After opening with religious exercises Prof. Pratt commenced:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We again come before you this afternoon, being the second session of our discussion, to examine the question: "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" I will here remark, that yesterday afternoon I occupied one hour upon the subject, and brought forth numerous evidences from the Bible to show that polygamy was a divine institution sanctioned by the Bible, and sanctioned by the Almighty, who gave the laws contained in the Bible. Here let me observe that it is of the utmost importance to clearly understand the point under discussion. I perceive that in the arguments that followed me yesterday the subject is dwelt upon somewhat lengthily with regard to the meaning of the term polygamy—that it included both a plurality of wives and a plurality of husbands. Hence a new term was introduced by the reverend Doctor, who followed me, namely polygyny, if I recollect the term, having reference to the plurality of wives. This seems to be the question under discussion: Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy? and as the word polygamy appears to be discarded and scouted, it would be: Does the Bible Sanction Polygyny? Perhaps I may not have the term aright; that is, Does the Bible sanction plurality of wives? It was was said by the speaker who followed me, in relation to the plurality of wives—perhaps I had better refer to some of his remarks from print, lest my memory should not serve me on the occasion. The first remark to which I will call your attention is in regard to the original of the Bible. I admit in this discussion the Bible called King James' translation as authority. I admit the Bible in the original Hebrew, if it can be found. Of course we have Hebrew Bibles at the present day. I hold one in my hand; that is, a Bible in the Hebrew language. But there is no such thing in existence as the original copies of the Bible; neither secondary copies; and copies that might come in as the hundreth copy, I presume, cannot be found, as, for instance, of the original law of Moses, written on tables of stone. Such tables and such original law have not been in existence to our knowledge for the last eighteen hundred years. We cannot refer to them; we cannot refer to any copies only those that have been multiplied in modern times—that is, comparatively modern times. And inasmuch as these copies disagree one with the other, so much so that it is said there are thirty thousand different readings in the various manuscripts and copies, who is to decide whether this Hebrew Bible, translated from one of a number of manuscripts, is translated from the original or not? Certainly it would not do for me as an individual to set up my judgment in the matter; nor for any other learned man to set up his judgment. I would far rather take the translation known as King James', made by the able translators chosen in his day; men of great learning, who had studied the original languages, the Hebrew and the Greek, and had become extensively acquainted with manuscripts in existence; I say I would far rather take their judgment than one that might be advanced by myself, or by any other learned man, however deeply he might be versed in the Hebrew or Greek. I do not by these remarks disparage the Bible, or set it aside. By no means. I accept it as proof that it was translated by those men who were chosen for the purpose. And hundreds of thousands, I may say scores of millions, of copies of this Bible have been circulated among all nations in various languages. They have been sent forth by millions among the inhabitants of the earth for their information.

We will pass along after having decided upon the nature of the Bible that is to be admitted as evidence and proof in regard to polygamy. It was stated in the course of the remarks of the reverend gentleman in relation to polygamy, or polygyny, whichever term we feel disposed to choose, that marriage with more than one woman is considered adultery. I will read one or two of Mr. Newman's sentences: "Take his exposition"—that is the Savior's—"Take his exposition of the ten commandments as they were given amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and you find he has written a commentary on the Decalogue, bringing out its hidden meaning, showing to us that the man is an adulterer who not only marries more women than one, but who looks on a woman with salacial lust. Such is the commentary on the law by the Lord Jesus Christ."

With part of this I agree most perfectly. If a man, according to the great commentary of our Savior, looks upon a woman with a lustful heart and lustful desire, he commits adultery in his heart, and is condemned as an adulterer. With the other part I do most distinctly disagree. It is merely an assertion of the reverend gentleman. No proof was adduced from the New Testament Scriptures; no proof was advanced as the words of the great commentator, the Lord Jesus Christ, to establish the position that a man who marries more than one woman is an adulterer. If there is such a passage contained within the lids of the New Testament, it has not come under my observation. It remains to be proved, therefore.

We will now pass on to another item, that is, the meaning of the word "sanction:" "Does the Bible sanction polygamy?" I am willing to admit the full force and meaning of the word sanction. I am willing to take it in all of its expositions as set forth in Webster's unabridged edition. I do not feel like shirking from this, nor from the definition given. Let it stand in all its force. The only adequate idea of sanction, says Mr. Newman, is a divine and positive approbation, plainly expressed; or stated so definitely and by such forms of expression as to make a full and clear equivalent. It is in this way that we take the term sanction in the question before us. Admit that it must be expressed in definite terms, these terms were laid before the congregation yesterday afternoon. From this Bible, King James' translation, passage after passage was brought forth to prove the divine sanction of polygamy; direct commands in several instances, wherein the Israelites were required to be polygamists; and in one instance, especially, where they were required under the heaviest curse of the Lord: "Cursed be he that continueth not in all things written in this book of the law; and let all the people say Amen," was the expression. I say, under this dreadful curse and the denunciations of the Almighty, the people were commanded to be polygamists. Did this give authority and sanction to practise that divine institution? It certainly is sanction, or I do not understand the meaning of the word as defined by Webster, and the meaning of the arguments presented by my opponent. I waited in vain yesterday afternoon for any rebutting evidence and testimony against this divine sanction. I was ready with my pencil and paper to record anything like such evidence, any passage from the Bible to prove that it was not sanctioned. I heard a remarkable sermon, a wonderful flourish of oratory. It certainly was pleasing to my ears. It fell upon me like the dews of heaven, as it were, so far as oratorical power was concerned. But where was the rebutting testimony? What was the evidence brought forth? Forty-nine minutes of the time were occupied before it was even referred to; forty-nine minutes passed away in a flourish of oratory, without having the proofs in rebuttal and the evidence examined which I had adduced. Then eleven minutes were left. I did expect to hear something in those eleven minutes that would in some small degree rebut the numerous evidences brought forth to establish and sanction polygamy. But I waited in vain. To be sure, one passage, and only one that had been cited, in Deuteronomy, was merely referred to; and then, without examining the passage and trying to show that it did not command polygamy, another item that was referred to by myself with regard to Lamech and Cain was brought up. Instead of an examination of that passage, until the close of the eleven minutes, the subject of Abel's sacrifice and Cain's sacrifice, and Cain's going to the Land of Nod and marrying a wife, and so on, occupied the time. All these things were examined, and those testimonies that were brought forth by me were untouched.

