New-York tribune., 1870-08-22

In legisating any subject there must be grand
ganic referring to that subject in the light Of which
eed l@e No sSc law bad BEEN or could be- produced
commanding polygamy, but on the other hand, In le
Neither shalt thou take wife to sister, 20 her.
TO uncover her uakedness besides the other IN her
bs s or as the marginal sade1eS fess Sss ssanes
by Cookson Bishop Jewel. Dr. Edwards and Dr Dwight;
S to D the Hebrew Se %oros asSaa bst
eight times aud In each case they referred 70 naate
teHons, &C. and siSniaed coupling together one to an
other They denoted the exact likeness of one thing TO
taking OF one wife to another in her lifetime But sup
pose said Mr. Newman as the p0ygamsts claim, that IL
In violation OF Gods law.
Mr.. Newman then examined the texts quoted by Mr.
Pratt day before showing that his construction
OF them was based on gratuitous assumption on his
the law of Moses was given This assumption he did not
prove and could not prove consequently the argument
polygamy nor, construed in the light OF the great pro-
hbition Of poly gamy he had presented could any
seriatm. and showed concusyey that they bore no
such construction Mr. Pratt had given them, consd-
Mr.. Newman then made telling alluslon Mr.. Pratts
having given the question at Issue at the close of his
claimed no right practice poly gamy because God
commanded it, and His people practced it in ancient
OF God for themselves to do it, and asked him Why then
he had endeavored to drag the Bible into the question
York journal, and from this stand.
He then charged that Mr.. Pratt had brought nothing
but downright assumptions as yet unsupported by a
particle O. evidence to the support Of the , ,S Of
Hebrews were p0lygamous nation in the wilderness;
that these laws were given to regulate an institution al
on to ALL %Sc Sre he & Newman had
they were not and none OF these assumptions had ho
proved. He denied that the Hebrews were polygamons
proof Of the contrary He Eealirmed that hat
called them n
commerce Of the sexes the great law. Thou shalt
marriage as established by God in the time Of mans in:
reestablished at the time Of the food recorded
that Mr.. Pratt had adduced one word from the
Bible that directed or permitted any other kind
passage after passage, which his learned friend knew
construed in favor OF poygamy, would be in direct op
No astTaet can do nsce 70 Mr NewmSn's argument
Of this day His rendering OF Leviticus xvii 49, and
his positive denial that the Israees in the wilderness
were pOlygamOus a nation. seemed to startle the
AUDIENCE and altogether the effort impressed them 50
that they had little to say on dispensing
THIRD DAY-MB PRATT.
This was Sunday and there were about 5000 persons
present The debate was opened by singing as well as
prayer Mr. Pratt admitted that arguments had now
been adduced on both sides. In answer to Mr. New
mans challenge he enerednto an arithmetca caicua'
ton TO prove that the Israees were pol ygamOus IN the
DAYS OF Moses. He took Mr. Newman statement OF le
entire number of them-25OO He claimed that from
the law OF Pharaoh commanding the destruction Vi lho
Nn>NN
on In one ont of every 500 each year. for 50 years
there 700 more marriagebie women thi men ~
of age stated at 6OO and he calculated the whole num-
ber OF families at $4,000 from the 22,2l3 families whose
frst-born were males given in Numb ILL., 49, From these
statistics be deduced that there 1908 $50 women ana
COS $50 men older than 20years and $4,000 ehren under
TONED TO each of the 10000 heads of families seven wives
and 10 children, leaving 67355O unmarried men, anu
cnded that he had thereby established that Israel was
both polygamous and homogeneous In the time OF Moses
on OF an institution was not sanction, nor was 1t con
donation while it claimed that God gave laws laws
regulating monogamy 1t would hardly DC adm''eu 'n"'
this regulation condemned it. ,,. =. A.
He next took up what Mr.. Newman claimed 10 De the
great law prohibiting polygamy Levitt. xviii, 49, Ac-
cording to King Jamess Translation it read Neither
an sna 'tSn tose5sT Ssp with Mess 81 Dwight Edwards and
Others disagree with that translation and somebody had
inserted different reading in the margin VIZ: Thou
Newman held to this marginal reading and not
tors who thus alter King Jamess translation as well as
the translatOrs were monogamist5-m con-
the Hebrew contained something little different from
King James's translation He bad examined the text In
the original the that could be translated wge 1t
manufactured scripture, for which there was no
afraid they should not find anything in the Bible
60 dem hs 5s rs ad 10 word TO-
sustain them, then he had the same right, and
This the true rendering II was a part ana portion
Of the law Of consangunity which hed the resi- OF he
chapter prohibiting the marriage OF ssters w of uuy'
lations. He defed Mr.. Newman and all the world OF
translated wife, the rendering be given that is in the
margin because there is noun preceding the words
He referred again to the unlimited nature OF the
mands adduced by him from the Bible on the first day OF
by the great foundation principle he claimed to have
found in Levitt. Xvii Is, which he had proved that MI
Newman had msapprehended That falling, therefore,
those stood good unless something else could
be adduced against them; A. H., 4. .,.,, ,oa
himself confined him TO one wife, then the same
command confined him to one horse The married klns-
him bv saving 60 and redeem myright The passages
from Matthew and Malachi made so much OF by MT
marrying of second wife without putting away
the first was not adultery. Inc W0ras auty
cordng to Gibbs, Professor OF Theology in
Yale College, 1t meant cohabitation Hosea did not
was law OF God, general in its nature or If limited IL
couldn't be proved. There was no law against IT, IL
stand when heaven and earth should pass away
law that was binding ancient Israel. He was sorry
he had not more time but having discussed the SUBJECT
MR.. NEWMAN CLOSES THE DEBATE.
Mr. Newman said that it was unfortunate that his dis
tinguished friend, in his wonderful numerical calcula
ton had based the assumption that the saying OF
Years and failed to prove It. Until he could prove that
his argument had more foundation than vision Re-
that the marginal translation was perfect to word
The gentleman had abored hard to show that goa didn't
mted the translation in Of the eight passages to
be- correct why not in the eighthi His admission
Inocked his argument pieces He challenged him to
meet him on paper any time anywhere on the Hebrew
Of this text Tie marginal was the true rendering He
bis argument, and 1t poor rule that
wouldn't work both ways. Suppose 1t meant
wbat Mr. Pratt claimed. DIR. Newman proved
esterday that this law OF Moses is not kept by the
Mormons Where was his solemn denunciaton OF this
yioIaton OF Divine Iawf Yesterday he pronounced
curse ON him that c0nrmeth all the words OF this law 10
do them Did not that rest him and his people
stood here In the s1gnt OF GO0 ana
tIis and before this intelligent audience aeknow
ed eed that this people set Gods law at defiance what
respect was due his argument from the teachhgs oi
Moses In support OF polygamyf , ,.,.,,,
Respecting parallel between the Kings multiplying
and horses there no law in regard 10 horses,
Int there was in regard TO wives II equal footing
then there was no limit to the number OF wives man