OCR Text |
Show DISCUSSION rttwecn Proftnor Orion Prft and Dr. J. P. X.wman, CUaplaln of th. I'nltad llUi Stuntl. SUBJECT -."Dots the Bible sanction sanc-tion Polygamy f " Affirmative, - Profusor Pratt. Negative, - - Dr. Jivt man. SECOND DAY. After the- reading of some ol' the rules regulating the debate, by Judge Snow, , that the audiencj might, he acqia'nted with them ; Elder Franklin D. .Richards .Rich-ards offered the prayer preceding the discuss on, which was closed with prayer by Rev. Mr. Pierce. ritOFESSOH PRATT. The gentleman said he again appeared ap-peared before the audience on the ' secern I seson of the discussion on the i question. Dies the Bible sanction Po-'. Po-'. lygamy ? Yesterday he had occupied '. an hour "bringing evidences to prove that p jlygatny w is a div no institution ganc ionel by ilu-B ble. It was of the utm tt itupoitance to understand tlie point u dor discussion.. His opponent ye.-te.-day ha i iven attention to -he mean ng of the wi id po ygaruy, which was apparently disoaided, and polygyny was ii.trodueed With regard to the original of the Bib.-;, to wlTtcti reference ha 1 been made h; woJ.d admit lu tue discussion ihe Bi lo as trans. ated under King James, and the original iu Hebrew it' it eouid be found. There are Hebrew Bibles he said, but thero is no such thing now as the original of the Bible. Tlie origiual of tne law of M wes js not in existence. Copies have been multiplied in ii odern times, and who can i-ay which of them, if any one, is the original, origi-nal, lie would, therefore, rather take the translation of King James as a standard, and the judgment of his able translators, than tin own jddgmen-, or the judgment of any learned man, no m ter I ow well versed in tha aacieut Ln,'ia es. It haet been Hated by Mr. Newman in r.lati n to polygamy, or polygiuy, that uiarriage with more tbau one woman was adultery. A ter reading some of the reveteud gentleman s re-' re-' mark?, he said hj agreed evith that part where it was stated that if a man look upon a woman with lustiul desire, . he is an adulterer in his heart; with the remainder, which aileged a polygamic polyga-mic was an adulterer, ho disagreed. Nj proof had been adduced from ti,e ! N'.-w Testament to prove that a man who married more than one woman was an adulterer. And if there was guch proof h-i did not know it. lie had adduced parage after passage pas-sage Low. tne Bible yesterday to show tue divine sanction of polygamy; and the laws he had quoted were enlbrced by the awful injunction : "Cursed be he that continueth not in all things under the law I" lie 'had waited in vain yesterday afternoon for any rebutting evidence against the divine sanction of polygamy. He had heard a wonderful sermon, so far as oratorical flourishes were concerned, con-cerned, but where waa the rebutting evidence? Forty-nine minutes were spent in orutoriea! display. In the next e'even minutes he also waited in va'n for the required evidences to be p oduod. Une passage in Deuteronomy had been referred to, but instead ot showing show-ing that it did not command polygamy, the ea-e of Lamech, and the saeri-c.-s of Cain and A el received the attention of the orator The speaker had not siatcd i hat Ca n went to Nod and married a w.fe, as had been re presented; but that ho went there after the muider; and as God had not created any women ihere ihe position was established that Cain had taken a wile wiih h in. Yet that proved nothing noth-ing with regard to marriage. Tne murder of Aoel had no bea.ing either on polygamy or monogamy. It simply simp-ly pioed that a wicked man was an monogamist. As for Lauiech, ho was the fii6t o ygami-t mentioned in the Bible; ' et the.e might have Ucn bundled-and thousands of oTiers, as it was with monogaini-ts of whom only three weie specified previous to the flood. It had bei n infericd that tlie murder committed by Lauiech was in consequence of polygamy; but he defied ihe gentleman to piovo the assertion. It had nothing to do with j oiyiramy, neither condemned nor justified it, any more than did the murder by Cain condemn or justify mono amy. ith regard to Adam and his mon-ogamicwie: mon-ogamicwie: Launch had killed one, but how many did Adam kill ' All the human race by his lull in the garden. gar-den. Mankind would no' have died but for the sin of this first mnogamUt and his monoamie wde. What other orime could be compared with that ol' Adam in this respect? Could that of Cain or Lamech ? Yet it prove I nothing noth-ing against tbt divinity of polygamy or monogamy. Adam not only brought death upon lir: human race, but lie introduced in-troduced falli n humanity it if o the world. (Vin W is a murd' tit bcti',t: Of t hct fail; VO W.H Ll01';l.h for he, too, was a defendant cf the lir-t moa-ogami-t, who had brought deaihanl ..n into the world. The cauie of r.il he evils now runou mankind was the crun-grnsinn of