How shall we deal with Hindu & Mahammadan Enquirers and Converts who have more than one Wife ? ^ BY The Rev. J. J. LUCAS, PRESBYTERIAN MISSION, ALLAHABAD. Reprinted from the “Indian Euangelical Review ” April 1886. Calcutta Advertiser Press. HOW SHALL WE DEAL WITH HINDU & MUHAM- MADAN ENQUIRERS AND CONVERTS WHO HAVE MORE THAN ONE WIFE ?* BY THE REV. J. J. LUCAS, PRESBYTERIAN MISSION, ALLAHABAD. T his question has not received that attention from’ the Missionary body in India which its practical import- ance demauds. Living as we do in a land where polygamy prevails, and has the sanction of both Hinduism and Maho- medanism, as well as the still stronger sanction of public opinion, treated neither as a sin nor a violation of social law and family life, it is strange that the Missionary bodies have not spoken out their opinion more clearly and widely than they have. That this is so, will appear from the fact, that there is not even the slightest reference to the subject in the published proceedings of the great Missionary Con- ferences which have been held at Allahabad, Calcutta, and Bangalore. The only Missionary body which has considered the subject, so far as I have been able to ascertain, was the Panjab Conference in 1862.-f* That this question ought to be thoroughly discussed and definitely answered is evident; first, because of the great diversity of views and practice among Missionaries, some- times of the same Mission, and laboring side by side; second, because the baptism of even one such convert commits, in a measure, the whole Missionary body to the recognition of him as a Christian ; third, because a divided and contradic- tory testimony as to the teaching of the word of God on this subject, is to be deplored ; and fourth, because this question may become a very practical and serious one with every Mis- sionary at any day. In fact, just now, within the bounds of one small mission are two such converts, of whose sincerity the Missionaries have no doubt and whom they are ready to baptize, were it not that they are restrained by eccle- siastical authorit)'. One of these Missionaries writing to me of one of the converts, a man who goes about the country proclaiming Christian truth, says : — “ I am glad you have taken the matter up. I wish that it might be settled for * A paper read at the Meeting of the Allahabad Missionary Conference, November 16th, 1885. + The Calcutta Missionary Conference of May 1883, gave an evening to the discussion of this subject, as will be seen from the I. E. R., Vol. X. p. 43 ; and the Baptist Missionary Conference, which met in Calcutta in 1884, passed formal resolutions on it, as will be seen from I. E- R,, Vol, XL p. 374. ( 2 ) the whole of India. I wish I knew what to do with the case I have in hand. On the one side the General Assem- bly, and on the other my inclinations, and I believe, the word of God.” One of the oldest Missionaries of the C. M. S. writes : — “If I were not bound to obey the Church Missionary Society’s order, I should allow such candidates for baptism to retain their wives and baptize them, if I believed them to be sincere,” In some missions such converts have been baptized, retaining their wives. Only recently the members of the Madura mission decided to baptize polygamists, pro- vided they had contracted their marriages in ignorance, and there was no equitable way of securing a separation. The Independent, one of the leading religious papers of the U. S. A., approved this decision. The action of the mission, however, has been disapproved by the Boai'd in Boston. In commenting on this action of the Board, the Rev. J. P. Jones writes, in a recent number of the Indian Witness, that the old policy of the mission, which refused baptism to such candidates, must be reversed sooner or later. Not long ago, a Missionary lost two or three villages by refusing to baptize a head man, the husband of two wives. Of course, such men use all their influence in favour of the mission which receives and recognizes them as Christians. In communicating to me the above fact, one of the oldest Baptist Missionaries in India writes : — “ Such cases as the above have led me to wait for more light before expressing myself as positively as I have done for 37 years.” In view of the above facts, it may not be untimely for us to consider this subject, trying to find an answer to the question, whether such candidates should be baptized or not ? In the Punjab Conference, Col. Sir Herbert Edwardes read a paper on the subject of “ Polygamy and Divorce,” taking very decided ground, that no man with more than one wife should be baptized. On the other hand, in the same Conference, the Rev. C. E. Hadow, then Chaplain of Lahore, read a paper urging the baptism of such candidates, when convinced of their sincerity. His words are these : — “ Whatever else you make an obstacle, do not