Now, then, we will proceed to the fourth, or rather to the fifth position he took; that is the first great form of marriage established in the beginning—"one woman created for one man." However, before I dwell upon this subject, let me make a correction with regard to Cain and Lamech; then we will commence on this argument. I did not state yesterday afternoon, as it was represented by the speaker who followed me, that Cain went to the land of Nod and there married a wife, for there is no such thing in the Bible. I stated that Cain went to the land of Nod, after having murdered his brother Abel. I stated that we were not to suppose that God had created any woman in the Land of Nod, and that Cain took his wife in the land of Nod. We are not to suppose this; but we are to suppose that he took his wife with him. He went to and arrived in the land of Nod, and begat a child. So says the Bible. But what has all this to do with regard to the form of marriage? Does it prove anything? No. The murder that Cain committed in slaying his brother Abel does not prove anything against the monogamic form of marriage, nor anything in favor of it. It stands as an isolated fact, showing that a wicked man may be a monogamist. How in regard to Lamech? Lamech, so far as recorded in the Bible, was the first polygamist; the first on record. There may have been thousands and tens of thousands who were not recorded. There were thousands and tens of thousands of monogamists, yet, I believe, we have only three cases recorded from the creation to the flood, a period of some sixteen hundred years or upwards. The silence of Scripture, therefore, in regard to the number cf polygamists in that day, is no evidence whatever.

But it has been asserted before this congregation that this first case recorded of a polygamist brought in connection with it a murder; and it has been indicated or inferred that the murder so committed was in defence of polygamy. This I deny; and I call upon the gentleman to bring forth one proof from that Bible, from the beginning to the end of it, to prove that murder had anything to do in relation to the polygamic form of marriage of Lamech. It is true he revealed his crime to his wives, but the cause of the crime is not stated in the book. What, then, had it to do with the divinity of the great institution established called polygamy? Nothing at all. It does not condemn polygamy nor justify it, any more than the murder by Cain does not condemn the other form of marriage nor justify it.

Having disposed of these two cases, let me come to the first monogamist, Adam. Let us examine his character, and the character of his wife. Lamech "slew a young man to his wounding, a young man to his hurt." That was killing one, was it not? How many did Adam kill? All mankind; murdered the whole human race! How? by falling in the garden of Eden. Would mankind have died if it had not been for the sin of this monogamist? No. Paul says "that as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." It was by the transgression of this first monogamist and his monogamic wife, that all mankind have to undergo the penalty of death. It was the cause, and I presume it will be acknowledged on the part even of monogamists that it was a great crime. What can be compared with it? Was Cain's crime, or Lamech's crime to be compared with the crime of bringing death and destruction, not only upon the people of the early ages, but upon the whole human race? But what has all that to do with regard to the divinity of marriage? Nothing at all. It does not prove one thing or the other. But when arguments of this kind are entered into by the opponents of polygamy, it is well enough to examine them and see if they will stand the test of scripture, and sound reason, of sound argument and sound judgment. Moreover, Adam was not only guilty of bringing death and destruction upon the whole human race, but he was the means of introducing fallen humanity into this world of ours. Why did Cain slay Abel? Because he was a descendant of that fallen being. He had come forth from the loins of the man who had brought death into the world. When we look abroad and see all the various crimes, as well as murder, that exist on the face of the globe; when we see mankind committing them; see all manner of degradation and lust; see the human family destroying one another, the question might arise, What has produced all these evils among men? They exist because a monogamic couple transgressed the law of heaven.

The learned gentleman referred us to a saying of that great man, Martin Luther, concerning the relationship that exists between husband and wife. It was a beautiful argument. I have no fault whatever to find with it. And it is just as applicable to polygamy as to monogamy. The answer of Martin Luther to the question put to him—Why God took the female from the side of man, is just as appropriate, just as consistent with the plural form of marriage as it is with the other form. He did not take the woman from the head. Why? The argument wad that the man should be the head, or as Paul says—"Man is the head of the woman," and that is his position. I believe my learned opponent agrees with me perfectly in this, so there is no dispute upon this ground. Why did not He take the woman from the foot? Because man is not to tyrannize over his wife, nor tread her under foot. Why did He take her from his side? Because the rib lies nearest the heart, showing the position of woman. Not only one woman but two women, five women, ten women, twenty women, forty women, fifty women, may all come under the protecting head. Jesus says: "No man can serve two masters," because he may love the one and hate the other, cleave unto the one and turn away from the other; but it is not so with women under the protecting head.

