The New York Herald Newspaper, August 23, 1870, Page 5

MORMONISM. DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY? Second Day. of the Great Discussion Be- tween Dr. Newman and Orson Pratt. The Female Saints Becoming More and More Luterested. Text of the Argument of the Champions of Many Wives and One Wife. Save LAKE Ciry, August 13, 1870. ‘The great dcbate between Prolessor Pratt and the Rev. Dr. Newman on the subject of polygamy still absorbs the attention of all classes of people here. ‘Fhere was'a large attendance in the Tabernacle this afternoon when the respective disputants resumed their arguments concerning the Divine sanction of the system. The audience lstened with marked at- tention during the whole of the proceedings. Dr. Newman produced a profound impression when be pronouuced with powerful effect the law laid down in Leviticus, “Thou shalt not take one wife to an- other,” which he claimed conclusively condemned polygamy. The meeting was called to order by Judge Snow. Elder Franklin PD. Richards, one of the Twelve Apostles, offered the opening prayer, Judge Snow read tothe aniience some of the artl- @les of agreement for the government of the debate, Professor Prait then rose and resumed his argu- ment. Continued Argument of Professor Pratt. Lavigs aND GENTLEMEN—We again come be- fore you this afternoon, being tue second day of our discussion, to examine the question ‘Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?” 1 will here remark that yesterday afternoon I occupied one hour upon the subject, brought forth numerous evi- @ences from the Bible to show that polyg- amy was a Divine institution, sanctioned by the Bible, sanctioned by the Almighty, who gave the Jaws contained in the Bible. Here let me observe that it is of the utmost im- portance to clearly understand the point under discussion. 1 perceived that in the argument that followed me yesterday the subject was dwelt upon somewhat minutely in regard to the meaning of the term “polygamy; that it included both a plurality of wives aad a plurality of husbands. Hence @ new term was introduced by the reverend doctor that folowed me, namely “‘poly- gymy” (polygyny), iff recollect the term, having reference to a plurality of wives, This seoms to be the question under discussion, as the former word seems to be discarded aud scouted. Then, does the Bible sanction polygymy —perhaps I may not have got the term exactly right—that is, does it sanction @ plurality of wives? It was satd by the speaker who followed me, in relation to a plurality of wives—per- haps I had better refer tosome of the remarks from print, for tearthat my memory might not serve me en the occasion, The first remark to which I will eal your attention is in regard to the original of the Bible. 1 admit in this @iscussion tho Bible called King James translation as authortiy. I admit the Bible in the original Hebrew if it canbe found. Of coarse we haye Hebrew Bibles at the present day—I hold one in my hand—that ts, a Bible tn the Hebrew lan- guage. Butl do deny that it contains the original eopies of the Hebrew language. There 1s no such thing in existence asthe original copies, neither secondary copies, uelther copies that might come in as the hundredth copy, I presume. They cannot be found. We have not the original of the law of Moses written upon the tables of stone. Such tables and such original Lave not been in existence to our knowledge for the last 1,300 years. We cannot re- fer w them, We gannot referto any copies, only those that have beeu multiplied in mod- ero times—that is, comparatively modern times, And inasmoch as these copies atsagree one with the other, 80 much so that it Is said there are thirty thousand dierent readings in the various Manuscripts and coptes, who 13 to decide whether this present Hebrew Bible, translated from one par- tieular manuscript, is in accordance with the orizt- nalornott Certainly 1t would not do for me, as an Andividual, to set up my julgment in relation to the matier; neither would it do for any other one learned man te set up his judgment in relation to ts mat- ter. I would far rather, therefore, take the standard of King James and the able translators that were chosen in his day—men of great learning and selence; ‘men of information; men that had studied the original languages, the Hebrew and Greex, and had become extensively acquainted with the various manuscripts in existence. I would rather take their judgment than all the opinions that might be advanced by myself or by anv other learned man, however deeply he taay be versed in Hebrew or in Greek. I Co not, therefore, in making these remarks, disparage the Bible or set tt aside: By no means. I accept it as proof as it was translated by those men ‘who were chosen for the purpose; and scores of mil- lions of copics of this Bible have been circulated among all nations, in various tongues, in various languages, sent forth by millions among the tnhabi- tants of the earth for their information. We wili now pass along, after having decided upon ‘the nature of tho Bible that 1s to be admitied as evi- dence ana proof in regard to polygamy. It is stated, 4m the course of the remarks of the reverend gentle- man, in relation to polygamy, or ‘‘potygymy”— whichever term we jee! disposed to choose—that the marriage of more than one woman is considered adultery. I will read one or two sentences:—“Take His exposition,” that 1s, the Saviour’s exposition, “of the ten commandments as they were given amid the thanders of Mount Stnal, and you find that He has written a commentary ow that decalogue, bring- dug out its hidden meaning, showing to us that the man is an adulterer who not only martics more women than one, but who looks on @ woman with salacial Inst.” Such is commentary on the law by the Lora Jesns. Ja & part of this Tagree most perfectiy with the the gentleman who has spoken. If a mau, accord- ing to this great commentary of our Saviour, looks ‘upon & Woman with a lusttil heart and lustful de- sire he commits aduitery in his heart, and is con- demned as'am adultery.) With the other part I do most distinctly disegree. It is merely the assertion of the reverend gentlemen. No proof was adduced from the New Testament Scriptures. No proof ail- ‘vanced as the words of the great Commentator, Our Lord Jesus Christ, to establish that’ position that a man who marries more than one woman ia an adulterer, If there is such a passage recorded within the lids of the New Testament it has not come under my observation. It remains to be proved, therefore. Wo will now pass to another item. That is the meaning of the word “sanction.” ‘Does the Bible sanction polygamy?” 1am willing to admit the full force aud meaning of the word “sanction.”’ Lam willing to take it in all tts accepta- tion as set forth in Webster's ‘Unabridged Diction- ary. 1 do not feel like shrinking from this, nor withdrawing !9 any manner from the definition given; let it stand in all its force. “The only adequate idea of sanction,” says Mr. Newman, “Is the Divine and positive apprenation plataly expressed etther tn definite statute or by such forms of confirmation as constitute a fall and clear equivalent, It is in this that we take the teri sanction in the question before us.” Admit it that it must be expressed in definite terms. Those terms were latd before the congregation yesterday afternoon. In this Bible— King James’ transiation—passaze after passage ‘was brought forth to prove the Divine sanction of * polygamy—a direct command in several instances, wherein they were required to be polygamists, and, tm one instance espsolally, they were required under the heaviest curse of the law. “Cursed be he who continueth not tn all things written in this book of the Lord, and we, all the people, ainen,” was the expression. I say under thisdread- fui curse and denunciation of Almighty God the pie were comntended to be polygamists on one ovea- sion. Did this sanction it? Did this give authority and pewer to practice tat divine institution? It certainly is sanctioned, or else I do not understand tue meaning of Ds. Webster and the meaning of the, { Would in some small i cr ‘ul, a wouderful ion ry. vainly was my ear, ‘upon me