New-York tribune., 1870-08-22

solomon ,he great man wb !hou:.nd
polygamous birth and marriages thereby approves. But
us @ sresnesS Of Christ was also predicted Dd ths,
trss thss'n he was told that 4 his doctrine was
law cSalSnt SnG cS%s into bastard bnse sne os s
as a yes he built the ord house This arose from
sprIpS ho, Of tbe word with Us II meant on
tnnatr,monE But couldn't be proved from jewish Law
was the ospriDg % Jew and Jegess bastard
as6 6assrho % so that Solomon and Others were exoner
my was seen in the cases Of SAUL David and solomon
solomon thosand T And eSSnSneias SroSa payd had ten
der. n ~
Now said ;ss ,r, Mr. S let US see We have poygamist
the murderer and aduerer Solomon turned 10 doatry,
and on the other hand, monogamists Adam, Enoch
great prophets Christ and the holy apostles You ar.
accustomed 10 hear that all the pariarchs, kings
prophets of the Bible we're polygamists assert to the
contrary.
&c, prove that the New Testament condemned poys
amy taught ns T sy II IA ans
the constituted statute clear ana unquesuonabs
S2a Ssaas and hS St tRSss passages from
Paul proved the mutual nature OF the re-
whole husband as the husband has TO whole wife. Ths
words Of the same Apostle Know ye not that ne whleh
shall be esh" had been urged against the Idea ct
exclusive homogeneous wedock; But Paul was showing
marriage. Moreover, he affirmed that II man marrieds
not simply cohabited, but married harot, he did be-
come one mesh with her. IL was said that Pais worny
Bishops should therefore be blameess the husband
OF one wife,, indication that poygarny prev
tradctOn OF that other assertion OF poly gamst that
monogamy came rom Greece and Rome Palestine being
part OF the Roman Empire at that time. This inJune
ton OF the Apostle was the complement OF Let every
He had been challenged 10 prove that polygamy was
adultery Here Mr. n. made an elaborate analysis Of
ended affirming GtsDensa-
ti0n the cohabitati0n OF man with any other woman
ing they used IT, forncation. adultery, aud the
saacal uss Of the heart. Therefore, as Christian
adultery. NO. no, no, from the audence
He had been challenged to prove that polygamy was
he prepared to prove that prostitution was more
prevalent in polygamous than in homogeneous countries
The polygamsts claimed the right, under the Federal
Constitution. to practice II religion He proud
as his opponent Of our religious liberty But the Law OF
limitation applied to the 10 the movements OF
the heavenly bodies. The Hindoo mother might come
here and throw her infant the lake. and, according
prevent it, Yes it could they say because it is murder
IL Is not murder said Mr. Newman 1t is diyesod Of every
attribute OF murder II Is religious act Yet we hay:
the right TO prevent 1t. SO We have the right
to iegsts with ono regSiTfs Tifs Each to He
not in favor of harsh legislation and would exert hs in
fuence to prevent 1t should IT be proposed But ne as
right to limit religious liberty within the bounds OF DE-
and 80 far az M might be % a % %
on the perpetsty Of the national fe denying what was
IL,
many England, living proofs 70 the contrary, while
Turkey the latest edition of polyganous country was
fast passing away. Our own country was just IN ~
YOUTH it was destined TO Outliye the hoary past 10
would go and on in greatness and power ana glory
until had solved all those great problems OF religious
liberty and civil rights intrusted TO II. - -,
These were the arguments for mOnOgamy. when they
could be OyerthrOwn might receive polygamy as
taught here But until it could be proved that the orig
na law OF marriage had been abTogated that there ws
no distinction between law and practice; that poYg-
amy was preventive Of prostitution and was not adul-
terry that tended to the peTpetuty OF the natO ZIG
and the elevation OF wOman-until then we cOuid nos
give up this grand idea that Gods law cOhdemh
Doly1aIny and commands mOnogaInyi tItt
The dearest interests Of men and women
and of the rising generation well demand OF US tno
establishment and maintenance or monogimOus mar
riage in our country Then would be realized the hapy
picture OF the Scriptures where the husband ana we
were one and the two were equivalent, where parents
should bring up their children in the nurture ana ad-
mOntion OF the Lord where should provide for their
families for we told that he who will not do this 10
worse than an nfdel-then, then indeed would mOnog-
amy stand forth the grand truth
The great discussion was closed Before the railroad
era such an would have been impossible In gem
era IL may served but TO confirm the partsans or
each system, but it cannot be that the intelligent and
honest have not been impressed with the superior
grandeur and strength Of side OF the question What
Is most singular in it all, think, after all, that there
has not blow struck account OF this debate
hope the dputants will give us the contest over the
Levitcus which the direct Bible argunens
seems " hang chiefly, on paper