Now let us examine polyandry, for that was referred to yesterday; and the reverend gentleman could not see why, if a man has the privilege of taking more wives than one, a woman should not have the same privilege. If that is expressed in the Bible we have not found it; the other is expressed there, and we have proved it, and call upon the reverend gentleman to show the opposite. When we come to polyandry, or the woman having more husbands than one, there is no sanction for it in the Scriptures. What is the object of marriage? Companionship, we are told. I agree with the gentleman. Another object he says is procreation. I agree with the gentleman also in the second object. Another was prevention. Here I agree with him so far as the argument is carried out in a true light. Let us examine the second, namely procreation. The Lord instituted marriage—the sacred bond of marriage—for the purpose of multiplying the human species here on the earth. Does polyandry assist in the multiplying of the human species, the woman having four, or five, or ten, or fifty, or sixty husbands? Does it tend to rapidly increase the race? I think monogamists as well as polygamists, when they reflect, will say that a woman having more than one husband would destroy her own fruitfulness. Even if she did have offspring, there would be another great difficulty in the way, the father would be unknown. Would it not be so? All knowledge of the father would be lost among the children. Is this the case with a plurality of wives? No, by no means. If a man have fifty wives the knowledge of the father is as distinct as the knowledge of the mother. It is not destroyed, therefore. The great principle of parentage on the part of the husband, on the part of the father, is preserved. Therefore it is more consistent, more reasonable, first for procreation, and secondly for obtaining a knowledge of parentage, that a man should have a plurality of wives than that a woman should have a plurality of husbands.

Again; a man with a plurality of wives is capable of raising up a very numerous household. You know what the Scriptures have said about children: "Children are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward." This being the case, a faithful, righteous, holy man, who takes, according to the great, divine institution of polygamy, a plurality of wives, is capable of multiplying his offspring ten or twenty-fold more than he could by one wife. Can one wife do this by polyandry? No. Here then is a great distinction between the male and the female. Look at that great and good and holy man, called Gideon in the Scriptures; a man to whom the angel of God was sent, and who, among all the hosts of Israel was chosen to go forth as the servant of the Most High. For what purpose? To deliver Israel from their enemies, the Midianites and others that had gathered against them. Was he a polygamist? Yes. He had many wives. He had seventy-two sons. How many daughters he had I do not know. Could any woman in polyandry conceive or bring forth seventy-two sons and perhaps an equal number of daughters? I do not know but there might be some efficacy in that herb called "mandrake," 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 like this! But a man has the ability, a man has the power to beget large families and large households. Hence we read of many of the great and notable men who judged Israel, that one man had thirty sons—his name was Jair; you will find it recorded in the Judges of Israel; and another had thirty sons and thirty daughters; while another Judge of Israel had forty sons. And when we come to the Gideon we have named, he had seventy-two. Now, we have nothing to do with the righteousness of these men, or their unrighteousness, in this connection. That has nothing to do with the marriage institution. God has established it by divine command. God has given it his own sanction, whether it be the polygamic or the monogamic form. If Gideon afterwards fell into idolatry, as the reverend gentleman may argue, that has nothing to do with the matter. He had the power to beget seventy-two sons, showing he had a superior power to that of the female.

Right here, I may say, God is a consistent Being; a Being who is perfectly consistent, and who delights in the salvation of the human family. A wicked man may take unto himself a wife, and raise unto himself a posterity. He may set before that wife and her posterity a very wicked example. He may lead those children by his drunkenness, by his blasphemy, by his immoralities, down to destruction. A righteous man may take fifty wives, or ten, as you choose; and he will bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; he will instruct them in the great principles of righteousness and truth, and lead them along and bring them up by his example and by his teachings to inherit eternal life at the right hand of God, with those polygamists of ancient times, Abraham and Jacob of old, who are up yonder in the kingdom of God. Which of the two is the Lord most pleased with? The man who has five, or ten, or twenty wives, bringing up his children, teaching them, instructing them, training them so that they may obtain eternal life with the righteous in the Kingdom of God; or the monogamist that brings up his children in all manner of wickedness, and finally leads them down to hell? Which would you prefer with your limited wisdom when compared with that of the great Creator? Who among you would not prefer to entrust your offspring with your friends instead of your enemies? Would not God, therefore, upon the same principle, do the same? Does God delight in the marriages that exist among the wicked? Go to the antediluvian race. They married and were given in marriage until the day that Noah entered into the ark. They were not righteous men nor righteous women; and their children were taught in the wicked precepts of their fathers, who committed all manner of wickedness until all flesh had corrupted itself before the Lord. Therefore the Lord had to destroy those evil workers of iniquity that had received wives, but did not honor nor regard the Lord. Instead of those marriages consummated before the flood, the marriages and intermarriages among the sons of God and the daughters of men, being acceptable to the Most High, He was obliged to destroy those that were married and their offspring from the face of the earth. How much better it would have been had they been righteous polygamists who would have brought forth a pure offspring that the Lord could have exalted to eternal life. Consequently, when we examine the subject of polygamy in regard to this matter, we must acknowledge, from these scriptures, and from various other testimonies, that the marriages of the wicked are not approved by the Heavens. There are many passages of scripture to support me in what I have now said. The Lord in one place commands the destruction of a people, parents and children, "lest they should fill the world with cities," lest all the world should be filled with people who had married contrary to His law. No person can pretend that a marriage consummated between an unrighteous man and an unrighteous woman, is a marriage in which God has joined the parties together. You might as well take the ordinance of baptism, and say that Simon Magus, when he went forward and was baptized, had complied with the ordinance of Heaven, while he yet remained in a condition of hardened sinfulness; and that because he had passed through the outward observance of the ordinance it was acceptable in the sight of Heaven. God never had anything to do with the marriages of the wicked only to permit them, perhaps for a wise purpose, as he permitted Joseph to be sold into Egypt by his brethren. He permitted the deed for his own wise purposes, but He did not justify the instruments who did the deed. So he permits these unauthorized marriages between wicked men and wicked women, to perpetuate the human race, because they will not hearken to Him, until the time shall come when he can have a pure people who will obey his laws, educating their posterity to honor and serve him. He permits, but He does not sanction such marriages.

