The daily Green Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1861-1865, 1863-12-29


OF cOntumely aud repr0ach.
David, the man after Gods own heart, before
be was thirty-sevea years OF age, had taken to
wife Michai, Ablnoam. Abigail, M4acin, tIagg b,
Abtal and fglah GIL. Samuel ny while he was
living with them all, God proepered him, and
made him king over Israel and judah, and the
Prophet Nathan announced TO MIN the favor of
the Lord to him and to his generation. Even
his ndscretion in adding Bathsheba to the list,
was readily pardontd, and the Union was blessed
in the birth Of Solomon.
Solomon, wisest Of men, " had seven hundred
wives, prncesses, and three hundred concubnes."
Il. kings x 81 10 this ne sacrificed himselfto
the vinncaton Of The great principle of polySa-
my, for the temrter easily found admittance
among such multitude and Seduced him to fol-
low strange godS-a warning TO Us all TO be mod
crate, even in what is light.
Such then, IS the institution of polygamy, laid
down by the Lord God of Israel for his chosen
people, and continued for fifteen centuries, until
he new dispensation of :hs Gospel. What
change did this produce ? grant, Of course,
that we, a. Christians, are bound by the precept
and example Of the Saviour aud his apostles.
Let US now, therefore, proceed to the all-impor-
tant inquiry, whether we are authorized by these
to presume that the Mosaic system was done
away.
First, then, We ask what the divine Redeemer
said in reference to polygamy. And the answer
is perfectly undeniaoe He did not alIude TO it
at all. NO. one word upon the SUBJ sct is recor-
ded By one Of the four Eydngests who gave lis
life and doctrine TO the world, even when he re,
pealed the Mosaic law Of divorce. (.uathetg Nix.
Mark 1.) Yet poygamy was 10 full existence at
the time throughout Jndea, and among the scat
tered Jews for centuries later, as we learn from
Justin Martyr (DiaL cum Iryphone adr. Jele-
os IheophyIac, Comment. IN l. Eplst, ad IL
moth Even as late as 500, The colossus the
Great, il his ignorant zeal, endeayored to Put an
end to i by a law which was continued N force
by Justin an in the sixth century (Coast ! Cod
Lib. l. Tit. jx.) How prosperous would be the
present aud how glorious the future OF Utah, il
the eloquent and pertinacious DISCLAIMERS against
polyg41y had been willing to follow their Sa-
vlour's example
But did not our Lord substantially repeal the
old law BIZ the mere hct that be established
new dispensaton ? Certainly rot, unless they
were incompatible. And, that he did not con-
slider them incompatible Is clearly proved by his
own express declaration, -" Think not, saith
be, " that / am come to destroy the Jaw or the
prophets. | am not come to destroy, bu. to full
ill.," (Nqt v H. Ga tnat point, therefore,
this single passage Is perfectly conclusive.
Blu. the precepts and the conduct of ST. Paul
himself, he great apostle OF the Gentiss, are all
sufficient, because he meels tire very point and
-ettles the whole question Not only do his
monitious concerning marriage Il. Cornth wiz
contain no prohibition OF poygany, but IN his d.
recl.ons concerning the choice OF bishops, priests
and deacons 4. TIN. iii. PIP; Til. i 81 lie
specially requires them to be men of one wife,
thus taclty but fully, allowing plurality Of con-
sorts to the laity the faithful.
The evidence of the New Testament is thus
comp.ete, plainly proving that the institution OF
Dolyeamy was not abolished by the Gospel. Com
pare now the course of the ultra reformer with
that OF Christ and his inspired apostle. The d.
vine Redeemer openly rebukes the sanctlmonious
Pharsees He spares not the infdel Sadducees
He denounces the hypocrucAl Scrlbes. lie calls
the ROYAL Herod d" that fox He censures Sc
verey the Jewish practice of dlvorclng their
wives for the slightest cause. lie makes a
scourge of small cords and drives the buyers and
sellers out of the temple. Yet he lived in the
midst of polygamy, maintained IN accordance with
the Mosaic law, and uttered not one word against
it. What proof can be stronger than this, that
he did not regard it as moral sin Aud what
contrast can be more manifest than this example
CT CETlSL on lne one manu. anu TIC lOuu anu Ul
ter denunciations of our anti-polygamy preachers
and politicians, calling themselves Christians, on
the other For they not ony set themselves
against the word of God in this matter, but
strange to say-they do it in the very name of
that Saviour whose whole line of conduct was the
very opposite of their own.
Yet | do not mean TO charge the numero us
and respectable friends of this popular deusion
with wilful or conscious opposition to the truth.
They are seduced, doubtless, in the great majcri-
ty of cases. by the feelings Of false philanthropy
which palIlales if it does not excuse, their danger
Gus error Living far away from Utah, with no
prrccAl experience of the institution, and sccus-
toned from childhood to attach an inordinate
value to the individuality fthe domestic relation,
they are naturally disposed to compassionate the
Utah wives, and to suppose that they must be
supremely wretched in their subdivision of a hus-
band s affection. They are under no special in
ducement to search the Scriptures on this par!c.
ular subject, nor are they in general, am sorry
to say, accustomed to study the Bible half as
much as they read the newspaper, the novel, and
the magazine.
Thus the mistaken bgotry OF the community
acting through the time-serving pancy of poll
tcians, has dishgured our statute books with law:
which place ban upon this patriarcha institu
ton. Noble Christian souls in our midst, yearn
ing to revert to the hallowed rites OF old are
obliged TO practice them coverty, and under the
opprobrious name OF OlgamiSts are tracked anC
prosecuted as felons, martyred like the primitive
Christians under necus aud Docletian. Wher