The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-07-03
POIygamy Proved to be a Violation Of
the Divine Command.
Mr.. Pratt's Arguments VigOr-
Ously Refuted.
Explanations of Doubtful Parts
of the Bible.
Quotations TO Prove the Criminal Char
acter Of Polygamy.

my sermon at Washington on pOygainy, puDllsned
April rs, and the appearance OF Mr.. Pratts reply
thereto IN your issue OF May so. Ofical duties at
West Point as a member OF the Board Of Visitors So
fully occupied my time from the LIST 70 the goth OF
June as to preclude earlier reply to Mr.. Pratt's
communication. IL Is my purpose TO visit California
IN August stopping route AT Salt Lake City, and
while there either preach series Of sermons ON the
question, "Does the Bible Sanction Poygamy 2" or
debate the same with Mr.. Brigham Young. But In
asmuoh as Mr. Pratt seems "eager Tor the fray"
accept the earlier Opportunity OF discussing the
same question In the columns OF the HERALD, which
will have the advantage OF greater accuracy of
statement and wider range Of influence. Had 1t
pleased Mr.. Pratt 10 nave accepted The editorial sug
gestlon OF the HERALD TO "Ook Ut the question more
exclusively from New Testament standpoint"
would have agreed readily 10 the proposition but,
having such intmation, could not put myself to
the disadvantage OF taking the initiative. / Shall
therefore Eight It out on this lne.'
THE POINT IN DISCUSSION.
It IL Of the utmost Importance to define accurately
the point in discussion. The question is, "DOes the
Bible Sanction Polygamy"
AT the very outset we meet and join issue. Mr.
Pratt affirms, deny. My former argument was
divided into two bran cnes-tbe law and the prac-
lice. Conceding that In some instances in the
Bible polygamy was practised, yet denied the ex-
assumed that 1t Is condemned by law. Up to this
time not solitary Scripture passage has been ad-
duced In which the practice is either commanded
sanctioned, and 1t remains for Mr.. Pratt or any
other polygamist to adduce such passage. The
most that can be claimed Is that Moses enacted
laws for the regulation OF The practice And sup
posing 1 concede that Noes did so, this would not
be sanction OF the practice IN Paris the social
eyiin is regulated by In this country there are
"exclse laws' designed TO regulate ntemperance.
But no man OF sound mind would hazaro his repu-
tatIon for sanity by anirming that such laws
approval of the "social evil" and OF intemperance;
but, Ta.her, they are solemn legal condemnation
OF the twin evils" SO the concession that Moses
made laws TO regulate poygamy is an argument
against the abett0rs Of POLY gamy while 1t Is strong
presumptive argument in favor Of those who advo-
cate exclusive monogamy. II the acts Of others
TO be the rule OF our lives what may we not prove
as right from the practice Of Bible timesf
P0LYGAMY A VIOLATION OF THE DIVINE INTENTION.
My reoinder to Mr. traits reply consists OF two
parts:-First, the portion OF my argument to which
Mr.. Pratt REPLIED secondly, the portion to which
Mr. Pratt did not reply. deduced an argument
against poygamy from the fact that in the begin
ming God created but one woman and one man. He
attempts to force the conclusion that inasmuch as
the children OF Adam and Eve married. therefore
al subsequent marriages should be confined bro.
theirs and sisters. AT the hrst blush, as quoting q
merely historical fact, his conclusive;
but the statement is more than historical. The fact
Is the expression Oi law TO continue In force
during the Continuance of our race. For this same
fact Is repeated by Malachi as expressive OF the
intention OF the Divine Creator 1t reasserted OF
Jesus Christ and eafirmed by st. Paul. whereas the
marriage OF brothers and sisters is so repeated
ana hence Is not In like manner expressive OF law
O., t14
marriage was instituted is the expression of the
Creators intention, and comes TO with all the
authority and sanctity Of law; and Mr.. Pratt does
not deny the statement Of the creation Of but one
woman for Aoam, and in not denying 1t he
adm,ts That the nrst marriage was homogeneous.