like the dew of heaven, as it were, 80 faras oratorical i is Concerned; but where Was the rebul testimony, where was the evidence brought forth? rty-nine minutes of the time was occupied before it was even referred to, Forty-nine minutos passed away inthe flourish of oratory without tho oofs being rebutted and the evidence examined. then eleven pene were Me £ af yerpecs. thing during the eleven minutes thal Siontin emia tons ei rebnt the numerous evidences that were brought torch in the divine record 10 establish and sanction polygamy, and I waited in vaio, To be sure, one ‘aye, aud Ouly one, that was brought fortn in Deuteronomy was merely referred to, and then without exuming that passage and showing that ti did uot command polygamy; another item thai was reierred to by Dayself in regard to Lamech and Cain was brought up instead of the examination of (hat passave, and uni the close of the eleven minutes the subject of Abel's sacrifice and Cain’s sacrifice and Cain goiug: Vo the jand of Nod to marry a wile, &c. All these Unings were examined, bul these testimonies that were brought forth were untouched, Now, theu, we will proceed to the filth, that 18, the firsc great form of marriage that was established in the begiuaing—one man crcated tor one woman, Howeve fore we dw@i upon this subject let mo lake a remark tn regard to Cain and Lawech; then Wwe wil! commence on this argument. 1 did not state yesterday afternoun, ag It was represented by the speaker that followed me, that Cain went tu the land of Nod and there married @ wife, for there js 10 such thing ta the Bible. I stated that Cain went to the land of Nod alter baving murdered hts brother Abel. 1 stati that we were nul LO suppose that Got had created another woman in ue land of Nod; twat Gain took, nis wie in the land of Nod. We are not lo suppose this, Bat we are to suppose thet he wok iis wife with him; but when he arrived in the land of Nod ho begat achild, Sosays the Mible. But what has all this to do with rezard to the form of marrage? Does itprove anytiaing’ No. ‘The murder that Cain com- mitted tn slayiug his brother Abel does not prove anything against the moaogamic form of marriage; neither anything in fuvor of 1. Itstands as an isoiated fact that a wicked man may be a monoga- mist, How inregard to Lamech? Lame:h, as lar as is recorded in the Bivle, was the first polygamist; the frst on record, Taere may have been thousands and tens of thousands that are not here recorded. ‘There were thousands and tens of thousands of monogauiists, and yet Lbelleve that we have .only Viree cases Of monogamists recorded durmg the period from the exeatlon down w the fovd, some 1,600 years and upwards, ‘file sileace o! Scripture, therefore, in regard to the number of polygamists in that day 14 no evidence whatev But 1) has been asserted before this congregation buat this 1s the firs) case recorded of 2 polyguuiist, aud that m con nection therewith marder was committed, aad 16 has been indicated or inierred that the murder committed in dei my. oT iy it. Tf cail upon the CAuAn 0. bring forth one proof that Bible trom from the beginning bo the end rey Drove thab murder had anytuing to do in relation to Lhe polygaulc form ol marriage of Lamech, It had nothing to do with 1. [tis true he revealed his crime to fis Wives, but the cause of his crime 1s not slated ta the book, ‘What has that to do, thea, with the divinity of te great institution estabiisiied fn the Bible cated Notning at all, It does not condemn polygamy, neither does it yustdy ti, any more than inurder condemus tie other toru of marciage or Justities tt. Having disposea of these two questions, let me now come to thy first monogainist, namely—Adain, Let us esamiue his character and the character of his monogamic wie. Lamech siew a young ian to his wounding, a youug man tw hls hurt—that was killing one was it not? How many did Adam ‘Kill, the first monogamist/ Ali the world of mankind ; he murdere? the wiiole human race. (Laughter. } How? By talling in the Garden of Eden. Would mankind have died i, ithad aot been for tue sins of these monogaists? No. Paul says that, “As in Adam all died, 0 im Christ shall all be inade alive.” It was by the transgression of the frst monogamist and bis monogamic Wiie that all mankind have to undergo the penalty of deain, He was the cause, aud f presume it wit be acknowledged even vy movoganists that Us was # very great crime, What can be compared to u¥ Can Catn’s crime or Lamech’s be possibly compared to the crime of bringing death and destrucuon not only upon the people who lived in the early age but upon the whole human race? But what is ail that to do in rogard to the divine institution of marriage? Noiuing at all, It dovs not proveone thiag or the other. But wheu argu- ments of this description are entered iuto by the Oppoacnis of polygamy it is well to examine their foundation and the wath and ‘force of those argu- monts, to see wheter they will sland the test of Seriptre or stand the test of souud reasus, svand argument and sound jadgment. Moreover. Adam was not only guilty of pringing death and destruction upon the whore human race, but he was the means of introducing a taliew humanity into this world of ours, Why did Cain slay bis brother Abel? Becaase he was @ descendant of that fallen being. He was a person- age that had come forth from tne lolus of 4 man that bad brought death tuto the world. Why did La- mech slay that young mant Because the great first coupie of monogamusts Liat haa existed dad vrougnt death and Cesuruction into tae worki. When we look abroad and see ail the various crimes, includ- ing murder, that exist ou the face of our glove; Wien We see maukind comiitting themseives to ail u ner of degradation and iust and destroyiug one ther, What ave the causes that have produced all this evil among men? Because a& monogamous couple transgressed the laws oi leaven. ‘The reverend gentieman re: that great man Martin Lutte tion that exists beiween hus wife. It Ww @ beautiful argument. 1 ni do iault Whatever to And With tt. 4) just as appilcable to polygamy as 1i is to mouogamy. And the answer ot Muritu Lu- ther to the question that was put to him, why 1 took the female from ihe sie of man, 15 just as pevpriaie, just as proper, Just as consistent. with we plural form of marriage a8 Wis with tae her form, lie did not take the woman from saying of Wag the rea ine head. Why? Tne ent was thas the an should bo the or, as Pau Says, “Lie an isthe head of the woman,” That is his position, andl believe my learned opponent agrees with me perfectly in tills. We have no dis- pute whatever upon this ground. Way did He not take the Woman from the fooly Because a man 1s now to tyranuize over his wife and vread her wader foot, Why did He take her from his side? Because the rib lies nearest to the heart, showing Ube pusi- uon of Women; not only one Wwomau, but two women, five women, ten women, forty women, filty woulen, all come under the protection of this one head. Jesus says, “No man can serve two masters, because he must uate tie one and love the other, cleave unto one and tarp away trom the oiler.” ‘Tuat 18 very true, But let us now examine polygamy, for that was referred to yesierduy; aud the vevcrend geuticman could not see why, if # maa had tne liberty of taking more wives than one, Why a woman should not Lave We same privucge. If God has granted to the wo- man auy such privilege It 1s not expressed 11 the iibie, ‘The other 13 expressed, and }t remains fur Vhe reverend gentietaan to disprove it. Bit then, again, when We come to reason in regard to polyg- andry, where a woman was to have more husbands than onc. Wat was the object of the creation? Oue object was Compantousiip, he told us. Tia! 1s very govd. I agree with the gentieman. in this Tespect. Another object was procreation. Very good. 1 agree with the gentleman als» in the secuud ob ject. Another object was prevention. | agree with bin) so lar as the argument 15 curried out Ww regard to this, im its true light. But let us examine tue second object—namely, procreation. ‘The Lord in- stituted marriage—tue great bonds of marriage—for the sake of multiplying the human spécies here upon the carta, Does