make the Jact of polygamy an insuperable objection to receiving a believer into the Christian Church. Regaid it in the same way as you would any other misfortune or untoward circum- stance, entailed by the religion in which he was educated ; but do not let your first act be to teach him to ignore ( S ) the civil and moral obligations he contracted before his conversion.” A very interesting discussion ensued on the reading of these papers. Perhaps I ought not to say discussion, inas- much as 10 of the 12 speakers gave their voice in favour of the views advocated by Mr. Hadow, and Sir Herbert Edwardes was left almost alone to defend his paper. It may be of interest to give the names of those who sided with Mr. Hadow in the discussion. They were Sir Donald McLeod ; Major McLeod Innes, v. C. ; R. N. Oust, Esq., C. S. ; Captains Pollock and McMahon ; the Rev. W. Ferguson, of the Church of Scotland ; and the Rev. Messrs. Levi Janvier, C.W. Forman, Goluk Nath, and David Herron of the American Presby- terian Church. I give here an abridgment, in their own words, of the arguments these brethren urged in favor of admitting polygamous converts to the Church. Mr.Cust said, “that more than once Missionaries had applied to him on subjects of this kind, and that his invariable reply had been, that the native Christian could not be allowed to break his contract. Both polygamy and divorce turn on the law of contracts. If a convert be allowed to repudiate his previous contract of marriage, he might be tempted to repudiate his debts also The proposal to put away all but the first wife will not meet the difficulty: the second wife may be the mother of his children ; the third wife may be willing to become a Christian with him ; they must accompany him, if willing, wherever he goes ; and he cannot be called upon to put away any.” Captain McMahon said : — “ It seems to me that the whole spirit of the Bible teaches us, that he who causes another to commit adultery, thereby commits adultery himself. When therefore, a man casts away the wives of his youth, on the plea, that because he has become a Christian, they are no longer his wives, and when acting on this view he drives forth from his house those whom he has bound himself to love and to cherish, he thereby causes them to commit adultery. He exposes them to temptation, which in the present state of native society, there is no likelihood of their resisting.” The Rev. Goluk Nath said: — “ that in one or two cases he had baptized polygamists. The only advise he gave them was to maintain all their wives, not to cast them out upon the world.” Sir Donald McLeod said : — " We know that under the Jewish dispensation, polygamy was tolerated by the ( 4 ) Almighty Himself, in compassion, doubtless, to His frail, erring people ; and I cannot but think, that in the state of things we find here, it is incumbent on us to evince the same forbearance towards those who have acted in ignorance of God’s laws. However painful, therefore, it may be, and necessarily would be, to the Christian convert to live with more than one wife, especially if any or all be unconverted, yet I regard it as his duty to do so,” &c. The Rev. C. W. Forman said : — “ We could suppose that some convert, having more wives than one, might con- cientiously refuse to put away any of them ; and he thought, that in such a case it would be an act of oppression, to insist upon his acting contrary to his conscience, or foregoing the privileges of baptism,” &c. The Rev. D. Herron said : — “ I wish to mention a case. A man professing to be a Christian requested baptism. He was deemed worthy to be received into the community of the Church. He had, however, two wives. His first wife, then an old woman, never had any children. She, I believe, had urged her husband to take the second wife. He had five or six children by the second marriage. The first wife seemed to love the children as their mother did. Which of these wives, then, should be put away ? The second question we answered in the negative ; we did not require him to put away either of his wives. We took this course, because we believed it to be the one recommended by Apostolic example. We believe it to be taught inferentially by the passage in Timothy : ‘ A bishop must be the husband of one wife.’ ” The Rev. Levi Janvier said : “ There is reason to believe there were Church members in Apostolic days, with more wives than one. But the Apostolic teachings show us that such were under a kind of han ; thus aiming most distinctly at an eventual restoration of the divine plan, of one wife only. Perhaps we can carry out this plan in the rising India Church.” The Rev. W. Ferguson, Church of Scotland, said : “ The Bible nowhere teaches that a polygamist may not be received into the Church. Leave the matter to the convert himself. It is his conscience that is to be satisfied on the point. Tolerate it where it cannot be avoided.” Nor are these brethren, whose words I have quoted, alone or even in a minority in the Missionary body in India. I sent to more than sixty Missionaries, representatives of different missions, the following question : — “ Would you under any ( ) circumstancps baptize a convert with more than one wife, allowing him to retain his wives?” and to this question came back an answer in the afiSrmative from the great majority. In fact, Missionaries of seven Missionary Societies answered that they would baptize such candidates, if convinced of their sincerity, allowing them to retain their wives. Some of these Missonaries have baptized such converts, while others have been deterred by the rules of their Missionary Societies, The carefully considered opinion of Missionaries of acknowledged ability and long experience is not to be set aside lightly. That I may do them no injustice in contro- verting their views, and that we may have clearly and fairly before us, the reasons which have led them to answer my question in the affirmative, I shall quote from some of the letters I have received, and then attempt to reply. The Rev. J. Newton, Senior, writes : — “ A candidate for baptism, having two or more wives, ought tiot, in my opinion, to be required to put any of them away : because, (1) though monogamy may he inferred from Scripture, and from nature and experience too, to be the divinely appointed order, there is no positive command for it in either the Old or New Testament, while there are examples of polygamy in the Old Testament, which God does not seem to have disapproved, which at all events He tolerated, and which did not separate those who practised it from communion with Him ; (2) what is said in the New Testament about a Bishop’s not being allowed to have more than one wife, that is, a man’s not being eligible to that office, if he had more wives than one (and the same of a Deacon), seems to imply that converted polygamists might be admitted to membership in the Church, though they were not the persons who should be selected to fill sacred offices.” Mr. Newton gives an account of three men, each having two wives, who professed to be believers : one of them was baptized with Mr. Newton’s approval, and is now a member of the Church in good standing, though retaining both his wives : “ one died many years ago, professedly in the faith of Christ. The other is still living apparently just outside the Kingdom : be is now an old man.” The Rev. Geo. Bowen of Bombay writes : — ” If no other arrangement can be made compatably with the best interests of all parties, I would, in view of the evidence furnished by Titus i. 6, and 1 Tim. iii. 2, that such were received to the Apostolic Church, though excluded from official positions, ( 6 ) baptize a party of wliose piety, I had no doubt, though he had married more than one wife in heathenism.” The Rev. J. F. Ullmann writes : — “ It (polygamy) was tolerated in the Apostolic Church as an evil which would gradually rectify itself. The Apostles left such a point to the persons themselves to do what they thought right under the circumstances. Young Missionaries will, for the most part, decide against baptizing such an enquirer. I thought the same way 42 years ago when I was a young and in- experienced Missionary, and I found the cold legal way of looking at the question the easiest, until I had to deal with such a case practically.” Mr. Ullmann then gives an account of the baptism of an enquirer who had two wives. The Rev. Dr. Bissell of Ahmednagar writes : — “ I have often met with cases of enquirers or candidates for baptism who had two wives. In the early part of my Missionary life I should have said — did say — to such men, ‘ You must put away one of your wives before I can baptize you.’ After- wai’ds I learned the difficulties which encompass the ques- tion. Both of the women were his legal wives, and there was no laAV of divorce. The ‘ putting away’ would, therefore, be simply an enforced separation, the separated wife still being his legal wife. Then it generally appeared that the second wife was the mother of his children, while the first had none. The reason for taking a second wife is, in the majority of cases, because the first wife is barren, or her children are girls, or they have died in childhood. In view of these difficulties, I began to doubt whether I had a right to insist that a man should send away his second wife and all his children, as a condition of baptism. He must of course provide her with a separate house, and still support her and her children. Few of them have the means of doing this, or it is with them a struggle for life, even when all live together. To insist upon this nearly impossible step as a condition of baptism, becomes in effect a refusal to receive him to the Church 1 have in two