Dr. NEWMAN Rose and Said:
Messrs. Umpires and Ladies and Gentlemen:
I understand the gentleman to complain against me that I did not answer his Scriptural arguments adduced yesterday. If I did not the responsibility is upon him. He, being in the affirmative, should have analyzed and defined the question under debate; but he failed to do that. It therefore fell to me, not by right, but by his neglecting to do his duty; and I did it to the best of my ability. It was of the utmost importance that this audience, so attentive and so respectable, should have a clear and definite understanding of the terms of the question; and I desire now to inform the gentleman, that I had the answers before me to the passages which he adduced, and had I had another hour, I would have produced them then. I will do it to-day. Now, my learned friend will take out his pencil, for he will have something to do this afternoon.
A passing remark—a word in regard to the original manuscripts, written by Moses, or Joshua, or Samuel, or the prophets. You sit down to write a letter to a friend; you take it into your head to copy that letter; you copy that letter; the original draft you care nothing about—whether it is given to the winds or the flames. What care I about the two tables of stone on which the original law was written, so that I have a true copy of this law? A passing remark in regard to Mother Eve. I will defend the venerable woman! If the Fall came by the influence of one woman over one man, what would have happened to the world if Adam had had more wives than one? More, if one woman, under monogamy, brought woe into the world, then a monogamist, the blessed virgin Mary, brought the Redeemer into the world, so I think they are even.
My friend supposes that the Almighty might have created more women than one out of Adam's ribs; but Adam had not ribs enough to create fifty women. My friend speaks against polyandry, or the right of woman to have more husbands than one. He bases his argument upon the increase of progeny. Science affirms that where polygamy or polygyny, or a plurality of wives prevails, there is a tendency to a preponderance or predominance of one sex over the other, either male or female, which amounts to an extermination of the race.
I will reply, in due time, to the gentleman's remarks in regard to Gideon and other Scriptural characters, and especially in regard to prostitution, or what is known as the social evil. But first, what was the object of the gentleman yesterday? It was to discover a general law for the sanction of polygamy. Did he find that law? I deny it. What is law? Law is the expression of the legislative will; law is the manner in which an act is performed. It is the law of gravitation that all things tend to a common centre. It is the law in botany that the flowers open their fan-like leaves to the light, and close them beneath the kisses of night. What is the civil law? Simply defining how the citizens should act. What is the moral law? Simply defining the conduct of God's moral subjects. Laws are mandatory, prohibitory and permissive: commanding what should be done; prohibiting what should not be done, and permitting what may be done. And yet, where has the gentleman produced this general law which he spent an hour in searching for yesterday? And then remember, that this law must sanction polygamy! Perhaps it is not necessary to repeat our definition of the word "sanction." My learned friend, for whom I have respect, agrees with me as to the definition of that term, therefore we need not spend a solitary moment further touching these two points.
There is another vital point in reference to the nature of law. In legislating upon any subject there must be a great, organic central principle, mandatory or prohibitory, in reference to that subject; and all other parts of the particular law as well as of the general code must be interpreted in harmony therewith.
Now I propose to produce a law this afternoon, simple, direct and positive, that polygamy is forbidden in God's holy word. In Leviticus xviii and 18 it is written: "Neither shalt thou take one wife to another, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life time." There is a law in condemnation of polygamy. It may be said that what I have read is as it reads in the margin, but that in the body of the text it reads: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime." Very well, argumentum ad hominem, I draw my argument from the speech of the gentleman yesterday. Mr. Pratt said, in his comments upon the text, "If brethren dwell together,"—Now it is well enough in the reading of this to refer to the margin, as we have the liberty, I believe, to do so, and you will find that in the margin the word brother is translated "near kinsmen." I accept his mode of reasoning: he refers to the margin, and I refer to the margin; it is a poor rule that will not work both ways; it is a poor rule that will not favor monogamy if it favor polygamy. Such then is the fact stated in this law.
Now it is necessary for us to consider the nature of this law and to expound it to your understanding, it may be proper for me to say that this interpretation, as given in the margin, is sustained by the most eminent biblical and classical scholars in the history of Christendom—by Bishop Jewell, by the learned Cookson, by the eminent Dwight, and other distinguished biblical scholars. It is an accepted canon of interpretation that the scope of the law must be considered in determining the sense of any portion of the law, and it is equally binding upon us to ascertain the mind of the legislator, from the preface of the law, when such preface is given. The first few verses of the xviii chapter of Leviticus are prefatory. In the 3rd verse it is stated that—
After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye no do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites practised incest, idolatry sodomy, adultery and polygamy. From verse 6 to verse 17, inclusive, the law of consanguinity is laid down, and the blood relationship defined. Then the limits within which persons were forbidden to marry, and in verse 18 the law against polygamy is given—"neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister," but as we have given it, "neither shalt thou take one wife to another," etc.
According to Dr. Edwards, the words which are translated as "wife" or "sister," are found in the Hebrew but eight times, and in each passage they refer to inanimate objects, such as the wings of the cherubim, tenons, mortises, etc., and signify the coupling together one to another, the same as thou shalt not take one wife to another.
