OCR Text |
Show 1 J -'- 1 PLAIN" COM.MEXrs. i Considerable can be said concerning i he recent discussion between Profes-(n' Profes-(n' Pratt aud Dr. Newman, and it will e necessary to make our comments as Vuinted as possible. We refrained t-uying anything about it during its vrogre?s, although stronidy tempted to do so. But one impartial opinion can be t ntertained with regard to the result. Ir. Newman's failure to sustain his position was painfully palpable, even l ) his admirers. But both gentlemen laid themselves open to criticism and vandered from the subject. The question to be discussed did notinvolve anything concerning the morality of I'ities in Christendom, the longevity of inonogamic and polygamic nations, the jiractiee of the Mosaic law in Utah, i i;e rights of civil government, nor half a hundred other points dragged in. It was purely and simply ''Does the Bible sanction Polygamy?'' which v;is lost eight of once or twice by Pro-Jessor Pro-Jessor Pratt, and only referred to setui-oeeasionally setui-oeeasionally by Dr. Newman, as Arte-jaas Arte-jaas Ward used to return to his subject, sub-ject, "The Babes in the Wood." There was au apologj' for Professor Pratt in ihe fact that on the first day he laid ' i-uwn a line of Biblical argument which X'r. Newman did not even pretend to rmeh in his first reply; and on the second sec-ond day Professor Pratt had nothing to combat but some glaring assertions T)v. Newman persistently and determinedly deter-minedly wandered from the subject, and fjave the Bible plenty of lea way, steer-as steer-as far from it as he could get. while i pparently attached to it by a lengthened length-ened thread for a cable. Professor 1'rattalso devoted too much time in i he third da-, of which he seemed to 1 e sensible afterwards, in refuting the insertions made concerning Leviticus j-iih. and ISth, and giving a learned i position of the original, so lucid and i: refutable that Dr. Newman very v-isely concluded to adopt his most tilling styie of argument in reply, 1 y giving a sonorous, broad and vtisustaiced denial. Aud here i would enter a decided ( bjection against the rale which granted 1 he right of either to refer to the origi-lal origi-lal languages. The Bible is translated trans-lated fur and circulated among the j-ople to b a rule of faith for them. 'l hat translation is either as near cor-T cor-T jCt a3 it can be or it is incorrect. If incorrect have it made right. But v hile it is the rule of faith for the peo- !e in its translated form it should be tiono referred to, and learned men 6'iould fight their lingual battles among tii'-niselves. Believers in the Bible t .xept it to-day in the vulgar tongue. 1 uke away their faith in that, and you Lave theia rudderless upon the sea of Cjubt, without compass or chart to eer to a haven of eternal happiness. Professor Pratt laid down general principles, Bible laws, direct commands, com-mands, a3 sustaining evidences of his 1 o-ition that the Bible sanctions polygamy. poly-gamy. Dr. Newman could only find one solitary verse, and that he had to torture and twist from a meaning so J. lain that the most illiterate reader of the sacred book, who did not know a Hebrew character from a G:eek one, reed not be in doubt concerning it. It. Newman had a roll of polygatnists, v. hour he styled murderers, liars, thieves, &c, and this was his second fc'.ronghold sustaining the negative. His reasoning was: Here are men who Were wicked men; they were polyga-r polyga-r lists; therefore polygamy is wrong. How does the reverend gentleman like this unsyllogistic syllogism? Extend it to the Apostles. One of them was i traitor; another cursed and swore; t vo of them quarreled violently, and they were all cowards. Being buch they could not be good men, and their Christianity waa unworthy of human c.edencc. Dr. Newman would easily i trtum this, for it is illogical and t-.o- histical, but it is his own sophistry nd his own logic. And with this as m argument, and with a fcingle verse f scripture grossly perverted, he fought the Gfdit. Thee were his only Bibli-t Bibli-t il arguments and when he got t lrough he kit Professor Pratt's ipuuient where h found it, totally i .latsailed. Wo have heard nobody tati.fied with I'.e discussion. All agree, fo far as we , xve convened with monogamists and rolygamists, that Dr. Newman was a 1 i;o failure ; that lie was too vapid ai d bombiintie ; dealt tuo much in an .tion and too little in proof; that he j. .'ini'led fccriptury horribly ; mid there a thinjji in the "jiWM whiuh he did in ibii ii "'-1LJJU L.! not show by