instances baptized men with two wives. By baptizing them with instruction as to the nature of this relation, and what is required by the teachings of Christ, we only allow it in the Church under protest.” I think I have now stated fairly and fully all the argu- ments in favor of baptizing converts with more than one wife. I now turn to state the other side. I. — And, first ( 7 ) the Scriptures do forbid polygamy and enjoin monogamy. This is questioned by some,* but I think the proof is ample. (1.) The creation of one man and one woman shows this. From the beginning to the present the births of male and female have been equal : so by original creation and the numerical equality of the sexes, the Creator has most emphatically made known His will, that a man should have only one wife. That this is the true interpretation of God’s creating one man and one woman, our Lord clearly teaches in Mark x. 6-11. His words are — “But from the begin- ning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. And they twain shall be one flesh ; so then they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter. And He saith unto them, whosoever shall put away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery against her.” It is to be remembered that according to these words the adultery does not consist in putting aw’ay one’s wife. That would not be adultery, though it might be cruel and unjust in the extreme, but the adultery consists in taking a second wife while the first is still living. There is no escaping the conclusion from these words, that every man taking a second wife during the lifetime of the first, is guilty, in the sight of God, of adultery, unless he has put away the first for causes named in Matt. v. 32, and 1 Cor. vii. 15. If it is sin in him to take a second wife while the first is living, though she be separated from him for causes other than those mentioned in Matthew and Corinthians, is it not even a greater sin to take a second wife while the first is living with him faithful to all her marriage vows ? The question now before us is not whether he has done this in ignorance, un- conscious of sin ; nor yet, whether having bound himself to two wives, he can justly and legally release himself from his obligations to them. The real question is. What do the Scriptures teach concerning his act ? Remember that his conscience is not the standard by which we are to judge ; nor his present unhappy position the standpoint from * Rev. E. P. Newton of Ludiana writes .• “ It (polygamy) was divinely permitted during a period of three or four thousand years. Furthermore ' it is nowhere forbidden even in the New Testament.” The Rev. G. H. Ferris of Kolhapur writes .• “ There is not a single direct command in the whole Bible against polygamy, Where is the poly- gamist ever censured because he is a polygamist?” ( 8 ) which we are to view the question. The word of God furnishes the only standard, and to it we must turn for an answer. Many men, good men too, have made alliances forbidden by the word of God, without any consciousness of sin at the time. But while this will be considered when their actions are weighed, it does not alter the fact that, in the eyes of God, they are living in sin. The original law of marriage, as instituted by God, forbids a man to have more than one wife, and a woman to have more than one husband. If it is ever justifiable for a man to have two wives, it is by parity of reasoning justifiable for a woman to have two husbands ; and so polyandry is as scriptural as polygamy, God has never annuled this original law of monogamy. Our Lord reiterated it, and it is not for His Church to annul or ignore it : nor is it for her to recognize as twain whom He does not. Even if it be contended that this original law of marriage was ignored or set aside by the law of Moses, allowing divorce in certain cases, yet we reply, (1) that tlie Mosaic law nowhere recognizes, approves, or provides for polygamy : (2) that law only tolerated divorces on account of the hard- ness of the heart of man and to prevent greater evils, (this is our Lord’s answer to those who would make Moses justify their violation of God’s law) : (3) that the Mosaic law is not binding where the laws are local or national : (4) surely the Christian Church in the 19th century should take a higher stand than the Church in the wilderness, just released from the slavery of Egypt. I now turn to consider the passages in Timothy and Titus quoted by nearly every one who approves the admission of polygamists into the Church. The verses read — “ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach ; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous ; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity ; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God ? Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” 1 Tim. iii. 2-12, And so Paul writiog to Titus (i. 5, 6,) gives substantially the same directions : — “ Ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee : if any be blameless. ( 9 ) the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not ac- cused of riot, or unruly,” &c. It is claimed that these verses teach that there were in the Apostolic Church men who had more than one wife, and that such men were admitted to all the privileges of Church membership, save that they were debarred, by this injunction of the Apostle Paul, from holding the offices of Bishop or Presbyter and Deacon * In reply to this we say, (1) This is only an inference. The Apostle does not say here or elsewhere, that men with two wives were members of the Church or were to be admitted. If the name of a single polygamist member of the Apostolic Church could be given, or if elsewhere there were directions as to the way such members were to be treated, then the inference from this verse would not be so hard to accept. Considered as a mere inference, we cannot accept it unless we are shut up to it by sound exegesis, and unless it be supported by other passages. But (2) this interpretation is not only an inference, unsupported by other passages, but it proves far too much, and that in several ways. (1). It proves not only that polygamists were members of the Apostolic Church, but polyandrists were also ; for in giving the qualifications of Deaconesses in this same Epistle to Timothy, Paul says she should have been ‘ the wife of one man.’ If the words ‘the husband of one wife’ can oniy mean that there were men in the Church with two or more wives ; then, by parity of reasoning, we may say that the words ‘ the wife of one man’ mean that there were women in the Church with two or more husbands. If the one inference is legiti- mate, so also is the other. (2.) But again Paul says, the ‘ Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, not given to wine, no striker, not a brawler,’ &c. If the direction that a Bishop must be the husband of one * The Rfiv. Lai Behari Dey of the Free Church of Scotland writes to me on this point : — “ I am of opinion, that when the Apostle Paul says in 1st Tim. iii. 2, that an episcoptis or ■presbyter must be the husband of one wife, he doss not refer to successive marriages, but to simultaneous poly- gamy. This seems to me to be the natural meaning of the words. It was also the interpretation of the earliest Fathers, and from the practice of the majority of Christian ministers in modern times, I infer that they bold this interpretation. If this interpretation be correct, it is plain that in the primitive Church there were converts, both from Judaism and heathenism, who had more than one wife. And if the Apostles admitted such candidates into the Church, who are we that we should refuse to them the water of baptism ?” ( 10 ) wife, means that a private member may have two or more, then also, by parity of reasoning, the private member may not only have a plurality of wives, but also be a diunkard, a striker, a brawler, &c. Surely this inference proves too much. But (3) the Apostle is not in his letters to Timothy and Titus treating of marriage, polygamy or divorce, but of the qualifications of Church ofiicers. It is not in harmony with the rules of sound exegesis to draw the inference that the Apostle sanctioned polygamy, from words spoken in reference to an entirely different subject. If he held that polygamy did not debar from Church privileges, we ought to find the proof of this in those passages where he is treating of marriage and the relation of husband and wife in the Church. Now it is significant, that in such passages there is not so much as a hint that there was a single polygamist in the Church, nor is there the slightest evidence that he sanctioned the admission of such. The Church at Corinth was perhaps the weakest of the Churches founded by the Apostles. The Corinthian Christians had been dug out of a horible pit and the miry clay, and among them we might expect to find, if anywhere, polygamous Christians. In his Epistle to the Corinthian Christian.s, the Apostle writes minutely and at their request (I. Cor vii. 1,) concerning their diverse marriage relations, giving directions how they should act in each case. And yet, throughout this Epistle, and particularly throughout the 7th chapter, he never most distantly or indirectly alludes to polygamy. Had there been such Christians, is it reasonable to .'