polyandry assist us in the multiplication of the haman species—a woman having four or five or six or twenty or fifty nus- bands—does it tend to multiply the human race? J think that monogaiists as well us polygamists, Wieu they come to retiect upon this particular pont, will sce that & Woman with more husbands than one destroys her own fruttrulness. I think there would ve no dispute upon that subject, Lf, peradventure, & woman should even have offspring by a plurality of husbands, there would be another great dinicuily in the way—the lather wouid be unknown. | (Laughi- real Would it not be so? It destroys ali knowiedge of the paternity, all knowledge of the husband. of the protector of the wile; all Knowledge of tie father ig lost amoug the children. Is this the case with a plurality of wives? Not by any mean: ifa man nad iifty wives the Knowledge of the Jather is ua- derstood just as well as une Knowledge of tne mother. Jt does not destroy, therefore, the great principle of parentage on the part of the husband, on the part of the taiher. Therefore it is more consistent. more reasonable; first, for procreation, and, second, to obtain a knowledge of the parentage. It is more cousistent tat aman shoud have a plurality of wives than for Woman to have @ plurality of hus- bands. Again, aman with plenty of wives is capable of Taising Up @ more numerous housenold, and you know what the scriptures have said about cnil- dren—"Lo! the children are the heritage of the Lord, and tue fraivof the womb is his reward.” This being Coe case the faithful, righteous, good aud holy man that takes, according to the greut, divine iustitution of polygamy, a number of Wives is capa- bie of multiplying his offspring ten or tweuty fold biore than he couid by one wife, Can one wife do this by polygaudry? Nov by any means. Here, then, iy another great distinction between the maie und ibe iemale. Look at that great and good and holy wan that is called Gideon in the ptures, a man to whom an angel of God was sent, and he among all tue ho: of Israel was chosen to go forth as the servant of the Most Aigh. For what purpose? to deliver Israei from the numerous hosts of Midianites and others that had gathered together against them. Was he a poigyamistr Yes. He nud many wives. He, had seventy-two sons; how many daughters [ knOw not. Could any wo- man in polygamy bring forta or conceive seventy. two sons and perhaps an equal number of daugh- tersy 1 do not know but there might be some eii- cacy in that herb called “mandrake”—(laughter)— some medicinal properties in that or in some other Miraculous herb that would give power and strength for one woman to bring forth seventy-two sons. Who knows, in a day of wonders? But a man has the ower to beget large families and | houscholds, lence we read that among the great and notable men who judged Israel that one man had thirty sons, You will find his name recorded in the Book of. Ind; Auotier judge of Israel had pe sons and tangy datightors. Still another Judge of Israel had forvy nous; and shen we come 19 we hava A ae SL aa atready named; we find that he had two. Now we have noting to do with the rigiteonmness Qf these men, hor their righteousness has nothing to do with the marriage instituuon. God has estab lished that by divine comand, God has established, it by His own sanction, Wh: ther it be the polygamle Or the monogamic form. LM Gideon fell 1uto idolabryy as ki may be argued, perhaps, by the reverend doc: tor, that has uothing to do with tke case; for yet he Dad the power to suuluply to himself seventy-two sons, showing that, whether a wicked man or & right@ous mun, he bad the superior power. to that of the females, Well, now, right here, let me say God 14 a consistent being, and being & person that 18 properly consistent He delights in the salvation of the human famiy. A wicked man may take unto hiunseli a wife and raise up a posterity. He may set before tat whe and her posterity a very wicked example. By his drunkenness, by his Diuspbemy, by his lying, by 018 lMMoraiittes, he may lead those children todesiraction, A righteous man muy take fifty wives, or ten, 4% You choose—a plu- rality, at avy rate—and he may bring up his cmidren Ma the nurture aud admonition of tue Lord, He inay tostruct dis children in the great principles of righto- onsuess and truth, and Jead them aiong and bring tovem up by bis examples, by his precepts, by is teachings, to inuertt eternal ite uy tae right hand of God with those polygamists, Abraham and Jacub of ola, who are up yonder, In the Kingdom of God. Now, thea, which of the two is the Lord the Most picased Wilh, the man that bas ive, ten, uwenty or iifty Wives, bringing up is scores of euil- dren and teaching them, instructing aud exalting them so (hat bay may Obtain eterna: life with the ancient polygamists ia the Kingdom of God, or the man, the Inonogamts:, that brings up his wile un all manner of wickedness, and finally goes down to heli himself and leads his whole family there? Now, which would you, my brethren, you with tne litte wisdom you have com pared with the supreme wisdoin of the great Creator of the universe, who among you woulda not Teel tt an honor to euuwust your offspring wilh your tricuds instead of your enemies’ Would not God, therefore, act upon the same principle? Does God delight in tae marriages that exist among the wicked? Woe unto the antegeluviaa race! They married; they were given tn marriage until the day that Noah entercd tnto the ark witn his four sons aad thelr wives. Was God pleased with tieir mar- riages’ No. ‘They were not righteous men nor rignteous women. Toe ikea were twaght in the wicked precopts Of their javhers, and cominitted all manner of wickeduess, until all flesh had corrupied its way belore the Lord. Therefore we Lord had to destroy these evil workers of iniquity that had received wives instead of those maiTiages coasunumaced in the days beiore the Mood, ‘The marriages and invermarriages aimoug the sous and daughters of men being acceptable (0 ihe Most High, He waa obitged to destroy both those that were married and ther odspring from the face of the earth, low much better 16 would fave been to have had g few polygamist individuals that would bring forth a pure and holy offspring, that the Lord might gave and exalt anto eternat life? Consequently, When We Cxamine the subdjechol polygamy in regard to tis ma we canaol acknowledge, {rom ie 3 d from various other testimonies aad ot information, taat the marriages of the wicked are accepted before heaven. There are many passages of scripture to support me in what I nave now sand. The Lord in one place commands tie destruction of the people, pareuls dchildvea, jest they should = fil the world with cities, lest ail the world, as it were, should be peopled by the descendants of the wicked thac had presumed to marry wives con- the iaws of God—that ts, to bring up of- trary to His lay; for no persona can pre- i to say that & marriage consuminated between an unrighteous man and an unrighteous woman 18 @ marriage of persous whom God nas joined to- gether. No, my friends. As weil take the ordinance of bapilam aad say that a man might go forward to be baptsed, and because he had compiled wita the simpie ordinances in the ceremony of baptisin, that therefore it was acceptable in the sight of Heaven. No such thing. God never had anytbing todo with the marriages of the wicked only Lo permit those marriages, periaps for a wise purpos as He permitied Joseph to ve sold inw ypt by his brethren, God intended it for good, but he did not Justify ihe instrament that perpetrated that awful crime tn relation to tue sale of their bretnrea, So He permits those unauthorized marriages be- tween wicked men and women to perpetuate the human race because tey will not hearsen wo Him Until the time shall Come when He can have an op- portunity, perhaps m future geverations, of cailing upon iheir posterity, and tat taey will hear te permits, He does not sanetion tt. ifthe reverend geatloman should argue that the census makes out an equality of maces and females tis idea that 1 have brought fovih will reput tie idea that is ud- vanced, The idea 13, because there is au equality that every man mast be