This Is one point gained. HIS theory o. poygaulous
marra ages suDversive OF the very nature VI mar
rage as instituted by God n the peg.nnins ana
but one man and woman, aud Christ Says
''Fur this cause snail q man leave has father and
nlother, ana The twain shall be ilesh' Ii man
then, be- united to more tlAn one woman there viii
be more tnan one nesn, when Is directly contra
dicLory Of tie idea OF marriage unity.
NTERMARRIAGE Or NEAR RELATIONS.
Ii Is also asserted that II the fact of the creation Of
one woman and one man proves monogaIny, then
the fac, that The Immediate sons OF Adam married
their sisters proves that marriage IN ali subsequent
generations must not extend beyond brothers and
sisters. But the command ''inultpyo was given
to Adams descendants no less than Adam; there
FORE the nature of The case, the marriage relation
was TO extend beyond brothers and sisters But il il
Is affirmed that this extension u tie marriage rela-
tlon beyond brothers and SISTERS iavors polygamy
plurality Of wives, so 1t also favors poyandry or
the plurality OF husbands zine ancient Medes
compelled the citizens OF one province to take each
seven women, while IN announcer they compelled
each woman TO take five husbands" Extension,
therefore, proves too much for Mr.. Pratts concur
sion. But II he insists that the argument drawn
incest the repy IL as simple as 1t IS direct. Some
acts are wrong In themselves; other acts are wrong
IN virtue OF a violate Of law. Murder is wrong
per Sc while the act OF Adam eating the forbidden
fruit derived It's snfulnes5 from the Divine prohibl
ton. Murder derived its criminal character from
the constitution OF things, and just with suicide;
in both the end OF mans creation Is defeated is
also the intention OF the Divine Creator In after
years It became necessary to express the consttu-
ton Of things in positive law, hence the command
"ThOu shall not KILL" But on the contrary, the mar
riage VI Adams sons and daughters was not only in
compliance with the Divine command to multi
piy,n but was ia accordance with the intention
of the Creator until otherwise ordered. 1t an old
saying "Where there Is no law there is SIM"
"Sin Is the transgression of the law.n Law may be
expressed In tue order OF nature or in positive
aclment. inc marriage OF Adams sons and daugi-
unknown to tile world till $500 years after the
tion, when for the FIRST time the law Of consan-
guinity was given by Moses (Sec Lev. 49, Now,
however such marriage Is sin and u crime.
But why should MIR. Pratt deplore incestp It Is
practised by the Mormons OF Utah. II is VIGOROUSLY
true that some Mormons have married mother ana
her daughters had by previous husband. In one
household may be seen tine spectacle o. three women
same man. Mr.. Young added TO his han. m beau-
nu young Scotch girl, whom he afterwards divorced
R0O WHO fndrrIcu IST Hdi-DIOuter D1 WHOM she uaN
Three children. Hepworth Dixon, author or New
AMERICA inquired " Mr. Young "whether, with his
new lights On the virtue OF breeding In ana in he
saw any objections 10 the marriage Of brother aud
sister Y' His reply was "a frank it was vile:--
Speaking for myself not for the Church, see
ct ai.n {See DiXon's "New America and Beadle's
f.Life In Utafl.')
ELDER PRArTs BIBLE KNOWLEDGE AT FAULT.
To every candid mind Elder Pratt's account OF our
Lords discourse to the Pharsees TO say the least is
''ttie mixed" 1t Is true that Christ is condemn
ing me system Of divorce which prevailed at that
time among the Jews, and the elder draws the con-
cnslon tn.st the Saviour merely condemns the put
ting away Of q wife, and not tine multiplying OF wives
bat the sin of adultery does not consist IN putting
away, but In marrying another. Husband and vile
may separate and be guilty OF the great trans
bery. Tie consists IN addition, and IN sepa-
ration. "And say unto YOU whosoevcr shall put
away his vile. except 10 be for fornication, and