•uppose he would have remained silent ? Would not the evils and difficulties, and anomaly of such cases in the Christian Church, have called forth words of advise and exhortation ? In a letter from the Rev. D. Herron, he writes “ I do not think slavery was abolished in the early days of Chris- tianity in a forciljle manner. I believe that both slave- holders and slaves were received into the communion of the Church by the rite of baptism. But the spirit and teach- ing of our religion both forbade men entering into that relation. So I think it was with polygamy." To this we answer ; — (1) Slavery and polygamy are two different things. The Scriptures never speak of them in the same way. Hence, to draw an inference from the way the Scriptures deal with the one, as similar to the way they deal with the other, is illogical. ( 11 ) (2) The Scriptures do recognize slave-holders as mem- bers of the Church. Paul addressed a special letter to a Christian slave-holder, sending it by the band of the slave, in which he advises, not commands, the liberation of the slave on account of special services rendered to the Apostle by this slave. (3) All through the Epistles slavery is recognized as existing among Christians. Some were masters and some were slaves, and instructions are given repeatedly to both master and slave. To establish an analogy between slavery and polygamy, it is necessary to adduce passages showing that the Apostles recognized polygamists as Christians, aud gave them instruction concerning their duties to their respective wives, Nos. 1, 2, 3, as the case might be. The analogy fails at every point, aud so the inference from it is invalid. But to resume. Everywhere in this Epistle to the Corin- thians, the Apostle assumes that each Christian had but one wife. That this is the case, let us quote a few verses from the 7th chapter of 1st Corinthians —a chapter in which the Apostle is treating of the subject of marriage, answering questions and resolving practical diflSculties in the marriage relation referred to him by the Corinthian Christians, as the first wmrds of the chapter show “ Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Verse 2 : — “Let not the husband put away his wife” ('not wives). Verse 11 : — “ If any brother hath a wife ( not wives) that believpth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” Verse 12: — “Art thou bound to a wife (not wives) seek not to be loosed.” Verse 27, &c. In this Epistle Paul hesitates not to speak plainly against many forms of evil permitted by the Church at Corinth. We think it not an unwarrantable inference, that had any of the Corinthian Christians been polygamists he would not have failed to note and give directions concerning it. His silence throughout this Epistle justifies the conclusion that no polygamist had been admitted to the Church. Nor is the assumption, that polygamy was common among the Jews and Romans, warranted by the facts of history. In fact, polygamy was forbidden by Roman law,* and the proof is wanting that it was common among the Jews in Christ’s *“ Among the Homeric Greeks we have not the slightest trace of polygamy.” — Gladstone’s Juventus Mundi, p, 410. ( 12 ) time. Divorce was common enough both among Jews and Romans, and it is against this our Lord had to speak, and warn his disciples on more occasion than one. But divorcing a wife without sufficient cause is quite a ditferent sin from that of polygamy. I think no one can read the teaching of our Lord and his Apostles in reference to marriage, its sacredness, its binding force between twain, and only twain, the impossibility of its being severed, save for one reason, without coming to the conclusion that their teaching on these points would be neutralized, if not nullified by their allowing polygamists to become disciples, and that too, without a w'ord of instruction as to tbeir reception, and bow to deal with them ; not a word as to the possible evils of admitting such, and so enjoining care and caution ; not a word of any kind in fact, except to say that they should not be selected for the highest offices of the Church. This fact of itself ought to lead ns to look for another, and more satisfactory interpretation of the passages in Timoihy and Titus. And if we can find an interpretation, which the words will bear, bringing these passages into harmony with the uniform teaching of our Lord and His Apostles elsew'here, and in harmony as well with the inner spirit of the whole Gospel, we ought to accept such an interpretation. Bishops Ellicott and Words- worth, and Deaa§ Alford, Olshausen and Wiesinger, have found a meaning in the words which frees us from the necessity of admitting that only bishops or Presbyters were to have one wife each, while other Christians might have two or more. These foremost scholars contend that the words of the Apostle simply mean that the Bishop or Presbyter should not have been married more than once. The advice of the Apostle to Timothy and Titus, according to this interpretation, is, that in looking out proper men for these high offices, they should select men who had not been married again and again. The fact of the widower taking wife after wife indicating to the Apostle some lack of the necessary qualifications for high office in