contined to one Wie and every woman to one husband. Is that the way fiod dispenses his gitis and bis blessings tothe human family? ‘Then he shculd give tne same amouat of gifts and blessings to the wicked that he does to the righteous. ia some respects he does, Me sends rains trom the heavens upoa the just and upon the unjust: but then there are mavy great and important viessings that are bestowed nore abundantiy upon the rigit- eous than upon the wicked, and God has lila reasons and bis designs and his purposes to accomplish when he undertakes to mak a distinction bewween the wicked and the righteous in dispensing bis Dleas- lugs. ‘fherefore, i tie wicked take avives walh- out being joined together by divine Sugprity, wives: of wnica the Lord bas no pariicufir~ occasio: Wives that have Wasted themselves with their hu bands by the laws oO: man, when marriage Is a di- vine institution, because the Lord has done tnis it does not prove tiat Me sanctions it. But ie would pre- fer rather that the people should be like Israel of old—a nation of polygamists a3 Well as monogam- ists, and that the blessings should be dispensed among them according vo their righteousness rather than to nave a perfect equality upon tie part of the mato and the femaie, diany passages of Scripture migat be brought forth to now that uns is ie way that God dispenses His biessings to the human = faiily. 1 will refer you to the thiriy-seveath Psalm. vod in fl Psalm has expressty said aud repeated over and over again tai the seed of evil docrs sal be roated out of the earth; they shall be destroyed; tiey will how inherit the earth, while the rghteous shall in- herit the earth; while the riguteoas snail ve blessed and prospcrous--thus bestowing his viessings upon the o: ad lis Curse upon the otier, We shall expect tnis afternoon, 1t is to be hoped, to hear soine arguinents refuting those passages of Scripture that were put forth to sustain tue divinity Of poiygainy #8 weil as monogamy; and i We gente- map cannot tind anything to invalidate these passages —tif he cannot find any proof to iimit those passages vo monogauuc households—if tuerc is uo such evi- dence or testimony coniained iif tle passages them- selves—if there 18 notilag in the original Hebrew, taking the Hebrew as it now exists, Wo invalidate those passages, then polygamy stands ou a tounda- tion as firui as the rock of uges itself—as tirm as the throne of the Almighty. Ou the other haud, if ne can prove that this iorm of marriage was repealed by the New Tesiaineut; if he cau prove inat Gua has ever in any period or age of the world brougii any command to do away with that principle or form 0 piural marriage, then perhaps the argument may rest upon the other side. 1 shui wait with great patience to have some argument brougut forth by this learned genileman on this suvject. We are very glad, in Uuls Territory, to have ihe learned come alnong us, for we, as & people, have eubraced the Bible as the standard of our {alin, and If, indeed, we ave misunderstanding it, if we are sliver) contrary to its precepts, how very thankful we oughi vo be here In this mountain Torritory to have some of the learned come iro abroad: people tuat are ac- quaiuted with the original language, that can cor- rect our errors and bring us vw a knowledge and understanding of the true fourm of mar- Tage. (Laugater.) We tuink this is generous on the part ot these Wemen, much more sv than it would be vo enact laws to incarcerate in dungeons those who practise a form of marriage that is lad down in this book, aud send them there for tiiree or four or five years, uod permit their women and children to suffer with hunger, taking away the right of protection which they had a right to expect from their husbands, aud shutting them up tn loath- some dungeons.. We thank Mr. Newmun and the gentlemen who have come among us; who have come with intelligence and full of philanthropy tu enlighten the minds oi thts people in this lerritory, aud, If possible, convince us of our errors. We have many arguments that we have drawn up here, not on'y toreason upon, but diicuss in favor of polygamy. Buti am informed that only seven minutes of time is grauted to me. { cannot, there- Jore, on this occasion pretend to enter into these arguments and examine them with that juste that snould be exhibited before the people. Mr. Nowman has said that ne would like to have nine hours to bring fortt iis strong argaments and his reasoning and the strength of vestimony ior the benellt of tie poe people here in Utab. (Laughter.) I wish that e wou.d take not only nine huurs but nine weeks or nine months, and be a philanthropisi or mission- ary io our midst, and visit wll our settlements and try to reclaim this people trom their awful be: characters which they are represented to have by ‘he learned batt abroad. We want to be taught in the arts of civilization, provided the civilization agrees with the Scripture. We are very fond of the Scriptures; we do not wish, however, to comply with Many of the customs and practices of those who call themselves Christian nations, Much might be said on tuls subject; inuch, too, thet ought to crimson the face of those who cail themselves civilized when they reflect upon the great enormities, tne great social evils that exist in thelr own midst, Look, for instance, at the great city of New York, the metropoiis of our nation 80 far as trade and commerce are concerned, Read the statistics of that great city; that 19a civilized city; that is where Wwe may expect some of the most learned theologi- vo hoid sorth the great and beautiful principies of Obristianity., What exists in the midst of that city; Femaies by the tens of thousands, femaies that are debauched by day and by night, females that are in open day parading the strects of that great city. Here they are monogawmists, aud itis @ partand portion of the Civillzauon of New York to have but one wife and then go forth into these dens of op etn and pollute shemseives by Dightand byday, itisa part and portion of the clvilization of New York to be very pious in regara to the monogamic aystem, but hariots and pros- Uitutes and misiresses by the hundreds and thou- sands and tens of thousands walk the streets In open day as well as night—sin enough committed fu twenty-four hours to have snuk the whole city down into the gulf of destruction like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and those cities of the plains in aucient times. We learn that there was one case of Prostitution among the children of Benjamin in Snclent days. Some lewd men came in and took an- other man’s wife or concubine, whichever you may choose to call her, and they abused her all night, and lor that one sin they were calied to account. ‘They were called. upon by the rest of the tribes of Israel to deliver up the offenders. Consequently were ogufedarates. Sher held we prisoner that committed the crime mn'thetr midst. And now, What was tue result of that httle crime?