Part 6

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.