the Church. The Greek or Russian Church also puts this interpretation on these verses, requiring the Priests to be married men, but forbidding them to marry a second time. Dr. C. Hodge thus interprets the passage in Titus : — “ If any is at this present time ‘ the husband of one wife,’ it is the present state and character of the man that are to be taken into account. He might before have been unmarried, or even a ( 13 ) polygamist, but when ordained, he must, if married at all, be the husband of but one woman.” While I am not prepared to accept either of these as the true exegesis of the verses, yet I think them far nearer the tnuli and far less repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel than the interpretation allowing men to enter the Church, retaining a plurality of wives, without a word of protest or dissent, and stranger still, without a word of instruction or caution. The interpretation which presents fewest diffi- culties to my miml, and which is not out of harmony vrith the teaching of our Lord and the who’e New Testamenc is this ; — The Apostle is exhorting Timothy and Titus to be careful what kind of men they place over the young Churches. Mistake here, he knew, would be fatal to growth and success. The pure, blameless life of the preacher, especially his home life in the midst of a corrupt people, would do much to commend the Gospel he pi cached, and be the unanswerable argument to many a cavil. Hence, the Apostle in immediate connection with the advise that the Bishop and Presbyter should be the husband of one wife, speaks of his ruling “well his own household, having his children in subjection tvith all gravity, fir if a man know not how to rule his own liouse, how shall ho take care of the Church of God or as it reads in Titus: — “If any he blameless, the husband ef one vv’fe, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly,” &c. In other words, the candidate for Church offices must be a man whose home life would betir close inspection. The Apostle, with his knowledge of society in the cities where the Churches were founded, knew that a man, however qualified in other respects, who before his conversinn, as a Jew or a Gentile, had had a plurality of wives, or had put away one or more of them according to the lax laws prevailing, could never be an example to the flock, more especially it he had with him the children of the divorced wives; their veiy presence in his family would testify to the pa«t irregularity of ids life, and also naturally tend to make discord by their con- flicting claims and infelicitous union in one family. Such a man, urges the Apostle, a man of many wives in the past, and as a consequence, perhaps not altogether blameless even in the eyes of the lax law and jiractice of the day, is not the man to rule in the Church. Seek rat lier the man “blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children,” the man of few worldly entanglements, and whose divorced wives and ( 14 ) children would not bring confusion to his household and shame to the Church of wliich he was Bishop, Perhaps this interpretation may seem fanciful to some, but the more it is studied, the more it will, I believe, commeml itself, I. First. — It fits in with the meaning of 1 Tim, v. 9, where the Apostle says, that great care should be taken in enrolling widows as Deacone'Ses, Such widows should liave “ been the wdfe of one man.” Her former life, like that of the Bishop and Deacon, should have been blameless. He must not be a man with divorced wives, and she must not be a woman with divorced husbands. II. Second — It fits in also with Paul’s words in 1 Cor. vii. We learn fiotn that chapter that men and women, in becoming Christian.s, found it difficult to live with their heathen wives and husbands. What were they to do ? Leave them, said some, and no doubt, many acting on this advice, left their heathen waives and husbands and married Christians. Differences of opinion, as to what was right in such cases, led to a reference of the whole question to the Apostle Paul, as we learn fiom the 1st verse. His advice was this : — “ Let not the wife depart from her husband : but, and if slie depart, let her remain unmarried, or be recon- ciled to her husband ; and let not the Imsband put away his Wife If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman who hath a husband that be- lieveth not, and he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.” 