogamist, and stands forth as being a reproof to polygamists in all generations.

Now we come to Gideon. And what about this man? An angel appeared to him, that is true; but if the practice of polygamy by Gideon is a law to us, then the practice of idolatry by Gideon is also a law to us. If there is silence in the Bible touching the polygamy of Gideon, there is also silence in the Bible touching his idolatry, and if one is sanctioned so also is the other.

I wish my friend had brought up the case of Hannah, the wife of Elkanah. I can prove to a demonstration that Hannah was the first wife of Elkanah; but being barren Elkanah takes another wife. But Hannah, in the anxiety of her heart, pleads to the Almighty, and God honored her motherhood by answering her prayer. It is asked "Is not this a sanction of polygamy?" Nay, a sanction of monogamy, because she was the first wife of Elkanah, and because Elkanah had been guilty of infidelity and married another wife, was that a reason why Hannah should not have her rights from High Heaven, why God Almighty should not answer her prayer? You ask me why did not she pray before. Can you tell me why Isaac did not pray twenty years sooner for his wife, Rebecca, that she might have children? I can not tell and you can not tell, all that I assert is that Hannah was the first wife of Elkanah, and God honored and blessed the beautiful Samuel.

Now we come to David. Why did not my friend bring up David, the great warrior, king and poet, the ruler of Israel? He might have mentioned him, with ten wives all told; he might also have mentioned him as the adulterer, who committed one of the most premeditated, cold-blooded murders on record, simply to cover up his crime of adultery. How often do you hear quoted the words "and I gave thy master's wives into thy bosom!"? Is this an approval of polygamy? If you will read on you will find also that God also promises to give his (David's) wives to another, and that another should lie with them in the sight of the sun. Surely if one is an approval of polygamy the other is an approval of rebellion and incest! David lived to be seventy-five years old. He was twenty-seven years old when he took his first wife Michael, the daughter of Saul. For the next forty years we find him complicated with the evils, crimes and sorrows of polygamy; and the old man, seeing its great sin, thoroughly repented of it and put it away from him, and for the last eight years of his life endeavored to atone, as best he could, for his troubled and guilty experience.

And what of Solomon? He is the greatest polygamist—the possessor of a thousand wives! Had this gentleman told me that Solomon's greatness was predicted, and therefore his polygamic birth was approved, and his polygamic marriage also approbated, I can remind him of the fact that the future greatness of Christ was foretold; but the foretelling of the future greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ was not an approval of the betrayal by Judas and the crucifixion by the Jews. Neither was the mere foretelling of the future greatness of Solomon an approval of the polygamic character of his birth.

I suppose the gentleman on this occasion would have referred to the law of bastardy and have said, if my doctrine is true, then Solomon and others were bastards. I could have wished that he had produced that point. He did quote and declare in this temple, not long since, in reference to the law touching bastardy, that a bastard should be branded with infamy to the tenth generation. But it is plain that he has misunderstood the law respecting bastards, as contained in Deuteronomy xxiii and 2nd. It is known from history that the same signification has not always been attached to this term. We say a bastard is one born out of wedlock, that is monogamous matrimony. In Athens, in the days of Pericles, five centuries before Christ, all were declared bastards by law who were not the children of native Athenians. And we here assert to-day that the gentleman can not bring forward a law from the book of Jewish laws to prove that a child born of a Jew and Jewess, whether married or not, was a bastard. The only child recognized as a bastard by Jewish law is a child born of a Jew and a Pagan woman; therefore the objection falls to the ground, and Solomon and others, who were not to blame for the character of their birth, are exonerated.

The geometrical progression of evil in this system of polygamy is seen in the first three kings, Saul, David and Solomon. Saul had a wife and a concubine—two women; David had ten women, Solomon had a thousand, and it broke the kingdom asunder. God says it was for that very cause. He had multiplied his wives to such an extent, that they had not only led him astray from God into idolatry, but the very costliness of his harem was a burden upon the people too heavy for them to bear. I said the other day that polygamy might do for kings and priests and nabobs, but could not do for poor men; it costs too much and the people are taxed too much to support the harem.

Ah! you bring forward these few cases of polygamy! Name them if you please. Lamech the murderer; Jacob, who deceived his blind old father, and robbed his brother of his birthright; David, who seduced another man's wife and murdered that man by putting him in front of the battle, and old Solomon, who turned to be an idolater. These are some polygamists! Now let me call the roll of honor: There were Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Joseph and Samuel and all the prophets and apostles. You are accustomed to hear, from this sacred place, that all the patriarchs and all the kings and all the prophets were polygamists. I assert to the contrary, and these great and eminent men whom I have just mentioned, belonging to the roll of honor, were monogamists.