the law of heaven by that, inotioimi'! couple; yi-t it had hot'nin "i do with monogamy or po-lyfaitiy. po-lyfaitiy. JVjamslry K.i kva rvIWrni t tcrday, or a woman having more than one husband, and the reverend gentleman gentle-man could not ee why a woman should not have tlie privilege of taking more husbands than one, if a man had the privilege of taking more wivej than one. God had given no such privilege, though lie had sanctioned the taking of more than one wife, and the gentleman hud to piove the contra con-tra ry. One reason why the Lord had instituted insti-tuted marriage, was to multip'y the human species. Would polyandry help this? A ou'd forty or tit'iy husbands hus-bands to one woman increase the human race faster? lie thought that monogamists as M-il as polyga-niists, polyga-niists, would, on reflection, say that such a system would de.-troy woman's own fruii fulness. It would also de stroy the knowledge of posterity. Bui this is not the ease with polygamy. If a man has tify wives, the knowledge, knowl-edge, of the father is as well established estab-lished as where there is only one w.fe ; and the bonds of parentage are preserved. pre-served. A man with a plurality of wives is capable of raising up a numerous household, and Hie sciiptures say that children are the heritage of the Loid and the fruit of the womb is His reward. By po iygamy children can be multiplie I ten or twenty fold ta-ter than by monogamy; monoga-my; but this is not the case with polyandry. po-lyandry. Gideon, lo whem an a.-gol vas sent, who was cho-en to deliver L-rael, was a po'yg mist, an 1 he had -eventy-two sons. No woman in polyandry poly-andry could pivduce seventy-two mims ; a though the hpeaker did n t kno.v A'hat eiiioacy there might be in "man Irake," or o ..e mag c lie I s. Man has the jmwer to I.etCt large hou e-holds, e-holds, which was proved by reference to certain jadges of 1 rael w o had had very nume.ous fimilies. Tlie right eousness or unrlitenu-ness of these men had nothing to do w th the marriage mar-riage institution, G id had established hat. If Gideon had been an idolater he still had the power to increase his family as he had done. God is consisten' and delights in the -alvatiou of the human family. A wicked man may set an evil example oetbre his family and lead them to de- truciion; a righteous man, with many wives, would instruct hischildten in -he principles of righteousness, that they might inheiit eternal life, at the right hand of God, with Jacob and other polygamic. Which, then, was the more acceptable to God? 'Ihe righteous polygamist who saves his family, cr the unrighteous monog-j mist who leads his family to death ? A decision on the point could be easily reached. There are, he said, many passugc-s of scripture to pruve that the marriages mar-riages of the wiiked are not acceptable to God. Iu one place He hiid commanded com-manded the destruction of a certain' people lest they t-hould fill the world with cities. (jod permits the marriages mar-riages of the W.cked, but lie d"es not sanction them. The census question, of an equality of the sexes, cited to prow that eVciy man must have his wife, wheu tested in this light is found wanting. God does not bestow His bles-ings equally upon the righteous and the wicked, lie may, so tar as general bless ngs are concerned, but it is not so with special blessings. In support of this he referred re-ferred to the 37ih Psalm, where God says, and repeats, that the seed of evil doers should be rooted out of the earth, but the righteous should be bles-ed and preiervtd. He said he expected to hear some pa-sages adduced to refute his arguments; argu-ments; but if no such evidence to invalidate in-validate polygamy were brought fo.-ward, fo.-ward, then it would stand as tirm as the throne of the Almighty. The pe "pie here have embraced the Bible as ihe standard of their practice, and if they are wrong, they arc glad to have the learned come and correct tnem. This was much more gcneious than to enact laws incarcerating for years the heads of fiimiries in clung- on?, leaving their fjuiiho.s expisid to danger, dan-ger, to hunger and to p vcrty. Mr Newman had siated he would like nino hou s to convince the poor people hero of their i rror ; the speaker wished he wou d take n no day, or, n ne weeks or nine months to do f-o. Tney wished 10 he taught in the ways of civiiiz nion, if that civilization civili-zation corresponded whh the B ble. But they would not a iopt the nraet ces of civilization if such v.c-ro debasing de-basing and corrupting. 'Jim immoial condition of No'v Yoik and other largo cities wa dwelt upon. Day an 1 night, said the f-penk'T, this debauchery goes on; yet New York is monngmiic It, is part of the civillzuioii of ihat place to rw very pious w th regard to monogamy, mono-gamy, while hailots parade the streets day and night, and sin enough is committed com-mitted thero in one day to sink the nation to perdition. One case in ancient an-cient I.