Such then is the law. Such were the ordinances forbidden which the Egyptians and the Canaanites practised. Now we propose to push this argument a little further. If it is said that this passage does not prohibit a man marrying two sisters at the same time then such a marriage is nowhere in the Bible pronounced incestuous. That is the objection of my friend. To which I reply that such a marriage is forbidden by sequence and analogy. As for example where the son, in the 7th verse, is prohibited from marrying his mother, it follows that the daughter shall not marry her father; yet it is not so given and precisely stated. In verse 14 it is said—"thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother;" so I infer that it would be equally criminal to uncover the nakedness of a mother's brother, though it is not so stated. In verse 16 it is said—"thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife," so I infer that a man shall not uncover the nakedness of his wife's sister that is, if two brothers shall not take the same woman, then two women shall not take the same man, for between one man and two sisters, and one woman and two brothers is the same degree of proximity, and therefore both are forbidden by the law of God. Furthermore, if for argument's sake, we consider this means two literal sisters, then this prohibition is not a permission for a man to take two wives who are not sisters; for all sound jurists will agree that a prohibition is one thing and a permission is another thing. Nay, more, the Mormons do or do not receive the law of Moses as binding. That they do not is clear from their own practices. For instance, in Leviticus, xx chap. and 14 verse it is said—
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they.
Yet Mr. John Hyde, jr., page 56 of his work called "Mormonism," states that a Mr. E. Bolton married a woman and her daughter; that Captain Brown married a woman and her two daughters. These are illustrations of the violation of the law. More than this Leviticus xviii, 18, prohibits a man from marrying two sisters; yet Mr. Hyde informs us that a Mr. Davis married three sisters, and a Mr. Sharkey married the same number. If the question is, Is the law of Moses obeyed here or not? and supposing this gentleman can prove that the text means two literal sisters, and two literal sisters are married here, then I affirm that you do not keep God's law, or that which you say is God's law, as given through his servant Moses. Nay, more than this: if it here means two literal sisters, and, whereas, Jacob married two sisters; and, whereas, the great Mormon doctrine that God worked a miracle on Leah and Rachel that they might have children; and, whereas, it is here said that said miracles were an approval of polygamy, so also were such miracles an approval of incest; if it be true that God did not express this approval at Jacob having two wives, neither did he express disapproval of his having two sisters; therefore the Divine silence in the one case is an offset to the Divine silence in the other case. Even you are driven to this conclusion, either my interpretation of this passage is correct,—neither shall a man take another wife,—two wives, or you must admit that this passage means two literal sisters, and in either case you live in violation of God's law. It is for my distinguished friend to choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases. I thank him for the compliment he paid me—that I came here as a philanthropist. I have only kindness in my heart for these dear men and women; and had not this kindness filled my heart; had I believed in a crushing, iron, civil law, I could have remained in Washington. But I came here believing the truth as it is in Jesus, and I am glad to say that I have the privilege of speaking what I believe to be God's truth in your hearing.
The gentleman quoted Deuteronomy xxi, 15-17, which is the law of primogeniture, and is designed to preserve the descent of property:
If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;
Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born:
But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
How did he apply this law? Why he first assumed the prevalence of polygamy among the Jews in the wilderness, and then said the law was made for polygamous families as well as for monogamous. He says—"inasmuch as polygamy is nowhere condemned in the law of God, we are entitled to construe this law as applying to polygamists." But I have shown already that Leviticus xviii, 18, is a positive prohibition of this law, and therefore this passage must be interpreted by that which I have quoted. I propose to erect the balance to-day, and try every scriptural argument which he has produced in the scales of justice.
I have recited to you God's solemn law—"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another:" and I will try every passage by this law. My friend spent an hour here yesterday in seeking a general law; in a minute I gave you a general law. How natural is the supposition, where a man has two wives in succession, that he may love the last a little better than the first! and I believe it is common out here to love the last a little better than the first. And how natural it is for the second wife to influence the father in the disposition of his property so that he will confer it upon her child! while the children of the first wife, poor woman, perhaps dead and gone, are deprived of their property rights. But supposing the meaning of this passage is two wives at the same time, this cannot be construed, by any of the accepted rules of interpretation, into a sanction of polygamy; if it can, I can prove that sheep stealing is just as divinely authorized. For it is as if Moses had said: "for in view of the prevalence of polygamy, and that you have so far forgotten and transgressed God's law of monogamy as to take two wives at the same time, therefore this shall not work the abrogation of the law of primogeniture, the first-born son shall not thereby be cheated out of his rights." Now it is said: "if a man have two wives:" very well, if that is a privilege so also are these words: "If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it and sell it, he shall restore five oxen for the ox he stole, and four sheep for the sheep." If the former assertion is a sanction of polygamy, then the latter assertion is a sanction of sheep stealing, and we can all go after the flocks this afternoon.
The second passage, in Exodus xxi, 7th to 11th verses, referring to the laws of breach of promise, Mr. Pratt says proves or favors polygamy, in his opinion; but he did not dwell long upon this text. He indulged in an episode on the lost manuscripts. Now let us inquire into the meaning of this passage.