Yesterday the gentleman gave me three challenges; he challenged me to show that the New Testament condemned polygamy. I now proceed to do it. I quote Paul's words, 1st Corinthians, 7th chap., 2nd and 4th verses:

Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Marriage is a remedy against fornication, and this is the subject of the chapter. This is the opinion of Clark, Henry, Whitby, Langley and others. One great evil prevailed at Corinth—a community of wives, which the apostle here calls fornication. St. Paul strikes at the very root of the evil and commands that every man have his own wife and that every woman have her own husband: that is, let every man have his own peculiar, proper and appropriate wife, and the wife her own proper, peculiar and appropriate husband. In this there is mutual appropriation and exclusiveness of right; and this command of Paul agrees with the law of Moses in Leviticus xviii, 18: "Neither shalt thou take one wife unto another," and the two are one statute, clear and unquestionable for monogamy and against polygamy. The apostle teaches the reciprocal duties of husband and wife, and the exclusive right of each. In verse four it is distinctly affirmed that the husband has exclusive power over the body of his wife, as the wife has exclusive power over the body of her husband. It is universally admitted that this passage proves the exclusive right of the husband to the wife, and by parity it also proves the exclusive right of the wife to the husband. These relations are mutual, and if the husband can claim a whole wife, the wife can claim a whole husband. She has just as good a right to a whole husband as he has a right to a whole wife. First Corinthians, 6th chapter, 15th, 16th and 17th verses says:

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

What! know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two (saith he) shall be one flesh.

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

This passage is brought against the idea, but what are the facts? It is objected that if one flesh is conclusively expressive of wedlock, that St. Paul affirms that sexual commerce with a harlot is marriage. For argument's sake I accept the assertion. The passage in question is: "What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body?" "For two," says he, "shall be one flesh, but he which is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Now look at the facts of the position, showing the true relation of the believer to Christ. It is illustrated under the figure of marriage. The design of this figure is to show that the believer becomes one with Christ; and the apostle further explains, in reproof of the Corinthians mingling with idolaters and adulterers, that by this mingling they become assimilated and identical. He brings up an illustration that if a man is married to a harlot, not simply joined, but cohabit with or married to a harlot, he becomes identical with her; in other words, one flesh.

There is a passage which declares that "a bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife." It is asserted that he must have one wife anyhow and as many more as he pleases. It is supposed that this very caution indicates the prevalence of polygamy in that day; but no proof can be brought to bear that polygamy prevailed extensively at that time; on the contrary I am prepared to prove that polygamists were not admitted into the Christian Church, for Paul lays down the positive command: "Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband;" so that if you say the former applies to the priest, and the latter, applies to the layman, what is good for the priest is good for the layman, and vice versa.

How often is it asserted here that monogamy has come from the Greeks and Romans. But look at the palpable contradiction in the assertion. It is asserted that monogamy came from those nations; it is also asserted that polygamy was universal at the time of Christ and his apostles. If monogamy came from the Greeks and Romans, then polygamy could not have been universally prevalent, for it is admitted that at that time the Romans held universal sway, and wherever they held sway their laws prevailed, hence the two statements cannot be reconciled.

Now we come to the words of the Savior, Matthew v, 27 and 28; and xix, 8 and 9, and Mark x, and 11 and 12. At that time, when the Savior was discoursing with the Pharisees, as recorded in Matthew xix, the Jews were divided as to the interpretation of the law of Moses touching divorce: "when a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it comes to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement." Upon the meaning of the word uncleanness, the Jews differed: some agreed with the school of Rabbi Hillel: that a man might dismiss his wife for the slightest offence, or for no offence at all, if he found another woman that pleased him better; but the school of Rabbi Shammai held that the term uncleanness means moral delinquency. The Pharisees came to Christ, hoping to involve him in this controversy; He declined, but took advantage of the opportunity to give them a discourse on marriage, and in doing so, he refers to the original institution, saying "have ye not read that in the beginning God made them male and female?" Thus He brings out the great law of monogamy. Grant that the allusion is incidental, nevertheless, it is all-important as falling from the lips of the Great Master.

