North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1863-08-12

other masters slaves to Mamrnon; slaves to ambi-
ton slaves to lust slaves to ntemperance; slaves
TO a thousand forms of anxious care and perplexy
slaves at best TO pride and worldly decorum, and
slaves to circumstances which they have con-
troll And they are compelled to labor without ceas-
ing under some or MI of these despotic rulers, at
tn, secret wilt of that spiritual rask-m master whose
boniage does end at deaih but continues to
| nifty. @'a'a3
The sixth objection arises from the fact that slave
ry separates the husband from the wife and the pa
rents from their children Undoubtedly it some
! times does so, from necessity. Before adopt
this fact however az an argument against slavery,
1t is only fair to inquire whether the same separate
does not take place, perhaps quite as frequently
amongst those who call themseIvet free The labor
! ing man who hasa largo family is always obliged to
separate from his children because it IS impossible
to support them in his humble home. They are
sent to service therefore, to this master and an
other to that, or bound as apprentices as the case
may be- ami thus the domestic relations are super
seled y strangers for tho most part beyond recoVe-
rvs So among the lower orders, the husbands are
separated from their wives by the same necessity
How ma ny, of the better classes have lett tnel
homes to seek their fortune in the gold regions =
! How many in Europe have aban1 ned their taml-
lies for Australia the United States, or the AN
I aias! How many desert them from pure wicked
ness-a crime which can hardly happen under thr
! Southern system But above all, how constantly
does this separation take place amongst soldiers
and saiors so that neither foreign comm cree
! could bo carried on at all without it All these
are borne by fresmsn, under the slarery Of circum
! T., ~ typiso tn lAall
y in one form when we are forced to submit to it in
SO many other kinds OF the same infection
There is only one other argument which occurs to
me, re quirng notice, AM that is based upon the
erroneous notion that the laws of God, under the
/ Mosaic disp9nsaton, allowed polygamg we'll as
slavery; and therefore, it is inferred that the legs
lation of the Oh Testament is Of authority upon
the subject but as the Gospel dil away the first,
also it should do away the other,
The facts here are misunderstood and the infer
ence is without any real foundation Let us look at
the mater as it explained by the Saviour himself
! The Phorisees came to him. tempting him, and
saying unto him: Is it lawful for man to put
away his wife for every cause &? And he answered
and said unto them: Have We not read that he
which made them at the beginning made them male
and female and said, for this shall man
leave father and mother and shall cieave to his
wife, and they twain shall be flesh? Where
fore they are no more twain bat one flesh. What,
therefore, God hath joined together let no man put
asunder They say uato him Why did Moses then
command 10 give a writing CT enforcement, and pat
ber away? He saith unto them Misses because of
the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away
your wives, but from the beginning it not So
!. =
wife except it he for fornication, AMI shall marry
another. committe h adultery" Matt 10: 3-9.)
Now, here our Lord planl, lays down the original
Law of marriage, referring expressly to Alan AMI
Eve, one man AMI one woman declared to be on:
flesh, and adding tn command, TYtat God hath
joined together let no man put asunder. But it Ia
evident that poygamy must, Of necessity, inerf re
with this divine union. The tlcai can longer be
one flesh when another wife is brought between
them because the new wife must deprive the former
one os her exclusive rights and privileges, and the
husband destroys the very unity which God design
ed in joining them together. The doctrine of our
Saviour therefore, res'ores the law OF marriage to
its original sancty and the apostles, accord ngly
always speak of the wife in the singular number, in
instance appearing to contemplate the possibility
of the Christian having wives than one while,
in the case of bishop St Paul specifies it as an es-
sential condition that be shall be the husband of
one wife Il Tim. 3: p
But how had the chosen people been allowed for
so many centuries to practice polygamy and divorce
their wives for the slightest cause ? Our Lord ex
plains 1t by saying that Noses suffered them to put
away their wives because of the hardness of their
hearts The special questions addressed to him by
the Pharisees did lot indeed refer to poygamy, bnt
only to the liberty ef divorce for at that time 1t
sfoud seem that the practice of polygamy had well
nigh ceasd in Jltdea, and it is certainly not counte-
4 nanced bv the Jewish laws at his day. The prnci-
ple however, is precisely the il the two cases.
Dissatisfaction with the present vito and desire for
another, were the cause of action in both and when
.i the husband did not wish to be burdened by the
murmurs or the support OF his old companion, he
would naturally prefer to send her away, in order to
y make room for her successor. We see then, how
readily this facility of divorce became the mode in
which the Jews of that day sought for the gratica-
ton of their copr cious attachments instead of the
more extensive and trorbelome System of polygamy
And hence our Lord applied the rcrnely, where II
was specially required by torbding divorces unless
for the weghtiest cause, such adultery Yet this
was no change in the divine arrangem ert, which had
been the same from the beginning. He expressly
declares on the contrary that the latitue assumed
by the Israetes Indulgence granted by
Moses on account of the hardness of their hearts
ard this is a very different thing fr2m an authotita
tive decree Of tn Almighty.
1t surely there fore manifest from this language
of our @&iour that God had given any direci
sanction to poIygamy. Doubtless, as We must infe
from many parts of the Old Testament it had become
common among the Israelites, who suppos:ng them
selves justified by the case of Jacob, had probably
adopted it in so many Instances that Noses did mol
think safe or prudent to put it down, lest
evils might follow, unless he constrained to dc
D so by the positive comm nd Of the Almighty. AL
that be truly stated, therefore, is, that such
positre command was given and the Deity left the
human lar giver use his own discretion in the mat