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
And if he hath betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
What are the significant points in this passage? They are simply these—According to the Jewish law a destitute Jew was permitted to apprentice his daughter for six years for a pecuniary consideration; and to guard the rights of this girl there were certain conditions: First, the period of her indenture should not extend beyond six years; she should be free at the death of her master, or at the coming of the year of jubilee. The next condition was that the master or his son should marry the girl. What, therefore, are we to conclude from this passage? Simply this, that neither the father nor the son marry the girl, but simply betrothed her; that is, engaged her, promised to marry her: but before the marriage relation was consummated the young man changed his mind, and then God Almighty, to indicate his displeasure at a man who would break the vow of engagement, fixes the following penalties, namely that he shall provide for this woman, whom he has wronged, her food, her raiment and her dwelling, and these are the facts: and the gentleman has not proved, the gentleman cannot prove, that either the father or the son marry the girl. He says the honored term "wife" is there. Honored term! God bless that term! It is an honored term, sacred as the nature of angels. Yet I have to inform my distinguished friend that the word wife is neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek, but simply "if he take another," that is if he betroth another, and then change his mind he shall do thus and so. Where then is the gentleman's general law in approval of polygamy?
The next passage is recorded in Deuteronomy xxv chap., and from the 5th to the 10th verses, referring to the preservation of families:
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her unto him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
And it shall be, that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother:
Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
What is the object of this law! Evidently the preservation of families and family inheritances. And now I challenge the gentleman to bring forward a solitary instance in the Bible where a married man was compelled to obey this law. Take the case of Tamar! Certainly the brother that was to have married her could not have been a married man, because she had to wait until he grew up. Then take the case of Ruth. You know how she lost her noble Mahlon afar off beyond Jordan, and how she returned to Bethlehem, and goes to Boaz, a near kinsman, and demands that he shall marry her. Boaz says—"there is another kinsman. I will speak to him." It is asked—"Didn't Boaz know whether the nearer kinsman was married?" but yet that was not the business of Boaz. The divine law required that this man should appear at the gate of the city before the elders, and there either marry her or say that he was disqualified because he was already a married man; and there is no proof in the Bible that Boaz had been married; nay, more than this, old Josephus, the Jewish historian, asserts that the reason why the near kinsman did not marry Ruth was that he had a wife and children already, so I judge that this law, which is said to be general, is that that I laid down—"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another," etc. He refers me to Numbers xxxi, 17th and 18th verses.
Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
This passage has nothing whatever to do with polygamy. It is an account of the results of a military expedition of the Jews against the Midianites; their slaughter of a portion of the people, and their reduction of the remainder to slavery—namely the women for domestics. My friend dwells upon thirty-two thousand women that were saved! What were these among the Jewish nation—a people numbering two and a half millions?
He quotes Deuteronomy xxi, 10th and 13th verses:
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive;
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full mouth: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband and she shall be thy wife.
This passage is designed to regulate the treatment of a captive woman by the conqueror who desires her for a wife, and has no more to do with polygamy than it has to do with theft or murder. Not a solitary word is said about polygamy, no mention is made that the man is married, therefore every jurist will agree with me that where we find a general law we may judge a special enactment by the organic, fundamental principle.
He quoted Exodus xxii chap., 16 and 17, and Deuteronomy xxii, and 28 and 29:
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
In Deuteronomy it is said:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
My friend appeared to confound these two laws, as if they had reference to the same crime; but the first is the law of seduction, while the second was the law of rape. In both cases the defiler was required to marry his victim; but in the case of seduction, if the father of the seduced girl would not consent to the marriage, then the sum usual for the dowry of a virgin should be paid him and the offense was expiated. But what was the penalty of rape? In that case there is no ambiguity—the ravisher married his victim and paid her father fifty pieces of silver besides. But what has this to do with polygamy? He says it is a general law and applies to married men. This cannot be so, because it is in conflict with the great law of Leviticus xviii, 18.
I tell you, my friends, these are simple downright assumptions. The position is first taken, and therefore these passages are adduced to sustain that position; and this gentleman goes on to assume that all these men are married men. It is a tremendous fact, that if a man seduced a girl or committed a rape upon her, he was bound to marry that girl. It is a tremendous fact that the same law gives to the father the right of the refusal of his daughter, therefore the father has the power to annul God's law of marriage.
The next passage is the 2nd Chronicles, xxiv and 3rd, &c. It is the case of Joash the king, and when he began to reign Jehoiada was high priest. He was more than that—he was regent. My friend in portraying the character of this great man said that because he took two wives for King Joash, he was so highly honored that when he died he was buried among the kings. But the fact is, he was regent, and there was royalty in his regency, and this royalty entitled him to be interred in the royal mausoleum. All that is said in Chronicles is simply an epitome—a summing up, that King Joash had two wives. It does not say that he had them at the same time; he might have had them in succession. I give you an illustration: John Milton was born in London in 1609. He was an eminent scholar, a great statesman and a beautiful poet; and John Milton had three wives. There I stop. Are you to infer that John Milton had these three wives simultaneously? Why you might according to the gentleman's interpretation of this passage. But John Milton had them in succession. But more than this, for argument's sake grant the position assumed by my friend, then the numerical element of the argument must come out, and a man can only have two wives and no more. Do you keep that law here? And yet that is the argument and that is the logical conclusion.
The last passage my friend referred to was the 1st chapter of Hosea, and 2nd verse:
The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredoms, departing from the Lord.