—not w lt- crime, Pe. @ very great crime—nol tens and jousands Of proatitntes daily prostl- for this one crime the Lord unio “Go furth and fight the men of the aeain and om i one she next dayne said, ~ against the trikes of e bday they ‘were commanded bythe teva God Aliniguty to. forth against Benjamin, and they did 80 and cut Off all the tribe except 600 men that fed from the Aot Wrath of the childreu of Israel. What is the matter? Why, the destruction of almost a tribe of Israel for one night of prostitution, Com- ped that siriking purity that existed in ancient israel with the, pollutions and whoredoms and social evils and every other spectes of abomiation and inianucide practised to all the cities of this na- ton, and then because a very few — in- dividuais in this mouutain ‘Territory are prac- Using lawful marnage, under Bible authority, a law must be enacted, and we must be Unreatened With extermination; we must b¢ Incarcerated into dunzeons, our fainilies must be torn from us and preveuted from receiving our labora for their sup- ort. Why? Because of the piety of civilized na- ons, With all these swarming eviis in their midst. (garaios to the umpire, How much time have I Wy) Umprre-—One minute, [Laughter.) Mr. Prart—You can’t bring fortu inuch of an ar- fumeni in one ninute, But 10 ciose this argument how call upon tie reverend genueman before us, Whom I highly respect for his learning, for hia elo- quence and for his talents in laying before the peo- ple those great beauties of marriage between te mle and (he female—{ cat! upon him to bring forth proof to reiute the pi 03 that were iaid down in our argument to sabstanuate and sanction poly- gamy, 1 ask Lim to prove to this people that those Jaws were hmited, if they were limited. Continued Argument of Dr. Newmnn, Dr. Newman immediately arose and spoke as follows:—Messrs, Umpires, Ladies and Geutlemen:—- 1 understand te gentleman to complain against me that! did not answer the Beriptural arguments Winch he adduced yesterday. If tdi not the re- sponsibility is upon tim. He being in the aftirma- tive should have analyzed and defined the question under debate; but he falied to do that, It therefore fell to me, not by right but by his negiect, to do his duty, and I did it to the best of my abilny. It was of the utmost importance that this audience, so aitentive and so respectable, should have a clear and definite understanding of tho terms of the question, And I desire now to inorm the genticman that [had betore me the answers to the paeen es Whicu he adduced, and bad] had apother hour f would have produced the answers then, | will do it to-day. Now my learned friend may take out his pencil, for he will have somet afternoon, A passitig remark. manuseript written a word in regard (o the original Moses, or by Josiua, or by Sumuel, or by the prophets. You sit down to write a letter to a friend; you Lake it into your head to copy that letter; you do copy it; the ovigival draft you care nothing about, whether it is given to the Wisds or to the flames, so you have the copy. What ure Lt ubout ‘the two tables of stone on whica tb riginal law was written, so that {have a true copy of the law? A passiig remark im regard to mother ive. Lwilt defend the venerable woman. If tue tail came by the influence of one womun over one man, what would have happened to the worid UM Adam tad had more wives than oue? (Laughter. And more: ii one woman brought our woe tuto the world, and she Was a monogumist, then &@ monogamist, the biessed Virgin Mary, brought the Redeemer lato the worid. So i think they are even, My friend supposes that the Almighty might have created more women than one out of Adain’s ribs, but Adam had not ribs enough irom which to creai fity women. My friend speaks against poiyandry. Uhe Tight of women tv have a plurality of husband He bases nis argument upon the therease of pr gency. Science aiirms that where polygamy or polygyny (a plurality of Wives) prevails the tendency Js toward a preponderance of one sex over the othe either ali men or ail women, Which amounts w ihe extermination of the race. iu due time 1 wiil reply to the gentieman’s re- mark in regard to Gideou and to other scriptural passages, aud especially to his remarks in regard to prostitution, or what is known as the “socal evil.” Now, what was the object of the gentleman yester- day? It was to disoover a general law for the sane- tion of polygamy. Did be tind that iawy I deny it. What is law? Law is the expression of the legisla lve wil, Law is the manner in Walch an act is per- formed, It 1s the law of gravitation that ail Umngs tend to @ common centre. It 1s a law of flowers that ‘They open thelr fan-lke leaves to the lizbt, And ciose them benuath the kisses of night. Whatis civillaw? Simply defining how the citl- zea suould What is morat law? simply de- ning the moral conduct of God's subjects. Laws are mandatory, prohibitory, permissive; commanding What should be done, prohibiting what should not be doue, permitting what may be done. And yet Where has the gentiemen produced this general law Which he speat an hour searching fort And then re- Member thal this law must sanction polygamy, Perhaps it is not necessary te repeat onr definition of the word “sanction,” My learned friend, for whom L have respect, agrees With ine as to the det- nition of the term “‘sancilon;” therefore we need not spend @ solitary moment iurther touching these two points. There is another vital point in reference to the na- ture of law. in iegisiating upon any subject there must be & great organic central principle, mandatory or prouibitory, In reference to tat subject, and ail other parts of the particular law as weil as the gen- eral code must be interpreted tn harmony therewith, Now I propose this aiternoov to produce a law— simple, direct, positive—that polygamy 1s 1n God's Holy Word, Levitious Xvill., 18. Shait thou take one wife to another to vex her, to uncover her nakeduess, besides the other tn her lifeume,”” “Neither? (repealing with empha- sis), “aelther shult thou take one wue to anoiber to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her Iietme. (Sen- saiion.) But it is said thai we have read this as it is Ju the imargin, an that as it 13 1m the body of the textit reais, “Neither shalt thou take a Wile to her alsier to vex her; to uncever her nakedness, be- sides the other in her Iifetume.’? Ii is said, there- fore, that wy-version Is the one given in the margin. Very well-—-argumenium ad hominem—1 draw the argument from the speech of the gentleman yester- day, Mr. Pratt said in his coumeuts upon the text, “Lf bretheren dwell together." Now it 18 weil enough in reading this to refer to the margin, a3 we have the Iberty I belleve to do so, and) you will find that in the magin the word “brethren”. is also translated ‘near kins- men.” I accept his mode of reasoning. He re- Jers to the margin and J refer to the margin; aud it 18 @ poor rie thai will not work both ways— @ poor rule that will uot favor monogamy as it javors polygamy. Such, then, is the fact stated in tais law. ow, it is necessary for us to consider the nature of this law, to expound it to your under- standings, 1t 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 ju the history of Ouristendom—by Bishop Jewell, by the learned Cookson, by the eminent Dr. Dwight and other disufiguished Biblical scholars, 1043 an accepted canon of interpretation that the scope of the law must be considered in devermning the sense of any portion of the jaw; and it 1s equaily binding upon us to ascertain the mind of the legislator irom the preface of the ‘aw when such preface 13 given, ‘rhe first five verses of this chap. ter are prefatory, and in the third verse it is stuced, “After the doings of the land of Egypt wiecreia ye dwell ye shai not do: and after the things of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shail ye not do; heither shall ye walk in their ordinances.” What were their ordinances? Bot the Egyprians and the Canaanites practised incest, adultery, sodomy and polygamy. From verse six to seventeen in- clusive the law of. col winuity 2s laid down, and the biood of relationship is de- fined, within tne limits of which persons were forbidden to marry. But m verse eighteen the jaw against polygamy ts given:—-Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister;’’ or, as we have given it in the marginal reading, ‘Thou shalt not take one wife to another.” According to. Dr. Edwards the words which We translate, “a wife or sisier,” are found in the Hebrew bat eight times. In each passage they refer to inanunate objects, such as the wings of the cherubim, tenons, mortices, &c., and 61 mily coup- ung together one to another. They di the exuct likeness of one thing to another, and here forbid, a3 the margin expresses it, the taking of one wife 10 another ip her lifetime. Such, then, is the law. Such were the ordinances forbidden which the Egypuans and the Caananites practised. Now we propose to push this argument a little furtner, But it 1s sald that if this passage does not prohibit @ man marrying two sistera at the same lume then such a marriag- 18 nowhere else in the Bible pronounced lncestuous. That is the objection of my friend, to which | reply that such a marriage is forbidden by consequence and analogy, as, for exampie, where it ts prohibited that a son shall marry hfs mother (seventh verse), it follows that the daughter shall not