New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-08-28

0AOl6 on Tue urSt Oi4y VI tAAo uoOSsO. 49,
Newman had Judged all those passages ~
the great foundation principle he claimed
to have found in Leviticus XVIII, IL, which
he had proved that Mr.. Newman had mis-
apprehended That failing, therefore, those
! passages stood good. unless something else
could be adduced against them.
If the passage forbidding the king to null
| tiply wives unto himself confined him to one
| wife, then the same command confined him
| to one horse. The married kinsman OF Boaz
acknowledged that the law was binding on
| him by saving, "Go and redeem my right"
The passages from Matthew and Malachi,
made so much of by Mr.. Newman referred
to divorce and not polygamy. The marry
| ing of a second wife without putting away
the first was not adultery. The words duty
| of marriage meant more than betrOthai
| According to Gibbs, Professor OF Theology
in Yale College, it meant cOhabition. Hosea
did not divorce one harlot before he mar,
ried the other. Here was a law of God,
general in its nature, or if limited it couldn't
| be proved There was no law against it. 1t
| stood as immovable as the Rock of Ages,
| and would stand when heaven and earth
should pass away. 1t was law that was
binding on ancient Israel. He was sorry he
had not more time, but, having discussed
| the subject, would leave it to all candid per-
sons to judge.
| MR. NEWMAN CLOSES THE DEBATE.
| Mr. Newman said that it was unfortunate
| that his distinguished friend, in his wonder
| full numerical calculation, had based 1T on
the assumption that the staying of the male
children OF the Hebrews continued through
eighty years and failed to prove 1t. Until
he could prove that, his argument had no
more foundation than vision. Respecting
the great law prohibiting polygamy, ne re-
| affirmed that the marginal translation was
perfect to a word. The gentleman had la
| bored hard to show that God didn't mean
what he said-'One woman to another"
He admitted the translation in seven OF the
| eight passages to be correct, why not III the
eighth! His admission knocked his argu-
ment to pieces. He challenged MIN 10 meet
| him on paper, any time, or anywhere, on
| the Hebrew of this text. The marginal
was the true rendering. He referred in his
opening speech to the margin to strengthen
| his argument, and it was poor rule that
wouldn't work both ways. suppose 1t
meant what Mr. Pratt claimed DE: New,
man proved yesterday that this law OF
Moses is not kept by the MormonS. "nerc
| was his solemn denunciatlOn OF this VIOLA
ton of Divine law! Yesterday he pro
nounced a curse on him that confirmeth all
| the words of this law to do them. Did not
that curse rest on him and his people! 10
| save polygamy, he stood here in the sight OF
God and His angels, and before this lntelll-
| gent audience acknowledged that this Peo-
pie set Gods law at defiance. What respect
| was due his argument from the teachings OF
Moses in support OF poiygamy.
Respecting the parallel between the
| Kings multiplying wives and horses, there
| was no law in regard to horses, but there
was in regard to wives Ii on an equal
footing, then there was no limit to the num-
Der of wives a man might have. A passage
| of Scripture was often quoted III favor OF
polycamv to the effect that if man for
sake his wife he shall have hundred If
it was good to fOrsake his wrfe, Ill that
sense, it would be better to forsake the nun
dred. Then he should have 10000. This Is
is the argument in Mr. Pratt's book, The
Seer" WHY. such a man would keep the
| Almighty busy creating wives for him.
| GSensation. He regretted that he hadh t
| time to notice all the points made by his
opponent: he desired to do so: be had
pleaded for more time, so had his friends,
but it had been denied him.
He would now take up his argument
where he had left it yesterday, and apply
the great law he had proclaimed on that oc-
casi0n. In the Bible there were at most
TWENTY-FIVE or thirty eases OF polygamy re
corded ont of the millions of people OF whom
it was the history and upon the example OF
these the polygamists OF our day rested
their case In considering them he divided
the period before the law was given from
that afterward. lie then showed tnii'
Abraham was not polygamist, that Hagel
was brought to him by his wife Sarah, and
that Immediately thereafter she saw hel
wrong. but laid it On him; and that God
sent the polygamorls child away, the parents
consenting. Abraham married ketmaf
after Sahra's death, not before, etc. inns
remarkable patriarch was a monoSanllSt
not a polygamlst. lSensatiohi. Jacop' ut
said. was inveig1ed into pOlygamy before ht
was converted at the brook Jabbok. and
only lived in it twenty-five years of the one
hundred and forty-sevcn OF his life. Moses
it was said here. was a polygamlst, ant
Miriam was struck with leprosy because snt
murmured at it. Zipporah. the daughter
of Jethro. and the Ethiopian woman
were the same person. Mldlan and Ethlopi;
the same part Of Arabia. Moses then stood
forth as 4 monogamst-this lawgiver OF s
nolyramous nation, who should by al
means have had a hundred wives As t.
Gideon, he was an idolater rs well as a poly
gamist, and if his polygamy was law for us
then equally was his idolatry. The Bibl'
| was silent as to both. For Eikannah, III
could prove that Hannah, the mother
Samuel. was his first wife, and Gods hear
inc her PRAYER, was blessing on mono
namy. Sacred writ says Hannah, bein,
barren Elkanah took another wife Ihel
David, the warrior, king, and poet he ha'
ten wives and was an adulterer, and nun
derer. Ii Gods words to him, as wa
claimed Il gave thee thy masters wives III
to thy bosom" sanctioned polygamy, thel
, Gods words, II will take thy wive
, and give unto thy neighbOr, and h
shall lie with them" sanctioned adul
{ terry and incest David repented and pu
, away his wives eight years before his death
What OF Solomon, the great polygamist-
: the man with a thousand wives y. 1t wa
said his greatness was predicted, and III
, polygamous birth and marriages thereb
, approved But the greatness OF Christ wa
: also predicted. Did that justify and az
: proyc his betrayal and crucitiXiOn Again
t be was told that if his doctrine was tru
: Solomon was a bastard. and by the lay
| couldn't come into the house of God at all
2 | vet he built the Lord a house. Tins ARCS
, from misunderstanding of the word
: With lis it meant offspring born outside q
D lawful wedlock-monogamous inatrlmonN
f But it couldn't be proved from JEWISH LAY
| that the offsprin. of jew and Jewcss wa
: a bastard. 1t was the offspring of a JeN
\ | and Pagan that was meant by bastard
| SO that Solomon and others were cxone'
t ated. The geOmctrical progression OF til
+ | evil of pOlygamy was seen IN the cases c
Saul. David and Solomon. Saul had on
+ wife and one concubine. David had ter
t Solomon a thousand, And it broke tn
+ kingdom asSllnder.
$ He had been challenged to prove thu
e polygamy was adultery. Here Mr. New
/, man made an elaborate analysis Of adultery
n and kindred words, in the Greek and He
y brew, and ended by affirming that undo
o the Jewish dispensation the cohabitation {
T a man with any other woman than his vii
5 was regarded as adultery; the word inclu'
). ing as they used it, fornication, adultcr,
o and even the salacial lusts OF the hear