Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1864-01-05

!
Basbemalh and Mahalath. (Gen, XVI. "a, xviii
| 0, xxxv. 2. 81
II the descendants of Cain and Esau, however
be regarded as somewhat questionable sponsors
for the custom, all doubt as to its righteousness
is removed by the example Of the patriarch Ja-
cob, the blessed Of Heaven. His union with
Leah tnd Rachel is well known, as well as the
amiable 2eaI with which his wives supplied him
with supplementary consorts in the persons OF
their handmaidens, Billah and Zpah (Gen. xxx.
xxx J while the blessings subsequently promised
to him and to bis posterity show that the plurality
Of wives was sanctioned in the highest and most
direct manner.
Poygomy being thus divinely approved, it be-
came recognized part Of the domestic economy
Of the chosen people, as We learn from the dlrec;
rule established by the wisdom of God for Israel,
ON the very point in question.
4" II man have 70 wives, one beloved and an
other hated, and they have borne him children,
both the beloved and the hated and If the first
born ron De hers that was hated;
Then shall it be- when he msketh his son to
inherit that which he hath, that be shall not
make the son OF the beloved hst.born before the
son Of the hated, which is indeed the tirstbo
(Deut. xxi l5-l7)
With this law before bis eyes, what Christian
can believe that the Almighty attached immoral.
" or Tin to the condition Of polygamy, especially
when one may look in vain through the Mosaic
regulations Of marriage (Leuil, xsili.) for any
limitation on the number OF wives
The blessing youchsafed TO those who took to
d emselyes numerous consorts, and the lofty po.
'itons to which th'y arose show that in the eyes
Of God and man they were pure from sin and
worthy OF all honor.
1t is recorded Of TWO Judges Of Israel, lbzan and
Abdon, that the one had thirty sons and thirty
daughters, while the other had forty sons, show
ing coucusyely that their gynecea were abun-
dantly peopIed. (Judgs XII 8, 49, That the
Prophet Samuel the asked Of God--spnng
from a father, Elkanah the Leyite, who had two
wives q, Samuel j. is sufficient proof to those
who implously use the word bgamst as term
Of eontumey aud reproach.
David the man after Gods own heart, before
he Was thrty.seyen years OF age, had taken 10
vile Mchal, Abnoam, Abigail, Maacab, Haggi'h,
Abtal aud EgIah, III. Samuel ILL while be was
living with them all, God prospered him, and
made him king over Israel and judah, and the
Prophet Nathan announced 10 him the favor oi
the Lord, to hin apd to bis generation. Even
his ndIscreton in adding Bathsheba to the list,
vas readily plrdon,d and the Union was blessed
10 lhe birth Of solomon.
solomon, vlsest Of men, had seven hundred
wives, prncesses and three hundred concubnes
q. kings zi. 81 10 this he sacrificed himself to
the yinucaton OF the great principle Of PoBga.
my, ior the ,emrter easily found admiltinct
among such a multitude, and seduced him to fol-
low strange sods-a warning to Us all to be mod
crate, even IN what is right
Such, then, is tue institution Of poygamy, laid
down by the Lord God Of Israel for bis closer
people, and continued for fifteen centuries, unit
he new dspensaton Of ,hs Gospel. Wha
change did this produce ? grant, Of course
that We, as Christians, are bound by the precep
aud example Of the Saviour and bis apostles
Let US now, therefore, proceed to the all.mpor
tani inquiry whether We are authorized by thes'
10 presume that the Mosaic system was don,
away
First, then, we ask what the divine Redeeme
said 10 reference TO polygamy. And the ansWe
Is perfectly undeniabIe lie did uot alude to j
Al all. Not one word upon the subject is recor
ded By one Of the four EyangeIsts who gave hi
life and doctrines TO the world, even when he re-
pelrd the Mosaic iw Of divorce. (ndthep xix
ualx.) Yet polyglmy was 10 iull existence q
the tine throughout JTdea and among the scat
tered Jews Tor centuries later, as we learn iron
Justin Martyr fDial cttm Tryphous adj judo
Os lheophylaci Comment. in l. Epi,t. dd II
moth Even as lste as 1863, lheodosius th,
Great, iu,his ignorant zeal endeavored to put al
end TO II by law which was continued IN iorc
/. by Justnan in the sixth century (Cond Z Cod
Lib. l. 1T. ix) How prosperous would be th
present and how glorious the future Of Umh, j
The eloquent and pertinacous declamers sgains
p)Bgauy had been willing to follow their 81
yiouI'' example
But did Dot our Lord substantially repeal th
old law by the mere fact that he established
new dlspenuiion Certainly not, unless the
were Incompatible And, that he did not con
slder them incompatible is clearly proved by hi
own express decaraton.-" Think not saitI
he, "that | am come to destroy the law or th
prophets. | am not come to destroy, but to ful
ILL.," (uat. v H. On that point, therefore
t is single passage is perfectly conclusive.
7 But the precepts and the conduct Of St. Pau
himself the great apostle Of The Gen,iles, are all
= sufficient, because he meets the very point, an
.ette, the whole question. Not only do his al
y montons concerning marriage II. CorjaM. vii.
;, cJnlsiu no prohibition of poygamy, but in bis d
i rect.ons concerning the choice Of bishops, priest
o md deacons H. TIN. iii, 2.l2; TH i. g. Ia
specially requires them to be men Of one wifi,
j. thus tscitly but fully, alowinga plurality OF cor
e sorts to the laty the faithful.
IS The evidence Of the New Testament is thu
:, complete, plainly proving that the institution
pobgamy was not abolished by the Gospel Con
y pare now the course Of the ultra reformer wit
= that OF Christ and his inspired apostle The d
Is vine Redeemer openly rebukes the sanelimonioC
q phatisees. lie spares not the infiel SAdducee,
o lie denounces the hypoeritical Scribes He cal
n the royal Herod " that fox" lie censures st
's yerely the Jewish practice Of divorcing the
Al wives for the slightest cause. lie makes
l. scourge Of small cords and drives the buyers an
sellers out Of the temple. Yet he lived in tt
y midst Of polygamy, maintained in accordance wit
y the Mosaic law, and uttered not one word again
'r il. What proof can be stronger than this, thl
81 he did not regard il as morul sin And wha
d contrast can be more manifest than this examp
y Of Christ on the one hand, and the loud and bi
J. ter denunciatons of our anti-polygamy preacher
% and politicians, calling themselves Christians, o
d the other ? For they not ony set themseyt
'e against the word of God in this matter but
It str.nge to say--they do it in the very name
e that Saviour whose whole line Of conduct was II
81 very opposite Of their own.
Yet do not mean to charge the numerou
le and respectable friends Of this popular delusic
D. with a wfu or conscious opposition to the trut
They are seduced, doubtless, in the great majcl
ID " of cases, by the feelings Of false phiauthrop
which palliates if it does not excuse, their DANCE
't Gus error Living far away from Utah, with I
u prrccll experience Of the institution, and aocu,
D. toned from childhood TO attach an inordna