marry her father; yet itis not 60 expressly stated. In verse fourteen it is forbidden to uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, so I infer “thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s brother,” though it is not stated. In Verse sixteen It is sald, ‘Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife,” so 1 infer that & man shall not uncover the nakedness of his wife's Sister; that if two brothers shall not take the same woman then two sisters shail not take the same man; for between one man and two sisters and one woman and two brothers 19 the same degree of proximity, and therefore both are forbidden by the law of God, Furthermore, ifthe marriage of a man aud two sisters 18 here forbidden then verse eighteen is a repetition of the law. But we aftirm that such a repetition ts not contuined im this chap ter. More than this: if for argument’s sake we con- cede it means two literal sisters, yet that prohibition is not a permission for a man to take two wives who are not sisters, for all sound jurises will agree that a probibition 1s one thing and @ permission ts another thing. Nay, more. Ihe Mormons do or do not receive the law of Moses as binding. That they do not 1s clear from their practices, For instance, in Leviticus xx., 14, is sald:—*And if a man take a wile and her mother itis wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickednass among you.” Yet Mr. Joho Hyde, Jr, page 66 of his work on:Mormonism, says that a Mr. Bolton mar- ried @ wouan and her daughter, and @ Captain Brown married @ woman and her two daughters. These are illustrations of the violation of the law. Yet, more than this, the Mor- mons say that Leviticus xvii, 18, proni- bits @ «man from marrying two aisters, Yet Mr. Hyde informs me that a Mr. Wallace married AbO tat a Mr, BoEKAY married the ww to do this | NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1870—1KirLM SHEET. sate number. Now the quéstion i, 19 the law of appeared to confound these two Moses obeyed here or nott ee cee 'y bad reforence to the same temen can prove thal the term in the text. means | is the law of seduction, two literal sisters—and yet {Wo literal sisters are | the law of rape, bork mnarried here to the samé mas—tnen | aitirm that | waa required to iarry his victim; ‘ou do not Keep God's law, which )ou say is God's } seduction, If the father of the law a8 given by his servant Moses. More than this, | consent to the marrage, then Af it here means two literal sisters, and whereas | dowry of virgins shol fe pee Jacob married two sisters, and whereas, according | offence was expiated, But what to Mormon doctrine, God worked a miracle on Leah | rave? that case there was and Rachel that they might have children, aud Whereas it is here said that the suid miracies were in approval of polygamy, so also were such mracles the approval of incest. If at be true that God did not express dtsapproval of Jacov’s having two wives, neither did he express Wisapproval of his having two sisters as wives, therefore the Divine silence in the one case is th o1lset to the Divine silence in the other case, Now you are driven to the conclusion that either my in- terpretation of (nis passage is correet, “Neither shall @ man take one wife another,” or you must adinit Uiat this passage, meantng two literal sisters, you therefore live in violation of God's law. It 18 for my distioguished imend to choose which horn of the dileinma he _picases. 1 thank him for the compliment he paid me chat I came here as a philanthropist. I have only kindness tn my heart for these men and women, Had not tus kindness filled my heart, had 1 believed in @ crushing civil law, 1 should have remained in Washinton. ‘sae T come here, believ- ing the trath agit is. 19 Jesus, and therefore | am come, and lam glad that L have the privilege of speaking what [ believe to be God's trath in your nearmg, The gentleman qnoted Deuteronomy xxt., 16-17, Which is the law of primogeature, and is designed to preserve the descent of property——“it a tnan have two wives, one beloved and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first born be hers that was hated, then it shall be, when he maketh nis sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the betoved first born beforeahe son of Lhe hated, which 13 indeed the firse bora; bat he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the rst born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginuing of his strength; the right of the first born is he.” How did he apply this law? Why he first assumed the prevalence of | polygamy among the Jews in the wilderacss ana | then sald the taw was made for polygamuc famtiles @% well as monogamisis. He says, inasmuch as Polygamy is nowhere condemned in the law of God, we are entiled to construe tnis law as apply- Ing fo polygamists, But T have shown already nat Leviticus Xviil., 18,18 @ positive prohibition ait therefore, this passage must be mterpreted by t which I have quotea,. I propose to erect the ba to-day and try every Seripture argument wi has" prodnced by those scales of just In other words, here I nd; T have recited unto 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 yesterday in { seeking @ general law: ou the other hani 1 give you | one in @ minute, How natural is this supposition that when 2 man has two wives in succession lio | may love the last a little better than the first, and £ believe that is common out here, loving the as | little better than the first, [ow natural it is for a | second wife to influence the father in bis disposition of bis property, inducing him to confer his property | upon her children, while the children of first | wife, poor Woman, dead and goue, are dey 1 of | their property right j But supposing the meaning of this passage 1s two | Wives at the same time, this cannot be constituted | by any accepted rules of in tulon into a sane- | tion of polygamy. If It can | cam prove that p | Whe stealing is just as divinely authorized, For it ts aa | if Moses had said:—“if in vie he prevalence of | polygamy, a Jew shall so far forget and transgress God’s law of monogamy us to take two Wives at the same time this shall not work the abrogation of the ¥ of primogeniture; the frst born sou shail vot be eated out of his righ! Now it is said “he mon have two wiy Very well. If that supposition is an approval, 0 also are these words, “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and Kill 1t or stall it he stall restore five oxen for the ox and four sheep for a sheep. former assertion 1s a sanction of polygamy, then the Jatter assertion 13 a sanction of sheep stealing, and we can all go after the flocks this afternoon. The | second chapter he quotes 13 Exodus xX1., 7 eters ring to the laws of breach of promise. Mr. Pratt says tnis approves or favors polygamy in his opinion;. but he did not dwell long on this text. He iniulged in an episode on the lost manuscripts. ow let us inquire into the meaning of this passag And ia man sell his daughter to be a muidservant, she shall not go out as the menservanta do, If she please wot her inaster, who hath bethrothed her to himself, then shall he Jet her be redeemed; to sell her Jato @ strange nation he shall have vo power, secing he hath dealt deceitrully with her. And if he hath betrothed her unto hts son he shall deal wiih her after the manner of daughters, If he take him an- other wife her food, her raiment and her duty of marnage shall he not duninish.”” “And tf he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free with- out money.” What are the significant poinia in this passage? They are simply these:—-According to Jewish law a destitute Jew was permitted to ap- prentice his.daughter for ix years for a pecuntary consideration; but to guard the righis of the girl there were certain conditions. First, the period of indenture should not extend beyoud six vears; she should be free at the death of her master or at the coming of the year of jubilee. The ext condition Was that the man or fis son shonld marry the girl. What, therefore, shall we conclude from this passage’ Simply this: that neither the auther nor the son married the girl, but simply be- trothed her; that is, was engaged