That is, says Newcomb, a wife from among the Israelites, who were remarkable for spiritual fornication. My friend is so determined on a literal interpretation that he gives a literal interpretation, whereas this distinguished biblical scholar says that it was not literal fornication, but rather spiritual; in other words, idolatry; for in the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, idolatry is mentioned under the term fornication. God calls himself the husband of Israel, and this chosen nation owed him the fidelity of a wife. Exodus the xxxiv Chapter and 15th verse:
Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.
The 14th verse of the same chapter says:
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God.
He therefore sees thee with indignation join thyself in marriage to one of those who had committed fornication or spiritual idolatry, lest they should raise up children, who, by the power of example, might lay themselves under the terribleness of idolatry. The prophet is directed to get a wife of whoredoms; and, after this, he is directed to go and love an adulterous woman. My friend cites these as examples where God makes an exception to a general law. He also cites the case of Abraham offering up his son Isaac, and the case of consanguinity, in Deuteronomy xxv, from 5th to 10th verse. Now the first three cases were merely typical; the first two were designed to set forth more impressively the relations between God and His people. The case of consanguinity has nothing to do with polygamy. It is only a modification or exception in special cases for the preservation of the families of Israel from extinction. Where, therefore, I ask, is the general law?
But my friend has forgotten this fact, that after having divorced the first wife for adultery, as he had a right to do, in chapter ii, 2nd and 5th verses, he is then directed to go and take another wife. This is not polygamy. It was represented to us here, yesterday, that this prophet, Hosea, was first commanded to take a woman guilty of adultery or fornication, and then to take an adulteress, and the representation was made that he took them and had them at the same time; whereas, if Mr. Pratt had read a little further, he would have found that the prophet divorced the first wife for adultery, and he had a right to do it; and after he divorced her, then he went and took a second wife.
Professor Pratt admits, mark you, admits that none of these passages, nor all of them together, can afford in this day a warrant for the practice of polygamy. Gives it up! Turns the Bible aside! I will read to you from his own words:
Supposing that we should prove by a thousand evidences from the Bible that polygamy was practised by ancient Israel, and was sanctioned by God in ancient days, would that be any reason that you and I should practise it? By no means. We must get a command independent of that, which we have received. God frequently repeats His commands, and His servants are required to obey His commands when they are given. The Latter-day Saints in this Territory practise polygamy not because the law of Moses commands it; not because it was extensively practised by the best of men we know of, mentioned in the Bible, the old patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob and others, who are saved in the kingdom of God. We have no right to practise it because they did it.
Then he yields the point! I respectfully ask him, if this is his position, why does he attempt, in all his writings, and to establish it in that clever book the Seer? Why did he, in his controversy with me in the New York Herald? Why has he from this stand attempted to prove that the practice of polygamy was right from the Bible? Why not, like a man, come out and say that we practise this system here, not because the Jews did it; not because the Divine law sanctioned it years ago; but because a certain man of the name of Smith received a revelation that this form of marriage was to be practised? You, my friends, can see the logical conclusion, or in other words the illogical bearing.
Now, I come to the assumptions by the gentleman. First, that there is no law condemning or forbidding polygamy. Has he proved that? Second, that the Hebrew nation, as it was in the wilderness, when the Mosaic code was given, was polygamous. Has he proved that? Can he find in the whole history of the Jewish nation, from the time they left Egypt to the time they entered the land of Canaan, can he find more than one instance of polygamy? Perhaps he may find two. I will be glad to receive that information, for I am a man seeking light, and to-day I throw down a challenge to your eminent defender of the faith, to produce more than two instances of polygamy, from the time the Jews left the land of Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. I will assist him in his research and tell him one, and that was Caleb. Now supposing that a murder should be committed in your city, would it be fair for Eastern papers to say that the Mormons are a murderous people? No, I would rise up in defence of you; I would say that that is a crime and an injury to the people here! Yet, during a period of forty years we find one man out of two millions and a half of people practising polygamy, and my friend comes forward and assumes that the Israelites were polygamists.
Third, that these laws were given to regulate among them an institution already existing. Has he proved that? Supposing he could prove that Moses attempted, or did legislate for the regulation of polygamy, as it did exist in Egypt and elsewhere, would such legislation establish a sanction? Why in Paris they have laws regulating the social evil; is that an approval of the social evil? There are laws in most of the States regulating and controling intemperance. Do excise laws sanction intemperance? Nothing of the kind. For argument's sake I would be willing to concede that Moses did legislate in regard to polygamy, that is to regulate it, to confine its evils; and yet my friend is too much of a legislator to stand here and assert that laws regulating and defining were an approval of a system.
Fourth, that these laws were general, applying to all men, married and unmarried. Has he proved that? I have proved to the contrary to-day, showing that in the passages which he quoted there is not a solitary or remote intimation that the men were married.
Now let us, in opposition to these assumptions, remember that monogamy was established by God in the innocence of the human race, and that polygamy, like idolatry, and slavery, blood revenge, drunkenness and murder came into existence after the apostasy of the human family, and that neither of these evils have any other origin so far as appears from the Bible than in the wickedness of man. We admit that polygamy existed among the corrupt nations, just as any other evil, or vice, or crime existed, and now when God had chosen the Hebrews for His own people, to separate them from the heathen, He gives them for the first time a code of laws, and especially on the subject of the commerce of the sexes. And what is the central principle of that code on this subject? Read Leviticus xviii, 18—"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another."