proof, and which avo not in it ; and denied that certain facts are in it which thousands who heard him know are recorded there. They aree, too, that Profesior Pratt did not do justce to himself, to his subject and the people by not allowing himself time to sum up ; and that he was too gentlemanly gentle-manly for his opponent, gnd should have dealt more in that kind of assertion asser-tion which was the reverend gentle-1 gentle-1 man's staple article. But we think lie did better not to imitate a bombastic egotism that was offensive to decency and did injury to the -peaker's elo-, elo-, quence. The umpires drew don upon them considerable animadversion for the manner in which they did not do their duty. They were placed to preside. They apparently could only see the rule which forbade the public showing any marks of approval or disapproval, "for any cause whatever;" and when an intelligent gentleman in the body of the Tabernacle shouted "question," this expression brought one of the umpires um-pires to his feet as if he had had a shock from a galvanic battery. The publio had the right to call the speakers speak-ers to the question and there was much need for it, particularly when Dr. Newmaj forgot that he was assailing not merely a dogma to which he was opposed, but one held as a vital principle princi-ple of faith by forty-nine out of even,' fifty before him, and branded his congregation con-gregation as adulterers in belief or in practice. How would Dr. Newman, and Dr. Newman's intelligent, fashionable, fashion-able, aristocratic congregation in Washington Wash-ington view it, if a man were to stand iu his pulpit and declare, aud offer to prove from the Bible, that no marriage was legal in tho sight of God unless solemnized by a man having authority from God ; that -Dr. Newman and his brother clergymen had not that authority aud that, consequently, all whom they had professedly married were not legally so, but were living in a condition of open and undisguised adultery ? The positions are alike ; aud neither would have anything to do with the question for debate between himself aud Professor Pro-fessor Pratt. Yet this is the view held by that older form of Christianity than his own the Roman Catholic church with regard to himself and all other heretics. But to return to the umpires: Those gentlemen seemed to view the audience as a mas3 of people who were to be abused by Wing deceived, who had gone there to hear a Bible argument, and instead were treated to tropes and figures and bursts of elo-quece, elo-quece, with long and numerous digressions, digres-sions, from a reverend Doctor, whose theory was that Bible patriarchs could serve the devil and revel in lust for a life-time, and when the winters of age had frozen their thin blood, and their animal passions b:vl burned themselves out, they could repent and be hailed with joyful acclamations of welcome as their spirits, thus defiled by a life-time of sin, burst into the presence of endless Purity. We admired ad-mired the attitude and self-respect of the congregation, but we have been in places where such an audience so treated treat-ed would have taught speakers and umpires, by the right of their might, to respect the public and hold faith with them. The umpires should have held the speakers to the subject ol debate. Dr. Newman evidently wanted to discuss polygamy from a physiological stand point : or in its moral, or social, or political aspect ; and it is most likely if either of these were taken as a subject for debate, where he was the disputant, he would fall back upon that threo-hour sermon, prepared in Washington, Wash-ington, preached here on Sunday week last, and served up in three courses, at th'J debate, with a little warm gravy in the shape of impromptu ideas, to make it palatable. Dr. Newman is a learned man, an eloquent man, a powerful speaker. But he made two great blunders with regard to the late discussion dis-cussion : He took a position so weak and uutenablo that all his strength could not sustain it, 'and he miscalculated miscalcula-ted the intelligence of the audience to whom ho addressed himself. He was faithfully reported, ho was his opponent; oppo-nent; and the strength of their arguments argu-ments can be judged by the people here and by the country 'at large. But the subject though discussed is not by any meuns exhausted. It is an important ono and can be considered from a number num-ber of standpoints, each of which would That's tho way tho debaters had to bite off, and ho, being limited to space, we clouo our comment h thin morning. |