If we should argue with the reverend gentleman that the census shows an equality of males and females, this argument that I have now advanced will rebut the idea thus sought to be established. The idea is that because there may be made to appear an equality in numbers, therefore, every man must be confined to one wife and every woman must have one husband. Is that the way God dispenses his gifts and blessings to the human family? Does he give the same amount of blessings to the wicked that He does to the righteous? In some respects He does. He sends the rain from heaven upon the just and the unjust. But there are many great and important blessings that are bestowed more abundantly upon the righteous than upon the wicked. God has holy designs to accomplish when He makes a distinction between the righteous and the wicked in dispensing His blessings. Therefore if the wicked take wives without their being joined together by divine authority, those wives have allied themselves to their husbands without the Lord's sanction. Because the Lord permits this it does not prove that He sanctions it; and He would prefer that a people should be like Israel of old, a nation of polygamists as well as monogamists, and the blessings be dispensed between them, rather than have this so-called perfect equality between the males and females, and a wicked generation be the result. To prove this I will refer you to the 37th Psalm. God in that Psalm has expressly said, and repeated again and again, that the seed of the evil-doers should he rooted out of the earth, while the righteous should inherit it and should prosper. He bestows His blessings upon the one and His curses upon the other.

I shall expect this afternoon to hear some arguments to refute those passages brought forward to sustain polygamy as well as monogamy; and if the gentleman can find no proof to limit the passages I have quoted to monogamic households, if there is no such evidence contained in the passages, and there is nothing in the original Hebrew as it now exists to invalidate them, then polygamy as a divine institution stands as firm as the throne of the Almighty. And if he can find that this form of marriage is repealed in the New Testament; if he can find that God has in any age of the world done away with the principle and form of plural marriage, perhaps the argument will rest with the other side. I shall wait with great patience to have some arguments brought forth on this subject. We are happy, here in this Territory, to have the learned come among us to teach us. We have embraced the Bible as a rule of faith; and if we misunderstand it, if we are acting contrary to its precepts, how very happy we should be to have the learned come from abroad—people who are acquainted with the original languages—to correct us and set us right. I think this is generous on the part of those gentlemen; much more so than it would be to enact laws and incarcerate in dungeons those who practice a form of marriage laid down in this book; to send them for three, or four, or five years to prison, tearing them from their poor wives and children, while their families would suffer hardship and hunger, being robbed of their natural protectors. We thank Mr. Newman and those who have come with him with their hearts full of philanthropy to enlighten us here in this mountain Territory, and if possible convince us of our errors.

I have many arguments that I have not drawn upon, not only to reason upon, but testimonies as well in favor of polygamy; but I am informed that only seven minutes of the time remains to me. I cannot, therefore, pretend on this occasion to enter into these arguments and examine them with that justice that should be expected before the people. Mr. Newman has said he would like nine hours to bring forth his arguments and his reasonings for the benefit of the poor people of Utah. I wish he would not only take nine hours, but nine weeks and nine months, and be indeed a philanthropist and missionary in our midst; and try and reclaim this poor people from being the "awful beastly" people they are represented abroad. We are very fond of the Scriptures. We do not feel free to comply with a great many customs and characteristics of a great many of those who call themselves Christians. Much may be said upon this subject; much, too, that ought to crimson the faces of those who call themselves civilized, when they reflect upon the enormities, the great social evils, that exist in their midst. Look at the great city of New York, the great metropolis of commerce. That is a city where we might expect some of the most powerful, and learned theologians to hold forth, teaching and inculcating principles and lessons of Christianity. What exists in the midst of that city? Females by the tens of thousands, females who are debauched by day and by night; females who are in open day parading the streets of that great city! Why, they are monogamists there! It is a portion of the civilization of New York to be very pious over polygamy; yet harlots and mistresses by the thousands and tens of thousands walk the streets by open day, as well as by night. There is sin enough committed there in one twenty-four hours to sink the city down like Sodom and Gomorrah.

We read that there was once a case of prostitution among the children of Benjamin in ancient days. Some men came and took another man's wife, or concubine, whichever you please to call her; some men took her and abused her all night; and for that one sin they were called to account. They were called upon to deliver up the offenders but they would not do it, and they were viewed as confederates. And what was the result of that one little crime—not a little crime—a great one; that one crime instead of thousands? The Lord God said to the rest of the tribes of Israel, Go forth and fight against the tribe of Benjamin. They fought against Benjamin; and the next day they were again commanded to go forth and fight against Benjamin. They obeyed; and the next day they were again so commanded; and they fought until they cut off the entire tribe except six hundred men. The destruction of nearly the whole tribe of Benjamin was the punishment for one act of prostitution.

Compare the strictness that existed in ancient Israel with the whoredoms, the prostitution and even the infanticide practised in all the cities of this great nation; and then because a few individuals in this mountain Territory are practising Bible marriage a law must be threatened to inflict heavy penalties upon us; our families must be torn from us and be driven to misery, because of the piety of a civilization in which the enormities I have pointed out exist.