to her—pronised to marry her; but before the married relation was consummated the young man changed his mind, and then God Almighty, to indicate bis displeasure at a man who will break a vow or engagement, fixes the following penaities, uamely—that he shail provide for this womav, whom he has wronged, her food, her ralment and her dwelling. | These are the tucts; and the gentieman has not ‘proved, the gentleman cannot prove, that either the father or the son married a harlot. He says the honored term of wife is theirs, Honored term! God bless that term. It is an honored term, as the nature of angels. And yet 1 have to inform my distinguished friend that the word ‘wiie" Is neither tn the Hebrew nor in the Greek. The mean- ing is simply, “If he take another,” chat 1s, he betroth another,” iffe change his mind, then he shall do thus and so. Where, then, Is the geucie- mau’s general law in approval of polygamy ’ he next passage 1s recorded in Deuteronomy 10, referring to the preservation of fami- if brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shati not marry Without unto @ stranger; her hasband’s brother shall go in unto her and take hi wife and perform the duty of a hush unto her. And it shall be that the first she beareth sh r to him to | na’s brother rm witch I succeed in the name of his brother which is de 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 wile go up to the gate | unto the elders, and say, my husband's brotner re- fuseth to raise up unio his brother a name tn Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother, Then the elders ‘of his city suall call him, and speak unto him, and if he stand to it and say, IT like not to take her: Then shail his brother's wife come unto nim in the presence of the elders and loose his shoe from Omf his foot and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will ot build up bis brother's house, And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hata his shoe loosed.” What 1s the object of this law’ Evidently the preservation of families and family inheritances, And now I challenge the gentleman to bring forward a solltary instance in the Bible where 4 murried man was compelled to obey thts law. Take tie case of Tamar. Certainly tne brother that was to marry her could not have been & married man, because she had to wait until he rew up. Then take the case of Ruth. Ruth, you Kuow, loses her novle Mahlon far beyond the Jor- dan; she returns to Bethlehem and goes to Boaz, @ near kinsman, and desires th he shail marry her. Boaz says, ‘“Chere is a nearer kinsman; I will speak to him.” It 18 asked, “Did not Boaz know whether that near kinsman was married or not?’ That was not the business of Boaz, ‘The Di- vine law required that this man should appear at the gate of the city before the elders, and there as- sert that he was disquahfied for taking Ruth, be. cause he was already a married man, And there is no proof in the Bible that Boaz had been married, no more than this, that Josephus, the Jewish Nisto- rian, asserts that the reason why the near Kinsman did not marry Ruth was that he had a wife and chil- dren already, 5o I juage this law, which 1s said to be general. I judge it by that Jaw which ous been laid down—Neither shall a man take one wite unto another.” My friend there refers me to Numbers xxxI., 17, 18— “Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every Woman that bath known man by lying with him. But all the women chiidren that | haveo>Xnown a man by lying with him kee; for yourselves.”’ This passage has nothing whateve: to do wita polygamy. It Is an account of the results of @ military expedition of the Jews against the Midianites, thetr siaughter of a portion of the peopie, and their reduction of the remainder to slavery, uamely, Lhe women for domestica. My friend dwells upon the 32,000 women thus saved. What were among the Jewish nation, a people of two and ahaiff He quotes Deuteronomy xxi., 10-1: “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath deli- vered) them into thine “hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and ‘seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and 1 a desire unto'her that thou woaldst have her to be 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 her and shail remain in thine house, an bewail her father and mother a fall month; and after that thou shait go in unto her aud be her husband, and she shall ve thy wife.” This passage 1s 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 tt has to do with the’t or murder, ft has nothing whatever to do with polygamy; for In | ravisher married his vicu wine peg y vies genera! law, and polygamy? He saya a 2 ‘pplies to married men, This cannot pont Leased it is tn conflict with the great law, XVI, 18, 1 tell you, y, eee are ‘imply downright ‘assumpt! ‘A posi- von ts first taken, and then these gre iuddaced vo sustain that and this gentleman goes on to assume that mea were married men. it 1 tremendous that if # man thus seducing a girl, or commi wan bound to marry that girl, the same law to the father of the girl the right of refusal of hia daughter ; and therefore the father nas the power to ‘enol God's law of marriage. ‘The next passage is Second Chronicles, XXIV. and so forth, [tis the case of Joash the Ki whe, when he began to rein, wus’ seven years of age, and Jeholada was the High Priest, than this--he ie was more was the Regent; and my friend of this great man that because he took two wives for the King Joasn he was so highly houored that when he died he was buried among the kings. But you must remember thathe was the Kegent,and there was royalty 10 bis regency, and this royalty entitled him to be interred in a royal mausoleum,” Al thas Js said in Chronictes is simply an epitome, @ sume ming up, that King Joash had two wives. it does not say he had them at the same time, He might have had them in succession. 1 will give you an ilustration:—John Milton was born in London in 1609; he Was an eminent scholar, a #reat statesman, anda beatuful poet; and John Milton had three wives, ‘here | stop. Are you ab jtberty to infer tat John Milton i these three wives simuitane- ousty’ You may, according to the gentieman’s in- terpretation of this passage. But the fact is that Jobn Milton bad them in succession, But more than this: For arguruent’s sake granting the position as- sumed by my , that Joash bad two wives, then the pumerieu element of we argument must come oul, and & Inan can only have two wives, and no more. Do you keep tis law up here? Yeb that 1s ule argument; thai is the logical conclusion, he last passage my friend referred to was in Hosea L, » heginning the Word of the Lord by Hosea. Aud tne Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee @ wife of whoredoms and children of Whoredoms; forthe land hath committed great Wilvuredom departing from the Lord.’’ “That Is,’ says Newcome, “a wife from amont the Israchies, who were remarkable for spirit fornication.” My triend is so determined on & Iite- ‘ai ilerprotation ihat he gives @ Literal interpreta- ton or those words, Whereas this distinguished Biblieal scholar says that it Was not literal ica For the boih and ihe New, ed) under the term. of jormeation. God calls himself the husband of Israel. His chosen nation owes lum tuc Udeilty ofa wile, See Exodus, XIv., 16—“Lest thou make & covenant with the inbabitants of tne ki and wey go # Whoring after their gods, and db sacritice unto their gods, and one cull Uiee and thou ext of bis sacrifice.” Fourteenth verse—"For tio shalt worstip no other God; for the Lord, Whose buine ts Jealous, is a jealous God.” He therefore says, with indignation, “Go join thyself in marriage to one of those who have com- mitted fornication or {dolatry against Me, and raise up chilirea who, by (be power of example, will themselves show the terribleness of idol- atry.” ‘The profit ts directed to get a wile of Whoredow or idojairy, and after that he is di- rected to go and jove au aduiteress, sy friend cites these as oxampies where God makes an excep- on Ww the gencral law. He also cites the case of Abraham offering wp his son Isaac and the case of consungulnliy, Douterovomy XXv., 5-10. Now, the the frst three cases were