I was challenged to show that polygamy is adultery. The gentleman challenged me, and I will now proceed to prove it. As adultery is distinguished in Scripture from whoredom and fornication, it is proper to ascertain the exact meaning of the words as used by the sacred writers. The word translated whoredom is from the Hebrew verb Zanah and the Greek pornica, and means pollution, defilement, lewdness, prostitution and, in common parlance, whoredom, the prostitution of the body for gain. The word translated fornication is from the same Hebrew verb, and in general, signifies criminal, sexual intercourse without the formalities of marriage. Adultery is from the Hebrew word Naaph and the Greek word Moicheia, and is the criminal intercourse of a married woman with another man than her husband, or of a married man with any other woman than his wife. This is indicated by the philological significance of the term adulterate, compounded of two words meaning to another, as the addition of pure and impure liquors, or of an alloy with pure metal. Adulterer is from the Hebrew Naaph and the Greek Moichos, which mean as above.

The material question to be settled is, Is the Hebrew word Naaph and the Greek word Moichos or Moicheia confined to the criminal sexual intercourse between a man, married or unmarried, with a married woman? This is the theory of the Mormon polygamists; but I join issue with them and assert that the Scriptures teach that adultery is committed by a married man who has sexual intercourse with a woman other than his wife, whether said woman is married or unmarried. It is conceded that he is an adulterer who has carnal connection with a woman married or betrothed. Thus far we agree.

Now can it be proved that the sin of adultery is committed by a married man having carnal connection with a woman neither married nor betrothed! To prove this point I argue:

First, that the Hebrew word Naaph, translated in the seventh commandment, adultery, does include all criminal sexual intercourse. It is a generic term and the whole includes the parts. It is like the word kill in the sixth commandment, which includes all those passions and emotions of the human soul which lead to murder, such as jealousy, envy, malice, hatred, revenge. So this word Naaph includes whoredom, fornication, adultery, and even salacial lust. Matthew v, 27, 29.

Second. The terms adultery and fornication are used interchangeably by our Lord, and mean the same thing. A married woman copulating with a man other than her husband is admitted to be adultery, but the highest authority we can bring forward calls the act fornication. Matthew v, 3, 2. Romans vii, 2, 3. 1st Corinthians vii, 1, 4.

Third. The carnal connection of a man with an unmarried woman is positively declared to be adultery in God's holy word. It is so recorded in Job xxiv, from the 15th to the 21st verse; and in Isaiah lvii and 3rd it is taught that the adulterer commits his sin with the whore. Therefore I conclude that the term Naaph, as used in the seventh commandment, comprehends all those modifications of that crime, down to the salacial lust that a man may feel in his soul for a woman.

But it may be asked: If this is so, why then, does the Mosiac law mention a married woman? We deny that such a distinction is made. We do admit, however, that special penalties were pronounced on such an action with a married woman, but for special reasons. What were they? To preserve the genealogy, parentage and birth of Christ from interruption and confusion, which were in imminent danger when intercourse with a married woman was had by a man other than her husband. And no such danger could arise from the intercourse with a married man with an unmarried woman. That law was temporary, and was abolished and passed away when Christ came. Under the Jewish dispensation he that cohabited with a woman other than his wife was responsible to God for the violation of the seventh commandment; the woman was also responsible to God for the violation of the seventh commandment and this special law. But here you say if this be true, then some great men in Bible times were guilty of the violation of the seventh commandment. I say they were; but they were not all polygamists: that I have demonstrated to you to-day. But take the facts: Abraham, when convinced of his sin, put away Hagar; Jacob lived several years out of the state of polygamy; David put away all his wives eight years before he died; and if there is no account that Solomon put away his, neither is there the assurance that he abandoned his idolatry.

This then, my friend, is the argument; and as a Christian minister, desiring only your good, I proclaim the fact that polygamy is adultery. I do it in all kindness, but I assert it as a doctrine taught in the Bible.

I am challenged again to prove that polygamy is no prevention of prostitution. It has been affirmed time and time again, not only in this discussion, but in the written works of these distinguished gentlemen around me, that in monogamic countries prostitution, or what is known as the social evil, is almost universally prevalent. I perceive that I have not time to follow out this in arguments; but I am prepared to prove, and I will prove it in your daily papers, that prostitution is as old as authentic history; that prostitution has been and is to-day more prevalent in polygamic countries than in monogamic countries. I can prove that the figures representing prostitution in monogamic countries are all overdrawn. They are overdrawn in regard to my native city, that the gentleman brought up, New York, and of the million and over of population he can not find six thousand recorded prostitutes. I can go, for instance, to St. Louis, where they have just taken the census of the prostitutes of that city, and with a population of three hundred thousand, there are but 650 courtesans. You may go through the length and breadth of this land, and in villages containing from one thousand to ten thousand inhabitants, you cannot find a house of prostitution. The truth is, my friends, they would not allow it for a moment. Those men who assert that our monogamous country is full of prostitutes put forth a slander upon our country.