To close this argument I now call upon the reverend gentleman, whom I highly respect for his learning, his eloquence and ability, to bring forth proof to rebut the passages laid down in yesterday's argument in support of the position that the Bible sanctions polygamy. I ask him to prove that those laws were limited. If they were limited—

(Here the umpires announced that the time was up.)

Dr. NEWMAN Rose and Said:

Messrs. Umpires and Ladies and Gentlemen:

I understand the gentleman to complain against me that I did not answer his Scriptural arguments adduced yesterday. If I did not the responsibility is upon him. He, being in the affirmative, should have analyzed and defined the question under debate; but he failed to do that. It therefore fell to me, not by right, but by his neglecting to do his duty; and I did it to the best of my ability. It was of the utmost importance that this audience, so attentive and so respectable, should have a clear and definite understanding of the terms of the question; and I desire now to inform the gentleman, that I had the answers before me to the passages which he adduced, and had I had another hour, I would have produced them then. I will do it to-day. Now, my learned friend will take out his pencil, for he will have something to do this afternoon.

A passing remark—a word in regard to the original manuscripts, written by Moses, or Joshua, or Samuel, or the prophets. You sit down to write a letter to a friend; you take it into your head to copy that letter; you copy that letter; the original draft you care nothing about—whether it is given to the winds or the flames. What care I about the two tables of stone on which the original law was written, so that I have a true copy of this law? A passing remark in regard to Mother Eve. I will defend the venerable woman! If the Fall came by the influence of one woman over one man, what would have happened to the world if Adam had had more wives than one? More, if one woman, under monogamy, brought woe into the world, then a monogamist, the blessed virgin Mary, brought the Redeemer into the world, so I think they are even.

My friend supposes that the Almighty might have created more women than one out of Adam's ribs; but Adam had not ribs enough to create fifty women. My friend speaks against polyandry, or the right of woman to have more husbands than one. He bases his argument upon the increase of progeny. Science affirms that where polygamy or polygyny, or a plurality of wives prevails, there is a tendency to a preponderance or predominance of one sex over the other, either male or female, which amounts to an extermination of the race.

I will reply, in due time, to the gentleman's remarks in regard to Gideon and other Scriptural characters, and especially in regard to prostitution, or what is known as the social evil. But first, what was the object of the gentleman yesterday? It was to discover a general law for the sanction of polygamy. Did he find that law? I deny it. What is law? Law is the expression of the legislative will; law is the manner in which an act is performed. It is the law of gravitation that all things tend to a common centre. It is the law in botany that the flowers open their fan-like leaves to the light, and close them beneath the kisses of night. What is the civil law? Simply defining how the citizens should act. What is the moral law? Simply defining the conduct of God's moral subjects. Laws are mandatory, prohibitory and permissive: commanding what should be done; prohibiting what should not be done, and permitting what may be done. And yet, where has the gentleman produced this general law which he spent an hour in searching for yesterday? And then remember, that this law must sanction polygamy! Perhaps it is not necessary to repeat our definition of the word "sanction." My learned friend, for whom I have respect, agrees with me as to the definition of that term, therefore we need not spend a solitary moment further touching these two points.

There is another vital point in reference to the nature of law. In legislating upon any subject there must be a great, organic central principle, mandatory or prohibitory, in reference to that subject; and all other parts of the particular law as well as of the general code must be interpreted in harmony therewith.

Now I propose to produce a law this afternoon, simple, direct and positive, that polygamy is forbidden in God's holy word. In Leviticus xviii and 18 it is written: "Neither shalt thou take one wife to another, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life time." There is a law in condemnation of polygamy. It may be said that what I have read is as it reads in the margin, but that in the body of the text it reads: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime." Very well, argumentum ad hominem, I draw my argument from the speech of the gentleman yesterday. Mr. Pratt said, in his comments upon the text, "If brethren dwell together,"—Now it is well enough in the reading of this to refer to the margin, as we have the liberty, I believe, to do so, and you will find that in the margin the word brother is translated "near kinsmen." I accept his mode of reasoning: he refers to the margin, and I refer to the margin; it is a poor rule that will not work both ways; it is a poor rule that will not favor monogamy if it favor polygamy. Such then is the fact stated in this law.

Now it is necessary for us to consider the nature of this law and to expound it to your understanding, it 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 in the history of Christendom—by Bishop Jewell, by the learned Cookson, by the eminent Dwight, and other distinguished biblical scholars. It is an accepted canon of interpretation that the scope of the law must be considered in determining the sense of any portion of the law, and it is equally binding upon us to ascertain the mind of the legislator, from the preface of the law, when such preface is given. The first few verses of the xviii chapter of Leviticus are prefatory. In the 3rd verse it is stated that—

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye no do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites practised incest, idolatry sodomy, adultery and polygamy. From verse 6 to verse 17, inclusive, the law of consanguinity is laid down, and the blood relationship defined. Then the limits within which persons were forbidden to marry, and in verse 18 the law against polygamy is given—"neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister," but as we have given it, "neither shalt thou take one wife to another," etc.

According to Dr. Edwards, the words which are translated as "wife" or "sister," are found in the Hebrew but eight times, and in each passage they refer to inanimate objects, such as the wings of the cherubim, tenons, mortises, etc., and signify the coupling together one to another, the same as thou shalt not take one wife to another.