-rael entailed the destruction of nearly the entire tube of Benjamin. Compare the system of chasthy in ancient an-cient Israel with the pros: itutioii, the Corruption and inlaiiticide in Christendom Christen-dom ! And yet, becau-o a few in this Territory are practicing Bible marriage, the piety of civilization is horrilied. Un. NEWMAN. The lwi-rend gentleman understood his opp ment to complain that he had not answered the arguments produced. This waa because the previous spc:iL-r had not ttna-1; ttna-1; zed the quc-'ion. It was neeeu-ary that the audicnee '-hould uudei ijtand the position. lie had had the answers ready, tho previous day, and Vie would ;ivo them now. Wi;h regard to the (rginal nriunu-eript",to wh'u-h reference had been inudi; when a man wriies a letter and pie-erves a copy ho can nothing about tht- original; mj with the Will iritfiulL Wit'tj rard tg Jtirn, if Alum fell through the wiles of me vyem in what Would have I ecu the con-d.ton con-d.ton cf the world had Adam been a poiygainisi? Adam had not ribs enough to have made fifty women. With regard to polyandry, science avers that where polygamy or polyg-iny polyg-iny is practiced, the tendency is to either all men or ;!! women, and the consequent depopulation of the earth. The olject of the gentleman the pie-uious pie-uious day was to find a general law -auctioning polygamy. He denied it had been fouud. Law is an expression expres-sion of t he legis'tvive. Laws command what should be done, say what may be done. W hoie was the general law which his opponent spent an kour searching for? Iu legislation there must be a gland declaration, mandatory manda-tory or prohibitory. He proposed to produce a law, simple, direct and positive, posi-tive, that polygamy is loi bidden, and quoied Leviticus xviii chapter, . and lith ver.-e : "Neither shall thou lake one wife to another to vex her in her lifetime." Then: is a law lbibLdiug poygamy. But, it may be said, that is tlie marginal reading. W ed, said the speaker, 1 draw my argument from the speech of yosteid.,y. ihs opponent had quoted the passage if ' biethren dwelling together," and intiodueed the marginal read ng. lie; accepud his opponent's method of arguing, tor it was a poor rule that would not work Lo:h wajs The iuteipretatiun given in tlie margin was sustained ly the Pest t iblical seho ars of Christ, n om. The tir.-t five ver.-es of L vmcus from W.i cu he quoted were ,,relatoiy. Israel Is-rael was c mmanded not to follow the j prae ice- o' tlie nations whose places they had taken, and the.-e nations had piaeticed inee.-t, foi nieatiou and po y-gamy. y-gamy. Tlie Word which is tiau.-latcd " w.te'' in this p issage uecu.s eight times in the B.On', and each lime n siguili. s touphig together. A marriage mar-riage of the kind lefcried to was ior-biudeti ior-biudeti by antilogy. 1 ha soil could nut marry his mo Per, and by analogy the uauglncr could not many her lather; and ly carrying out the analogua. figure tie manual. led that a man eouid not marry two eisiers ; and continued the prohibition to piove that a man tould not many two wives. lie th, n quoted certain extracts from a book by one John Hyde, to prove that the Mormons do not obey ihi law of Mose.-; quoting the names of certain citizen-here. citizen-here. Asked, Was the law of Moses obeyed or not in Utah ? and averred thai the Mo. mpus did not obey God's law which they called the law of Moses. Mo-ses. He retel red to the case of Jacob' family, where Leah and 11 ichel had children alter gifing their handmaids' to Jadh, which is cited as a b.ecsing for their encouraging polygamy, and maintained that it vroul'i be equally encouraging incest. He had ly.-ling.-of true piniaiii his py ; he did not believe be-lieve iu a harsh, civil law; and there-tbre there-tbre he was here to declare to the people peo-ple what be believed was the truth s it is in Je-us. llcferring to lh cas..- tiled by his opponent, that the tiist born son should not lose his binhiight because he was ihe son ot a woman not beloved; he had shown already, he said, that in Levui.-Us lath and lSlh, God had forbidden for-bidden poUgamy. God's solemn law was "neither shall a man take one wife to another.'' T'lr.s was a general law. It was natural for a man to love the sccjiid wifj better than the first; and the s .coiid might inlluenee the hu-baud to keep tioui the children of the tir.-t w.fc, who was dead aud gone, the property that was theirs ty light. He quoied th ; law with legnd to the penalty pen-alty f. r stealing sheep: and held that if the passage in question sanctions polygamy, the law given with regard to deep s.ealing wdi sane; ion that crime. Q lo'.ing from LxoJus: "If he take him another wife, her foci, her raiment rai-ment and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish;" lie said that according accord-ing lo the Jewish law a maid could be iudentu.cd for six years, Put no longei; and thero was a condition invo.ved, that tin; mas cror hi-son should many her. 