In this code the following things are forbidden: Incest, polygamy, fornication, idolatry, beastliness, &c.; we therefore deny that the nation was polygamous at that time, deny it definitely, deny it distinctly, and on another occasion I will give you the character of the monogamists and polygamists of Bible times. The Jews had been four hundred years in slavery, and they were brought out with a strong hand and an outstretched arm.
We, to-day, then challenge for the proof that as a nation the Jews were polygamous. One or two instances, as I have already remarked, can be adduced. We may say again that if, as he assumes, these laws were given to regulate the existing system, this does not sanction it any more than the same thing sanctions sheep-stealing or homicide. He said these laws were general, applying to all men, married or unmarried. Has he proved it? This is wholly gratuitous. There is no word in either of these passages which permits or directs a married man to take more than one wife at a time. I challenge the gentleman for the proof. It is no evidence of the sanction of polygamy to bring passage after passage, which he knows, if construed in favor of polygamy, polygamy must be in direct conflict with the great organic law recorded in Leviticus xviii, 18.
[At this point the umpires announced that the time was up.]
THIRD AND CLOSING DAY.
PROF. ORSON PRATT.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have assembled ourselves in this vast congregation in the third session of our discussion, to take into consideration the Divinity of a very important institution of the Bible. The question, as you have already heard, is "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" Many arguments have already been adduced, on the side of the affirmative, and also on the side of the negative. This afternoon one hour is allotted to me in the discussion, to bring forth still further evidences, which will close the debate, so far as the affirmative is concerned; then to be followed by the Reverend Dr. Newman, which will finally close the discussion.
Polygamy is a question, or in other words, is an institution of the Bible; an institution established, as we have already shown, by Divine authority; established by law—by command; and hence, of course, must be sanctioned by the great Divine Law-Giver, whose words are recorded in the Bible.
Yesterday I was challenged by the Reverend Dr. Newman, to bring forth any evidence whatever to prove that there were more than two polygamist families in all Israel during the time of their sojourn in the wilderness. At least this is what I understood the gentleman to say. I shall now proceed to bring forth the proof.
The statistics of Israel in the days of Moses show that there were of males, over twenty years of age, Numbers 1st chapter, 49 verse:
Even all they that were numbered, were six hundred thousand and three thousand, and five hundred and fifty.
It was admitted, yesterday afternoon, by Dr. Newman, that there were two and a half millions of Israelites. Now I shall take the position that the females among the Israelites were far more numerous than the males; I mean that portion of them that were over twenty years of age. I assume this for this reason, that from the birth of Moses down until the time that the Israelites were brought out of Egypt, some eighty years had elapsed. The destruction of the male children had commenced before the birth of Moses; how many years before I know not. The order of King Pharaoh was to destroy every male child. All the people, subject to this ruler, were commanded to see that they were destroyed and thrown into the river Nile. How long a period this great destruction continued is unknown, but if we suppose that one male child to every two hundred and fifty persons was annually destroyed, it would amount to the number of ten thousand yearly. This would soon begin to tell in the difference between the numbers of males and females. Ten thousand each year would only be one male child to each two hundred and fifty persons. How many would this make from the birth of Moses, or eighty years? It would amount to 800,000 females above that of the males. But I do not wish to take advantage in this argument by assuming too high a number. I will diminish it one half, which will still leave 400,000 more females than males. This would be one male destroyed each year out of every five hundred persons. The females, then, over twenty years of age would be 603,550, added to 400,000 surplus women, making in all 1,003,550 women over twenty years of age. The children, then, under twenty years of age, to make up the two and a half millions, would be 892,900, the total population of Israel being laid down at 2,500,000 people.
Now, then, for the number of families constituting this population. The families having first-born males over one month old, see Numbers iii chapter and 43rd verse, numbered 22,273. Families having no male children over one month old we may suppose to have been in the ratio of one-third of the former class of families, which would make 7,424 additional families. Add these to the 22,273 with first-born males and we have the sum total of 20,697 as the number of the families in Israel. Now, in order to favor the monogamists' argument, and give them all the advantage possible, we will still add to this number to make it even—303 families more, making thirty thousand families in all. Now comes another species of calculation founded on this data: Divide twenty-five hundred thousand persons by 22,273 first-born males, and we find one first-born male to every 112 persons. What a large family for a monogamist! But divide 2,500,000 persons by 30,000 and the quotient gives eighty-three persons in a family. Suppose these families to have been monogamic, after deducting husband and wife, we have the very respectable number of eighty-one children to each monogamic wife. If we assume the numbers of the males and females to have been equal, making no allowance for the destruction of the male infants, we shall then have to increase the children under twenty years of age to keep good the number of two and a half millions. This would still make eighty-one children to each of the 30,000 monogamic households. Now let us examine these dates in connection with polygamy. If we suppose the average number of wives to have been seven, in each household, though there may have been men who had no wife at all, and there may have been some who had but one wife; and there may have been others having from one up to say thirty wives, yet if we average them at seven wives each, we would then have one husband, seven wives and seventy-five children to make up the average number of eighty-three in the family, in a polygamic household. This would give an average of over ten children apiece to each of the 210,000 polygamic wives. When we deduct the 30,000 husbands from the 605,550 men over twenty years old we have 573,550 unmarried men in Israel. If we deduct the 210,000 married women from the total of 1,005,550 over twenty years of age, we have 793,550 left. This would be enough to supply all the unmarried men with one wife each, leaving still a balance of 220,000 unmarried females to live old maids or enter into polygamic households.