Such then is the law. Such were the ordinances forbidden which the Egyptians and the Canaanites practised. Now we propose to push this argument a little further. If it is said that this passage does not prohibit a man marrying two sisters at the same time then such a marriage is nowhere in the Bible pronounced incestuous. That is the objection of my friend. To which I reply that such a marriage is forbidden by sequence and analogy. As for example where the son, in the 7th verse, is prohibited from marrying his mother, it follows that the daughter shall not marry her father; yet it is not so given and precisely stated. In verse 14 it is said—"thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother;" so I infer that it would be equally criminal to uncover the nakedness of a mother's brother, though it is not so stated. In verse 16 it is said—"thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife," so I infer that a man shall not uncover the nakedness of his wife's sister that is, if two brothers shall not take the same woman, then two women shall not take the same man, for between one man and two sisters, and one woman and two brothers is the same degree of proximity, and therefore both are forbidden by the law of God. Furthermore, if for argument's sake, we consider this means two literal sisters, then this prohibition is not a permission for a man to take two wives who are not sisters; for all sound jurists will agree that a prohibition is one thing and a permission is another thing. Nay, more, the Mormons do or do not receive the law of Moses as binding. That they do not is clear from their own practices. For instance, in Leviticus, xx chap. and 14 verse it is said—

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they.

Yet Mr. John Hyde, jr., page 56 of his work called "Mormonism," states that a Mr. E. Bolton married a woman and her daughter; that Captain Brown married a woman and her two daughters. These are illustrations of the violation of the law. More than this Leviticus xviii, 18, prohibits a man from marrying two sisters; yet Mr. Hyde informs us that a Mr. Davis married three sisters, and a Mr. Sharkey married the same number. If the question is, Is the law of Moses obeyed here or not? and supposing this gentleman can prove that the text means two literal sisters, and two literal sisters are married here, then I affirm that you do not keep God's law, or that which you say is God's law, as given through his servant Moses. Nay, more than this: if it here means two literal sisters, and, whereas, Jacob married two sisters; and, whereas, the great Mormon doctrine that God worked a miracle on Leah and Rachel that they might have children; and, whereas, it is here said that said miracles were an approval of polygamy, so also were such miracles an approval of incest; if it be true that God did not express this approval at Jacob having two wives, neither did he express disapproval of his having two sisters; therefore the Divine silence in the one case is an offset to the Divine silence in the other case. Even you are driven to this conclusion, either my interpretation of this passage is correct,—neither shall a man take another wife,—two wives, or you must admit that this passage means two literal sisters, and in either case you live in violation of God's law. It is for my distinguished friend to choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases. I thank him for the compliment he paid me—that I came here as a philanthropist. I have only kindness in my heart for these dear men and women; and had not this kindness filled my heart; had I believed in a crushing, iron, civil law, I could have remained in Washington. But I came here believing the truth as it is in Jesus, and I am glad to say that I have the privilege of speaking what I believe to be God's truth in your hearing.

The gentleman quoted Deuteronomy xxi, 15-17, which is the law of primogeniture, and is designed to preserve the descent of property:

If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;

Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born:

But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.

How did he apply this law? Why he first assumed the prevalence of polygamy among the Jews in the wilderness, and then said the law was made for polygamous families as well as for monogamous. He says—"inasmuch as polygamy is nowhere condemned in the law of God, we are entitled to construe this law as applying to polygamists." But I have shown already that Leviticus xviii, 18, is a positive prohibition of this law, and therefore this passage must be interpreted by that which I have quoted. I propose to erect the balance to-day, and try every scriptural argument which he has produced in the scales of justice.

I have recited to 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 here yesterday in seeking a general law; in a minute I gave you a general law. How natural is the supposition, where a man has two wives in succession, that he may love the last a little better than the first! and I believe it is common out here to love the last a little better than the first. And how natural it is for the second wife to influence the father in the disposition of his property so that he will confer it upon her child! while the children of the first wife, poor woman, perhaps dead and gone, are deprived of their property rights. But supposing the meaning of this passage is two wives at the same time, this cannot be construed, by any of the accepted rules of interpretation, into a sanction of polygamy; if it can, I can prove that sheep stealing is just as divinely authorized. For it is as if Moses had said: "for in view of the prevalence of polygamy, and that you have so far forgotten and transgressed God's law of monogamy as to take two wives at the same time, therefore this shall not work the abrogation of the law of primogeniture, the first-born son shall not thereby be cheated out of his rights." Now it is said: "if a man have two wives:" very well, if that is a privilege so also are these words: "If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it and sell it, he shall restore five oxen for the ox he stole, and four sheep for the sheep." If the former assertion is a sanction of polygamy, then the latter assertion is a sanction of sheep stealing, and we can all go after the flocks this afternoon.

The second passage, in Exodus xxi, 7th to 11th verses, referring to the laws of breach of promise, Mr. Pratt says proves or favors polygamy, in his opinion; but he did not dwell long upon this text. He indulged in an episode on the lost manuscripts. Now let us inquire into the meaning of this passage.

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.

If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

And if he hath betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

What are the significant points in this passage? They are simply these—According to the Jewish law a destitute Jew was permitted to apprentice his daughter for six years for a pecuniary consideration; and to guard the rights of this girl there were certain conditions: First, the period of her indenture should not extend beyond six years; she should be free at the death of her master, or at the coming of the year of jubilee. The next condition was that the master or his son should marry the girl. What, therefore, are we to conclude from this passage? Simply this, that neither the father nor the son marry the girl, but simply betrothed her; that is, engaged her, promised to marry her: but before the marriage relation was consummated the young man changed his mind, and then God Almighty, to indicate his displeasure at a man who would break the vow of engagement, fixes the following penalties, namely that he shall provide for this woman, whom he has wronged, her food, her raiment and her dwelling, and these are the facts: and the gentleman has not proved, the gentleman cannot prove, that either the father or the son marry the girl. He says the honored term "wife" is there. Honored term! God bless that term! It is an honored term, sacred as the nature of angels. Yet I have to inform my distinguished friend that the word wife is neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek, but simply "if he take another," that is if he betroth another, and then change his mind he shall do thus and so. Where then is the gentleman's general law in approval of polygamy?