'I he passago merely means ttiat neither married her, that she was kuu-j kuu-j piy engaged or betrothed; and G sl, to ma k His displcasuie of a broken promise, affixed the penalty recorded. 'Ihe s eaker i hen informed his opponent oppo-nent that tie word "wile" in this pa-n-ag;e was nei.hcr iu th : H ibrew nor the G.cck. Kitc-riing io the preservation of families by the uiairuiue of a man to the widow o' his dead brother, the object ob-ject id' tho law, he mid. was the pre hcivatiou of families and family inheritance.-; mid he chall tiged his opponent to bring I'or.h a single instance fioiii the LJible whic a nianied man j had I, pen called upon lo obey this law. He said ihoro was no proof ol it in the Bible; and he judged the law by that which he had alrerdy 1 dd down forbidding polygamy. Passing to the command given with regartl to the Midiatuti-h captives, he maintained main-tained the jia-t.age had tiething to do With polygamy; and was simply the hi lonetil account of a mi, itary expedition, expedi-tion, lor the 3'-, 0(10 women, who were merely kept fir domestic purpos-M'H, purpos-M'H, what were they among a nation of two minion and a halt? Of the command given in Deuteronomy with regard to captive Women, it had no more to do Willi polygamy, he argued, than wiih theft or murder. lie again judged this special rliaetiueta by the general law he had laid down. Coming to tho jiuss-iges qii'ited by bin oppnin lit from V.xodus and Deuteronomy, Deuter-onomy, wit h reyaid lo a maid ii"t betrothed be-trothed losing tier viri-iniiy, ho held that Professor 1 'i at l K i mistaken in the idea that both j.ai-ag.. 4 releired tr odiii'i inn, lie ,;(j,l tin' one law was given to v,;ii1mIo pedneiiou, and the oilier crime uTerr-.-d to r ih rape, 'f he loan who -edifeil a unud had to pay; but the i.'iviileT had to uwrry hii victim, vic-tim, und pav tho line ii i wvll. Hut ihij hud uothlug to dv with polvgitniyj his opponent had asruied iho'r con-inctioii con-inctioii with it without grounds or proof. In the ease of Jehoiada and Joash ; tlie former, he said, Was regent, and his being so entitled him to loyal fune-lal fune-lal honors, which he received became he had been legeiit. But the book ol Chronicles does not say that Joash had two wives at the same time. 1-. might be said that John MiltOn had three wives, which was tiue; but he had them successively, :nd so it was with Joash. Yet said the speaker, admit the prorosition claimed and what, is -be logical result? Why. the numerical conclusion, and only two wives would be allowed. He then inquoed if thai was held up to here in Utah? '1 he w,fe that Hosea took, ca'led a wife of whoiedoms, was u woman of spiritual fornication, or idolatry; a position po-sition which he quoted various pas-ages lo fU-tain. 'J he prophet, he said, was directed to get a wife of whoredoms whore-doms or idolatry; and afterwaies !h-was !h-was ordered to love a woman who was an adulteress. But the ll.u-tiatiou.-quoted by his opponent Were merely typical, and had no applica ion to a general law. Ho.-ea, te-o. had divorced his first wife for aduitery. as he fad a right to do; and th, n he was ordered to go and love another; consequently ht; did not havj two wives at the name time Professor Pratt, he de-c'arcd, admit ted that none ol these pas. ages were a warrant for p 'Iygamy, and In-quoted ihe Woids ol ih.it gentleman, win ic he .-a d it required a command to the peo plo tlum-elves to make it a law to them; consequently, he contended, P.olessor Pratt h lei yielded the point, aud he a-ked wh.r the gentleman haj attempted to prove the pr:i'-,ie-u of polygamy po-lygamy frotn tl e Bible? Why i'id lie no: say that it was practiced lecau-e a man named Smith had rcce.vcd a rev elation commanding it? lie then inquiied if Profb-sor Prat I cotiid find umre than two iu-tauees o, polygamy from ihe time the Jews lef the land ot Kgyi t until they reachc-o Canaan. One man could be found in tony years among two and a ha.f millions mil-lions of people ; but does that prove tl.em a nation of polygamic? 'Tho regu'ating laws to which hi opponent referred wets no more a sanction of polygamy than the law in Paris regulating the social evil sanctions sanc-tions it. Monogamy was established among mankind in their innocence; but polygamy, like slavery and blood revenge, came with iheir apostacy from the truth. God aMerwaids gave a law to regu'atc it; and what was that law? "Neither shall a man take one wile to another." He denied tha. Israel was a polygamic nation, and he challenged the pr' ftf. Before concluding his argutrotit his time expired. 'The di-ciis-ion c!i ses this afternoon, the ses.-ion coiumci c n : at 2 o'clock 1' "I- |