The law guaranteeing the rights of the first-born, which has been referred to in other portions of our discussion, includes those 22,273 first-born male children in Israel, that is, one first born male child to every 112 persons in Israel; taking the population as represented by our learned friend, Mr. Newman, at two and a half millions. Thus we see that there was a law given to regulate the rights of the first-born, applying to over 22,000 first-born male children in Israel, giving them a double portion of the goods and inheritances of their fathers.
Having brought forth these statistics, let us for a few moments examine more closely these results. How can any one assume Israel to have been monogamic, and be consistent? I presume that my honored friend, notwithstanding his great desire and earnestness to overthrow the Divine evidences in favor of polygamy, would not say to this people that one wife could bring forth eighty-one children. We can depend upon these proofs—upon these biblical statistics. If he assumes that the males and females were nearly equal in number, that Israel was a monogamic people, then let Mr. Newman show how these great and wonderful households could be produced in Israel, if there were only two polygamic families in the nation. It would require something more wonderful than the herb called "mandrake," referred to by Dr. Newman in his rejoinder to my reply to him in the New York Herald. I think he will not be able to find, in our day, an herb with such wonderfully efficacious properties, which will produce such remarkable results.
I have therefore established that Israel was a polygamic nation when God gave them the laws which I have quoted, laws to govern and regulate a people among whom were polygamic and monogamic families. The nation was founded in polygamy in the days of Jacob, and was continued in polygamy until they became very numerous, very great and very powerful, while here and there might be found a monogamic family—a man with one wife. Now if God gave laws to a people having these two forms of marriage in the wilderness, He would adapt such laws to all. He would not take up isolated instances here and there of a man having one wife, but He would adapt His laws to the whole; to both the polygamic and monogamic forms of marriage throughout all Israel.
But we are informed by the reverend Doctor that the law given for the regulation of matters in the polygamic form of marriage bears upon the face of it the condemnation of polygamy. And to justify his assertion he refers to the laws that have been passed in Paris to regulate the social evil; and to the excise laws passed in our own country to regulate intemperance; and claims that these laws for the regulation of evils are condemnatory of the crimes to which they apply. But when Parisians pass laws to regulate the social evil they acknowledge it as a crime. When the inhabitants of this country pass laws to regulate intemperance, they thereby denounce it as a crime. And when God gives laws, or even when human legislatures make penal laws, they denounce as crimes the acts against which these laws are directed, and attach penalties to them for disobedience. When the law was given of God against murder, it was denounced as a crime by the very penalty attached, which was death; and when the law was given against adultery its enormity was marked by the punishment—the criminal was to be stoned to death. It was a crime, and was so denounced when the law was given. God gave laws to regulate these things in Israel; but because He has regulated many great and abominable crimes by law, has He no right to regulate that which is good and moral as well as that which is wicked and immoral? For instance, God introduced the law of circumcision and gave commands regulating it; shall we, therefore say, according to the logic of the gentleman, that circumcision was condemned by the law of God, because it was regulated by the law of God? That would be his logic, and the natural conclusion according to his logic. Again, when God introduced the Passover. He gave laws how it should be conducted. Does that condemn the Passover as being immoral because regulated by law? But, still closer home, God gave laws to regulate the monogamic form of marriage. Does that prove that monogamy is condemned by the law of God, because thus regulated? On, that kind of logic will never do!
Now, then, we come to that passage in Leviticus, the xviii chapter, and the 18th verse; the passage that was so often referred to in the gentleman's reply yesterday afternoon. I was very glad to hear the gentleman refer to this passage. The law, according to King James' translation, as we heard yesterday afternoon, reads thus: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time." That was the law according to King James' translation. My friend, together with Doctors Dwight and Edwards, and several other celebrated commentators, disagree with that interpretation; and somebody, I know not whom, some unauthorized person, has inserted in the margin another interpretation: recollect, in the margin and not in the text. It is argued that this interpretation in the margin must be correct, while King James' translators must have been mistaken. Now, recollect that the great commentators who have thus altered King James' translation were monogamists. So were the translators of the Bible; they, too, were monogamists. But with regard to the true translation of this passage, it has been argued by my learned friend that the Hebrew—the original Hebrew—signifies something a little different from that which is contained in King James' translation. These are his words, as will be found in his sermon preached at Washington, upon this same subject: "But in verse 38 the law against polygamy is given, 'Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister;' or, as the marginal reading is, 'Thou shalt not take one wife to another.' And this rendering is sustained by Cookson, by Bishop Jewell and by Drs. Edwards and Dwight," four eminent monogamists, interested in sustaining monogamy. According to Dr. Edwards, the words which we translate 'a wife to her sister' are found in the Hebrew but eight times. Now we have not been favored with these authorities, we have had no access to them. Here in these mountain wilds it is very difficult to get books. In each passage they refer to inanimate objects; that is, in each of the eight places where the words are found. We have searched for them in the Hebrew and can refer you to each passage where they occur. And each time they refer to objects joined together, such as wings, loops, curtains, etc., and signify coupling together. The gentleman reads the passage "Thou shalt not take one wife to another," and understands it as involving the likeness of one thing to another, which is correct. But does the language forbid, as the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife to another? No; we have the privilege, according to the rules or articles of debate, which have been read this afternoon, to apply to the original Hebrew. What are the Hebrew words—the original—that are used? Veishah el-ahotah lo tikkah: this, when literally translated and transposed is, "neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister," veishah being translated by King James' translators "a wife," el-ahotah being translated "to her sister;" lo is translated "neither;" while tikkah is translated by King James' translators "shalt thou take." They have certainly given a literal translation. Appeal to the Hebrew and you will find the word ishah occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "wife." The word "ahotah", translated by King James' translators "a sister," occurs hundreds of times in the Bible, and is translated "sister." But are these the only translations—the only renderings? Ishah, when it is followed by ahot has another rendering. That is when "wife" is followed by "sister" there is another rendering.