The next passage is recorded in Deuteronomy xxv chap., and from the 5th to the 10th verses, referring to the preservation of families:

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her unto him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.

And it shall be, that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, 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 wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother:

Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

What is the object of this law! Evidently the preservation of families and family inheritances. And now I challenge the gentleman to bring forward a solitary instance in the Bible where a married man was compelled to obey this law. Take the case of Tamar! Certainly the brother that was to have married her could not have been a married man, because she had to wait until he grew up. Then take the case of Ruth. You know how she lost her noble Mahlon afar off beyond Jordan, and how she returned to Bethlehem, and goes to Boaz, a near kinsman, and demands that he shall marry her. Boaz says—"there is another kinsman. I will speak to him." It is asked—"Didn't Boaz know whether the nearer kinsman was married?" but yet that was not the business of Boaz. The divine law required that this man should appear at the gate of the city before the elders, and there either marry her or say that he was disqualified because he was already a married man; and there is no proof in the Bible that Boaz had been married; nay, more than this, old Josephus, the Jewish historian, asserts that the reason why the near kinsman did not marry Ruth was that he had a wife and children already, so I judge that this law, which is said to be general, is that that I laid down—"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another," etc. He refers me to Numbers xxxi, 17th and 18th verses.

Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

This passage has nothing whatever to do with polygamy. It is an account of the results of a military expedition of the Jews against the Midianites; their slaughter of a portion of the people, and their reduction of the remainder to slavery—namely the women for domestics. My friend dwells upon thirty-two thousand women that were saved! What were these among the Jewish nation—a people numbering two and a half millions?

He quotes Deuteronomy xxi, 10th and 13th verses:

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive;

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to 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 off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full mouth: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband and she shall be thy wife.

This passage is 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 it has to do with theft or murder. Not a solitary word is said about polygamy, no mention is made that the man is married, therefore every jurist will agree with me that where we find a general law we may judge a special enactment by the organic, fundamental principle.

He quoted Exodus xxii chap., 16 and 17, and Deuteronomy xxii, and 28 and 29:

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her 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 is said:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

My friend appeared to confound these two laws, as if they had reference to the same crime; but the first is the law of seduction, while the second was the law of rape. In both cases the defiler was required to marry his victim; but in the case of seduction, if the father of the seduced girl would not consent to the marriage, then the sum usual for the dowry of a virgin should be paid him and the offense was expiated. But what was the penalty of rape? In that case there is no ambiguity—the ravisher married his victim and paid her father fifty pieces of silver besides. But what has this to do with polygamy? He says it is a general law and applies to married men. This cannot be so, because it is in conflict with the great law of Leviticus xviii, 18.

I tell you, my friends, these are simple downright assumptions. The position is first taken, and therefore these passages are adduced to sustain that position; and this gentleman goes on to assume that all these men are married men. It is a tremendous fact, that if a man seduced a girl or committed a rape upon her, he was bound to marry that girl. It is a tremendous fact that the same law gives to the father the right of the refusal of his daughter, therefore the father has the power to annul God's law of marriage.

The next passage is the 2nd Chronicles, xxiv and 3rd, &c. It is the case of Joash the king, and when he began to reign Jehoiada was high priest. He was more than that—he was regent. My friend in portraying the character of this great man said that because he took two wives for King Joash, he was so highly honored that when he died he was buried among the kings. But the fact is, he was regent, and there was royalty in his regency, and this royalty entitled him to be interred in the royal mausoleum. All that is said in Chronicles is simply an epitome—a summing up, that King Joash had two wives. It does not say that he had them at the same time; he might have had them in succession. I give you an illustration: John Milton was born in London in 1609. He was an eminent scholar, a great statesman and a beautiful poet; and John Milton had three wives. There I stop. Are you to infer that John Milton had these three wives simultaneously? Why you might according to the gentleman's interpretation of this passage. But John Milton had them in succession. But more than this, for argument's sake grant the position assumed by my friend, then the numerical element of the argument must come out, and a man can only have two wives and no more. Do you keep that law here? And yet that is the argument and that is the logical conclusion.

The last passage my friend referred to was the 1st chapter of Hosea, and 2nd verse:

The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredoms, departing from the Lord.

That is, says Newcomb, a wife from among the Israelites, who were remarkable for spiritual fornication. My friend is so determined on a literal interpretation that he gives a literal interpretation, whereas this distinguished biblical scholar says that it was not literal fornication, but rather spiritual; in other words, idolatry; for in the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, idolatry is mentioned under the term fornication. God calls himself the husband of Israel, and this chosen nation owed him the fidelity of a wife. Exodus the xxxiv Chapter and 15th verse:

Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.

The 14th verse of the same chapter says:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God.

He therefore sees thee with indignation join thyself in marriage to one of those who had committed fornication or spiritual idolatry, lest they should raise up children, who, by the power of example, might lay themselves under the terribleness of idolatry. The prophet is directed to get a wife of whoredoms; and, after this, he is directed to go and love an adulterous woman. My friend cites these as examples where God makes an exception to a general law. He also cites the case of Abraham offering up his son Isaac, and the case of consanguinity, in Deuteronomy xxv, from 5th to 10th verse. Now the first three cases were merely typical; the first two were designed to set forth more impressively the relations between God and His people. The case of consanguinity has nothing to do with polygamy. It is only a modification or exception in special cases for the preservation of the families of Israel from extinction. Where, therefore, I ask, is the general law?