inerely typical actions. ‘The first two were desigued to set forth more tin- pressively the relations between God and His le- fhe case of consunguinity has uothing to do with polygamy. its owy « juoditication or excepuon in aases to preserve tue families of larael from Where, therejore, 1 ask, 1s the -géneral d Nas forgotten this fagt, that 1 the first wife for adultery, as he had a rt to do (chap. IL, 2-5), he is then di- rected to take anorucr wile. ‘fhis is aot polygamy. It was represented to us here yesterday that the prophet Hosea was first commanded to take @ woman guilty of Tornication and then to take an ton, but rather spiritual—in other words, idolatry. in Scriptures, the wa idolatry is c law? alter having divore | aduiteress; and the representation was made, that be took them at the same time, whereas if Mr. Pratt had read along a little farther he woald have found thar th prophet divorced the — first wife fur aduiters aud he bad a right to do it, nd aiter «he divorced = her then and took @ second wile. its that none of these passages ether can afford us ta this day & pracuce of polygamy; gives it up, Iwill read to you from h nor all of these t warrant for the turns the Bibie aside. Supposing that we shali prove by » ences from the Bible that polygamy, as ised by Israel, Was sanctioned by God in ancient days, would that be any rea ou wat you and 1 shall practise it? By no means. We lust get @ command independent of that which they received. God fre ts is commands, aud bis_ser= Vants are required to obey his comaaads Whem wey are given. ‘The Latter Day Sauits 1a Us Tertitory practise polygamy, not because the law of Moses commands it, not bei ib Was ex- teusively practised by the best men we know of Inentioned th the bibie, the old patriarchs, Avraham and Jacob and otters who are sale tn the kingdom of God; we have no right to practise it because they aid.” Phen he the pout. aud L respeet(ully ask him, if this bs bp ition, Why, then, does he altempt inal bis d especially In that tlover bOOK ca er,”’ why did he in his. controversy with me in the New York Hg«aup, why has he from (its stugd aitempled to prove the practice of polygamy was right from te Bible? Why not, like anan ule out and Bay that we prac- lise this system here, not because the Jews did it, not because the divine law sanctioned it years ago, but because a in Inau by the name of Smith re- ved a re this form of marriage was be prac’ You, my friends, can judge of the logical connection. inother words, you can see the illogical pearing. I come now to the assumptions of the gentleman, First, that there is no jaw condemning or forbidding polygamy. Hashe proved that? That the Mevrew nation, a8 they were tn the wilderness when the | Mosaic code was given, was polygamous? Has he pret that’ Can he ind in the whole history ef he Jewish nation, from the time they leit Egypt vo bh ed eed entered the land hed Canaan, can he ad more than oue instauce of polygamy? Perht be may find two, I will be glad to receive that ine formation, for a AIAN seeking light, and to-day £ throw down the challenge to your é.vinent defend- ers of the faith to produce more than two instances of polygamy from the time the Jews left the land of Egvpt to the time they entered the land of Canaan. I can tell him of one that may assist hin in his research--that was Caleb. Well, now, sup- posing that a murder was committed in your cit Wonld it be falr for the Kastern papers to say that the Mormons were @ murderous people? No. L Would rise up in defence of you; 1 would say that 14 crime an | an injury to the people. Here, then, is one man we can find out of two mithons’ and a halt of people, durmg ® period of forty yeara, that practised polygamy; and = yet my friend comes forward and assumes that. the Israciites were polygamous. His next Assumption 1s that the laws were given to regulate among them an institution already ex- toting. Has he proved that? Supposing he could prove that Moxes uttempted or didiegislave for the regulation of polygamy, 4s it had existed and did exist in Egypt and elsewhere, wonid such legisia- von be @ sanction? Why, in Paris they have laws regulating the social evil. Is that an approval of. the soctal eviiy There are laws in most of the Siates regulating the evil of tntemperance. Do the excise laws sanction intemperance? Nothing of the kind. Ana tor argument’s sake I would be-will- ing to concede that Moses did legislate in regard to olygamy—that 1s, to regulate it and to condne its imits. And my friend is too much of a logician to stand up here and assert that those regulating laws were the divine approval of the by Semen He assumes again that those laws were general and applied to all men, married or unmarried. Has he proved that? I have proved to the contrary, that in the passages which he quoted there is not solitary or remote intimation that the men wei married. Now let us, in opposition to those assump- “ons, remember that mouogamy Was established in the innocence of the human race; that polygamy, like tdolatry and slavery, and blood, reve a, und drunkenness and mardér, came to oxist after the Apostacy§ of the human race, and “that of those evils had any ‘other origin, so far 48 appeared from the Bible, tham in the wickedness of the human family. We admit that polygamy existed among the corrapt nations, Just as auy other evil or vice or crime existed. Andnow When God had chosen the Hebrew for his own peo- ple, to separate them from the heathen he gives them for the first time a code of laws, and especially ou the subject of the commerce of the sexes. And What is the great ventral principle of tiat code on this subject? Read Leviticus xviil., 18—Neither shall man take one wife unto another.” code the following things Incest, polygamy, forntcauon, ness, ¢ therefore deny that the gamous at that time, deny tt definitely, deny it distinctly, On another occasion I will give you the character of the monogamists and the polygamists of Bible times. ‘Those Jewsyhad been Jong in slavery, and they were brought out with a@strong hand and an outstretched arm. We to-day challenge them for the proof that as a nation the Jews were polyga- milsts. But one or two instances, a3 1 have already remarked, can be adduced. We say again that if, as he assumes, these laws were given to regulate an existing system, this does not sancifon it any more than the same thing sanctions sheep stealing or homleide, Hoe said that these laws were general, idolatry, Dbeastii- bation was poly- this passage not a solitary word 4 sald about poly- gainy; not ® mention ia made that the mans mar- ried. Therefore every Jurist will agree with me that when I have found a’ general jaw f may judge tits “special enactment by the great orgauic Jundamental principle. Wi My learned opponent quotes Exodus xxil, 16, 17, and Deuteronomy xxii., 25, 29. The passage In Bxo- dus ts, “And if a man entice 4 maid that is not be- trothed, and le with her, he shall surely endow ber 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 1s said, “if aman find a damsel thatisa virgin, which is not betrothed, and jay hoid on her, and lie with her, and Uhey be found, then shall the mun that lay with her give unto tue Gameel’s father fifty shekeis of silver, and she shall pe bis wile; because he hath huinbled Nek De may net nut ber away al) bis days.” My friend Spplying to all men, murried or unmarried. Has he proved that?’ This is wholly tut tous. There is not one word in either these Racaeer which permits or directs a married man to ve oF take more than one wife at a time. I chal- lenge the gentleman for the proof. It 18 no evidence of the sanction of polygamy to bring passage after ae which he knows, jf construed tn favor of po- Y, Must be in direct confict with the great or- anio law recorded in Exodus Xvill., 18. Op the other hand, a perfectly consistent and adequate ar gument can be here adduced. The umpire’s gavel came down here, cutting Dr. Newman off before the close of his iment. @ lt was then announced that the debate would be re- sumed and concluded to-morrow (Sunday) allernoou, After a very beautiful and im; ve prayer by (ue Rev, Mr, Pierce, of the Me Episcopal Chusas tm Utah, the audience a ‘a!