Translators have no right to give a double translation to the same Hebrew word, in the same phrase; if they translate veishah one, they are not at liberty to translate the same word in the same phrase over again and call it wife. This Dr. Edwards, or some other monogamist, has done, and inserted this false translation in the margin. What object such translator had in deceiving the public must be best known to himself: he probably was actuated by a zeal to find some law against polygamy, and concluded to manufacture the word "wife," and place it in the margin, without any original Hebrew word to represent it. Ahot, when standing alone, is rendered sister; when preceded by ishah, is rendered another; the suffix ah, attached to ahot, is translated "her;" both together (ahot-ah) are rendered "her sister," that is sister's sister; when ahot is rendered "another," its suffix ah represents "her" or more properly the noun sister, for which it stands. The phrase will then read: Veishah (one) el-ahotah (sister to another) lo (neither) tikkah (shalt thou take) which, when transposed, reads thus: Neither shalt thou take one sister to another. This form of translation agrees with the rendering given to the same Hebrew words or phrase in the seven other passages of Scripture, referred to by Dr. Newman and Dr. Edwards. (See Exodus xxvi, 3, 5; Ezekiel i, 9, 11, 23; also iii, 13.)
It will be seen that the latter form of translation gives precisely the same idea as that given by the English translators in the text. It also agrees with the twelve preceding verses of the law, prohibiting intermarriages among blood relations, and forms a part and parcel of the same code; while the word "wife," inserted in the margin, is not, and cannot, by any possible rule of interpretation, be extorted from the original connection with the second form of translation.
Why should King James' literal translation "wife" and "sister" be set aside for "one to another?" Because they saw a necessity for it. There is this difference: in all the other seven passages where the words Veishah el-ahotah occur, there is a noun in the nominative case preceding them, denoting something to be coupled together. Exodus 26th chapter, 3rd verse contains ishah el-ahotah twice, signifying to couple together the curtains one to another, the same words being used that are used in this text. Go to the fifth verse of the same chapter, and there we have the loops of the curtains joined together one to another, the noun in the nominative case being expressed. Next go to Ezekiel, 1st chapter, 9th, 11th and 23rd verses, and these three passages give the rendering of these same words, coupling the wings of the cherubim one to another. Then go again to the 3rd chapter of Ezekiel and 13th verse, and the wings of the living creatures were joined together one to another. But in the text under consideration no such noun in the nominative case occurs; and hence the English translators concluded to give each word its literal translation.
The law was given to prevent quarrels, which are apt to arise among blood relations. We might look for quarrels on the other side between women who were not related by blood; but what are the facts in relation to quarrels between blood relations? Go back to Cain and Abel. Who was it spilled the blood of Abel? It was a blood relation, his brother. Who was it that cast Joseph into the pit to perish with hunger, and afterwards dragged him forth from his den and sold him as a slave to persons trading through the country? It was blood relations. Who slew the seventy sons of Gideon upon one stone? It was one of their own brothers that hired men to do it. Who was it that rebelled against King David, and caused him with all his wives and household, excepting ten concubines, to flee out of Jerusalem? It was his blood relation, his own son Absalom. Who quarrelled in the family of Jacob? Did Bilhah quarrel with Zilpah? No. Did Leah quarrel with Bilhah or Zilpah? No such thing is recorded. Did Rachel quarrel with either of the handmaidens? There is not a word concerning the matter. The little, petty difficulties occurred between the two sisters, blood relations, Rachel and Leah. And this law was probably given to prevent such vexations between blood relations—between sister and sister.
Having effectually proved the marginal reading to be false, I will now defy not only the learned gentleman, but all the world of Hebrew scholars to find any word in the original to be translated "wife" if ishah be first translated "one."
I am informed I have only fifteen minutes. I was not aware I had spoken a quarter of the time. I shall have to leave this subject and proceed to another.