But my friend has forgotten this fact, that after having divorced the first wife for adultery, as he had a right to do, in chapter ii, 2nd and 5th verses, he is then directed to go and take another wife. This is not polygamy. It was represented to us here, yesterday, that this prophet, Hosea, was first commanded to take a woman guilty of adultery or fornication, and then to take an adulteress, and the representation was made that he took them and had them at the same time; whereas, if Mr. Pratt had read a little further, he would have found that the prophet divorced the first wife for adultery, and he had a right to do it; and after he divorced her, then he went and took a second wife.

Professor Pratt admits, mark you, admits that none of these passages, nor all of them together, can afford in this day a warrant for the practice of polygamy. Gives it up! Turns the Bible aside! I will read to you from his own words:

Supposing that we should prove by a thousand evidences from the Bible that polygamy was practised by ancient Israel, and was sanctioned by God in ancient days, would that be any reason that you and I should practise it? By no means. We must get a command independent of that, which we have received. God frequently repeats His commands, and His servants are required to obey His commands when they are given. The Latter-day Saints in this Territory practise polygamy not because the law of Moses commands it; not because it was extensively practised by the best of men we know of, mentioned in the Bible, the old patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob and others, who are saved in the kingdom of God. We have no right to practise it because they did it.

Then he yields the point! I respectfully ask him, if this is his position, why does he attempt, in all his writings, and to establish it in that clever book the Seer? Why did he, in his controversy with me in the New York Herald? Why has he from this stand attempted to prove that the practice of polygamy was right from the Bible? Why not, like a man, come out and say that we practise this system here, not because the Jews did it; not because the Divine law sanctioned it years ago; but because a certain man of the name of Smith received a revelation that this form of marriage was to be practised? You, my friends, can see the logical conclusion, or in other words the illogical bearing.

Now, I come to the assumptions by the gentleman. First, that there is no law condemning or forbidding polygamy. Has he proved that? Second, that the Hebrew nation, as it was in the wilderness, when the Mosaic code was given, was polygamous. Has he proved that? Can he find in the whole history of the Jewish nation, from the time they left Egypt to the time they entered the land of Canaan, can he find more than one instance of polygamy? Perhaps he may find two. I will be glad to receive that information, for I am a man seeking light, and to-day I throw down a challenge to your eminent defender of the faith, to produce more than two instances of polygamy, from the time the Jews left the land of Egypt to the time they entered Canaan. I will assist him in his research and tell him one, and that was Caleb. Now supposing that a murder should be committed in your city, would it be fair for Eastern papers to say that the Mormons are a murderous people? No, I would rise up in defence of you; I would say that that is a crime and an injury to the people here! Yet, during a period of forty years we find one man out of two millions and a half of people practising polygamy, and my friend comes forward and assumes that the Israelites were polygamists.

Third, that these laws were given to regulate among them an institution already existing. Has he proved that? Supposing he could prove that Moses attempted, or did legislate for the regulation of polygamy, as it did exist in Egypt and elsewhere, would such legislation establish a sanction? Why in Paris they have laws regulating the social evil; is that an approval of the social evil? There are laws in most of the States regulating and controling intemperance. Do excise laws sanction intemperance? Nothing of the kind. For argument's sake I would be willing to concede that Moses did legislate in regard to polygamy, that is to regulate it, to confine its evils; and yet my friend is too much of a legislator to stand here and assert that laws regulating and defining were an approval of a system.

Fourth, that these laws were general, applying to all men, married and unmarried. Has he proved that? I have proved to the contrary to-day, showing that in the passages which he quoted there is not a solitary or remote intimation that the men were married.

Now let us, in opposition to these assumptions, remember that monogamy was established by God in the innocence of the human race, and that polygamy, like idolatry, and slavery, blood revenge, drunkenness and murder came into existence after the apostasy of the human family, and that neither of these evils have any other origin so far as appears from the Bible than in the wickedness of man. We admit that polygamy existed among the corrupt nations, just as any other evil, or vice, or crime existed, and now when God had chosen the Hebrews for His own people, to separate them from the heathen, He gives them for the first time a code of laws, and especially on the subject of the commerce of the sexes. And what is the central principle of that code on this subject? Read Leviticus xviii, 18—"Neither shall a man take one wife unto another."

In this code the following things are forbidden: Incest, polygamy, fornication, idolatry, beastliness, &c.; we therefore deny that the nation was polygamous at that time, deny it definitely, deny it distinctly, and on another occasion I will give you the character of the monogamists and polygamists of Bible times. The Jews had been four hundred years in slavery, and they were brought out with a strong hand and an outstretched arm.

We, to-day, then challenge for the proof that as a nation the Jews were polygamous. One or two instances, as I have already remarked, can be adduced. We may say again that if, as he assumes, these laws were given to regulate the existing system, this does not sanction it any more than the same thing sanctions sheep-stealing or homicide. He said these laws were general, applying to all men, married or unmarried. Has he proved it? This is wholly gratuitous. There is no word in either of these passages which permits or directs a married man to take more than one wife at a time. I challenge the gentleman for the proof. It is no evidence of the sanction of polygamy to bring passage after passage, which he knows, if construed in favor of polygamy, polygamy must be in direct conflict with the great organic law recorded in Leviticus xviii, 18.

[At this point the umpires announced that the time was up.]