Our distinguished friend referred to religious liberty, and claimed that he had a right under the Federal Constitution to enjoy religious liberty and to practise polygamy. I am proud as he is that we have religious liberty here. I rejoice that a man can worship God after his own heart; but I affirm that the law of limitation is no less applicable to religious liberty than it is to the revolution of the heavenly bodies. The law of limitation is as universal as creation, and religious liberty must be practised within the bounds of decency, and the wellbeing of society; and civil authority may extend or restrict this religious liberty within due bounds. Why, the Hindoo mother may come here with her Shasta—with her Bible—and she may throw her babe into your river or lake, and the civil authorities, according to your theory, could not interpose and say to that mother, "You shall not do it." That is the theory. You say it is murder, I say it is not. I say the act is stripped of the attributes of murder; it is a religious act. She turns to her bible or Shasta, and says: "I am commanded to do this by my bible." What will you do? You will turn away from the Shasta and say, "The interests of society demand that you shall not murder that child." So civil government has the right to legislate in regard to marriage, and restrict the number of wives to one, according to God's law. But I am not an advocate of stringent legislation. I agree with my friend, that the law should not incarcerate men, women and children in dungeons! No, my friends, if I can say a word to induce humane and kind legislation toward the people of Utah I shall do it, and do it most gladly. But I assert this principle, that civil government has the right to limit religious liberty within due bounds.

There was another point that I desired to touch upon, and that is as to the longevity of nations. We are told repeatedly here, in printed works, that monogamic nations are short-lived, and that polygamic nations are long-lived. I am prepared to go back to the days of Nimrod, come down to the days of Ninus Sardanapalus, and down to the days of Cyrus the Great, and all through those ancient polygamic nations, and show that they were short-lived; while on the other hand I am prepared to prove that Greece and Rome outlived the longest-lived polygamic nations of the past. Greece, from the days of Homer down to the third century of the Christian era; and Rome at from seven hundred and fifty years before the coming of Christ down to the dissolution of the old empire. But that old empire finds a resurrection in the Italians under Victor Emanuel and Garibaldi; and England, Germany and France are all proofs of the longevity of monogamic nations. Babylon is a ruin to-day, and Babylon was polygamic. Egypt, to-day, is a ruin! Her massy piles of ruin bespeak her former glory and her pristine beauty. And the last edition of the polygamic nations—Turkey—is passing away. From the Golden Horn and the Bosphorus, from the Danube, and the Jordan and the Nile, the power of Mahommedanism is passing away before the advance of the monogamic nations of the old world. Our own country is just in its youth; but monogamic as it is, it is destined to live on, to outlive the hoary past, to live on in its greatness, in its benificence, in its power; to live on until it has demonstrated all those great problems committed to our trust for human rights, religion, liberty and the advancement of the race.

My friends, these are the arguments in favor of Monogamy; and when they can be overthrown, then it will be time enough for us to receive the system of Polygamy as it is taught here. But until that great law that we have quoted can be proved to be not a law: until it can be proved that there is no distinction between law and practice; until it can be proved that there is a positive command for polygamy; until it can be proved that Christ did not refer to the original marriage; until it can be proved that Paul does not demand that every man shall have his own wife and every woman her own husband; until it can be proved that polygamy is a prevention of prostitution; until it can be proved that monogamic nations are not as long-lived as polygamous nations; until it can be proved that monogamy is not in harmony with civil liberty; until all these points can be demonstrated beyond a doubt; until then, we can't give up this grand idea that God's law condemns polygamy, and that God's law commends monogamy; that the highest interests of man, that the dearest interests of the rising generation, that all that binds us to earth and points us to heaven are not subserved and promoted under the monogamic system. All these great interests demand the practice of monogamy in marriage—one man and one wife. Then indeed shall be realized the picture portrayed in Scripture of the happy family—the family where the wife is one and the husband one, and the two are equivalent; then, when father and mother, centered in the family, shall bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord—when the husband provides for his family—and it is said that the man who does not is worse than an infidel—then indeed monogamy stands forth as a grand Bible doctrine.