| OCR Text |
Show 51 Bust1ned; but euppos1ns on the other han, that Bible. as it is nov, to.-flay. does not sanction 'the th re. have SUFJta1nd the nags t1ve polygamy, the que a t1on. of " .!n his first arrlrmatl.e speeoh Pratt did not throughout this define the terms in the question. expl10itly Ln his seoont1 speeoh h$ acoepts the def'1nltlofts and La ie1 out ot first ·apeeoh the by Net. man Blbl s in his opening 1l1'eech ,3 own K1ng James version. e1ther th. The detlnl tlon. tbe or "'" Hebrew 1s mnde in the oond.1tiot'U1' (}f the debf,ttes. 4 Netn\an In biB ffJ.,,.,toh •. The term re1 terntss thl a fhtlnl tlon 1 defined by N8wmn 1n this fashion; original laogt1gQ anot\9n ! By the t&rm sanot1,on we mean cca-: mand, oonsquent11 the:uthorlty of po_1t1ve, written, divine l'\.'f or whatever I.Ha1 be reasonabl.y halfl as equlvaltnt to such law. By mloh we mean, as it nov 111 that ls the Blbl taken 8$ a The question is not Did· the Bible formerly tliflol$. But leather, Does 1 t, s,t the sanotion Poly(am11 (; v:reant day J !autholf.e a.nd eatabl1en and approve 1 t, • t • . • The polygamy 1s term for the proper 1')0 lYeyny NeW6 term usetl t • throughout the. d.ebatee as a substitute (J,enot1ng ,he pae,.t16.;e o·f pl\U'al wifery, 6 t Prese,· i , B rg; ,!l 'o!me:!$ tg;t!l :e: used the text of the speeohes. found in this voluw9 throughout the thesis. He has oompared the tel!t in thl tJ book. with the stenogrB.phl0 reports apptMrlri€ 1n the 12t!!fttl:;: !{.'I an·d has found them t6 be Identical. ' .. ' , . Ib1d., pp. 9-30. 48e8 p. 39' above. 5mi.'bl nd PgIII"reX, p 6ll21sl., p.' 21.' , £0, |
