Part 7

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.