The next subject to which I will call your attention is in regard to the general or unlimited language of the laws given in the various passages which I have quoted. If a man shall commit rape, if a man shall entice a maid, if a man shall do this, or that, or the other, is the language of these passages. Will any person pretend to say that a married man is not a man? And if a married person is a man, it proves that the law is applicable to married men, and if so it rests with my learned friend to prove that it is limited. Moreover, the passage from the margin in Leviticus was quoted by Dr. Newman as a great fundamental law by which all the other passages were to be overturned. But it has failed; and, therefore, the other passages quoted by me, stand good unless something else can be found by the learned gentleman to support his forlorn hope.
Perhaps we may hear quoted in the answer to my remarks the passage that the future king of Israel was not to multiply wives to himself. That was the law. The word multiply is construed by those opposed to polygamy to mean that twice one make two, and hence that he was not to multiply wives, or, in other words, that he was not to take two. But the command was also given that the future king of Israel was not to multiply horses anymore than wives. Twice one make two again. Was the future king of Israel not to have more than one horse? The idea is ridiculous! The future king of Israel was not to multiply them; not to have them in multitude, that is, only to take such a number as God saw proper to give him.
We might next refer you to the uncle of Ruth's dead husband, old Boaz, who represented himself as not being the nearest kin. There was another nearer who had the Divine right to take her, and this other happened to be the brother of Boaz, perhaps a little older. Josephus tells us, according to the learned gentleman, that this oldest brother was a married man. Suppose we admit it. Did Boaz not know that his brother was married when he represented him as the nearest of kin and had the right before him? And even the brother acknowledges his right, and says to Boaz: "Redeem thou my right to thyself." He had the right to marry her. This, then, we arrive at by the assistance of Josephus; and it proves that married men were required to comply with the law. I have no further time to remark on this passage. I wish now to examine a passage that is contained in Matthew, in regard to divorces, and also in Malachi, on the same subject. Malachi, or the Lord by the mouth of Malachi, informs the people that the Lord hated putting away. He gave the reason why a wife should not be put away. Not a word against polygamy in either passage.
But there is certain reasoning introduced to show that a wife should not be put away. In the beginning the Lord made one, that is a wife for Adam, that he might not be alone. Woman was given to man for a companion, that he might protect her, and for other holy purposes, but not to be put away for trivial causes; and it was cause of condemnation in those days for a man to put away his wife. But there is not a word in Malachi condemnatory of a man marrying more than one wife. Jesus also gives the law respecting divorces, that they should not put away their wives for any other cause than that of fornication; and he that took a wife that was put away would commit adultery. Jesus says, in the 5th chapter, that he that putteth away his wife for any other cause than fornication causes her to commit adultery. Then the husband is a guilty accomplice, and if he puts away his wife unjustly he is guilty of adultery himself, the same as a confederate in murder is himself a murderer. As an adulterer he has no right to take another wife; he has not the right to take even one wife. His right is to be stoned to death; to suffer the penalty of death for his sin of adultery. Consequently, if he has no right to even life itself, he has no right to a wife. But the case of such a man, who has become an adulterer by putting away his wife, and has no right to marry another, has no application, nor has the argument drawn from it any application, to the man who keeps his wife and takes another. The law referred to by my learned opponent, in Leviticus xviii and 18, shows that polygamy was in existence, but was to be kept within the circle of those who were not blood relations.
Concerning the phrase "duty of marriage," occurring in the passage, "If a man take another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." The condition here referred to is sometimes more than mere betrothal. It is something showing that the individual has been not merely previously betrothed, but is actually in the married state, and the duty of marriage is clearly expressed. What is the meaning of the original word? It does not mean dwelling nor refuge, as asserted in the New York Herald by Dr. Newman. Four passages are quoted by him in which the Hebrew word for dwelling occurs, but the word translated "duty" of marriage, is entirely a distinct word from that used in the four passages referred to. Does not the learned Dr. know the difference between two Hebrew words? Or what was his object in referring to a word elsewhere in the Scripture that does not even occur in the text under consideration? In a Hebrew and English Lexicon, (published by Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M., Prof. of Sacred Liter., in the Theology School in Yale College,) page 160, it refers to this very Hebrew word and to the very passage, Ex. xxxi, 10, and translates it thus:—"cohabitation,"—"duty of marriage." "Duty of marriage" then is "cohabitation:" thus God commands a man who takes another wife, not to diminish the duty of cohabitation with the first. Would God command undiminished "cohabitation" with a woman merely betrothed and not married?
While I have a few moments left let me refer you to Hosea. I wish all of you, when you go home, to read the second chapter of Hosea, and you will find, with regard to Hosea's having divorced his first wife because of her whoredoms, that no such thing is recorded as stated by Mr. Newman yesterday. The Lord tells Hosea to go and speak to his brethren, (not to his son,) to his sisters, (not his daughter,) of the house of Israel, and tell them what the Lord will do; that he may not acknowledge them any longer as a wife. Hosea bore the word of the Lord to Israel, whom his own two wives represented, saying that their whoredoms, their wickedness and idolatries had kindled the anger of the Lord against them.
Having discussed the subject so far I leave it now with all candid persons to judge. Here is the law of God; here is the command of the Most High, general in its nature, not limited, nor can it be proved to be so. There is no law against it, but it stands as immovable as the Rock of Ages, and will stand when all things on the earth and the earth itself shall pass away.