1 Cor. vii. 10-13. Years later, the Apostle found men and women in the Churches who had left or been left by their heathen partner, and who had contracted other mariiages. Such men would, in some cases at least, have with them the children of fornmr marriages, perhaps the heathen wives and mothers of these children living in tlie same city ; and so writing years later to Timothy and Titus, as to the qualifications of Bishops, Deacons and Deaconesses, he says in substance’ if the interpretation we have put on his words be correct* select men and women wlio have not had such entangle- ments, men who have not put aw*ay or felt- former wives, men blameless in this matter, to use his very words ‘ the husband of one wife, having faithful children, children not accused of riot or unruly.” Tit. i. 4. III. Third. — Still further, this interpretation is in har- mony with the teaching of our Lord in reference to the C 15 ) sacrednesa of marriage and the sin of divorce, save for one cause. IV. Fourth . — It is in harmony with the whole spirit of the Apostolic teaching as well. V. Fifth . — It is in full harmony with the immediate context, which treats not of polygamy, but of the qualifi- cations of Church officers ; and while it recognizes divorced men and women as Cliristians, it yet shows the disapproval of such divorces by disqualifying the parties from ruling in the Church. Thus, this interpretation stamps not only polygamy with Divine and Apostolic disapproval, but it goes further and stamps the divorces and separations, so common at that time, as contrary to the teaching of the Lord, as contrary to the special instruction of the Apostle years before to tiie Corinthians, and hence, as a consequence, as disqualifying for office in the Church. I have dwelt at this length upon these verses in Timothy and Titus, because I have received so many letters from some of the ablest and oldest Missionaries, contending that they can only mean that polygamists were members of the Apostolic Church, and that we in India, likewise ought to admit, such men to Church fellowship, allowing them to retain their wives, only excluding them from Church offices. It has been assumed* by some that the early ( hiirch and Fathers interpreted these verses as sanctioning the baptism of polygamous converts. To this we answer : (1) First, the early Churches, even those founded by the Apostles, fell into errors of doctrines and practice. Except in so far as they followed the teachings of Christ and his Apostles, they are not examples for us; even if it could be proved, as it cannot, that they baptized such candidates, their examples would not be binding on us, unless there be a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to sustain their action. Grevious heresies and grave departures from Apostolic teaching")* began to appear before the last Apostle was taken fiom the earth ; but (2) there is no proof that such candidates were * See letter of Rev. Lai Behari Dey, Footnote, pane 9. + ‘ The Apostolical Constitinions prohibited. Priests from contracting marriage after consecration. The Council of Elvira, A. D. 305, forbade the continuance of the marriage relation to bishops, presbyters and deacons on pain of deposition,’ Hodge, page 374. See also Hev. ii. 6-15. The Nicolaitans, condemned by the Apostle John, were a Gnostic, Aiitinomian sect, followers of Nicolas, a deacon of the Church of Jerusalem. They had a community of wives. (See Dollinger’s ‘ First Age of Chris- tianity,’ page 218-214). ( 16 ) baptized and admitted to the Church of the early centuries. Until such cases are cited, it is vain to found an argument on the presumption that there were such. In closing the argument from Scripture, we may sum up in a few words our position. God instituted marriage between one man and one woman. Christ repeated that law. The Apostles nowhere teach that the law is to be suspended in any case. No instance is given in the New Tes'ament of its suspension under their sanction. The verses in Timothy and Titus, relied on to justify the baptism of polygamous candidates, are capable of at least two other interpretations, one at least in harmony with the teaching of Christ and his Apostles; in harmony with the whole spirit of the Gospel : while the interpretation which makes tiie Apostle recognize polygamous Cliurch members, is .con- fessedly only an inference ; is unsustained by any other passage in the New Testament ; and proves by far too much, namely, by parity of reasoning, that polyandry was also allowed, except to Deacone.sses, and that Church members might not only be polygamists, but also drunkards, strikers, brawlers, and the like. We might, we believe, safely rest our argument here ; for if the claim that the Scriptures allow the liaptism of poly- gamous converts be not sustained, and that too by the clearest evidence, the onus of proof falling on those making the c'aim, then we hold the baptism of such candidates to be unscriptural, indefensible, and as a consequence, fraught with evil to the whole Church. It is to he remembered in all this discussion, that those who baptize such candidates are bound to justify their action by evidence from Scripture, which is clear and unquestioned. That the one solitary text, viz., the Bishop must be the husband of one wife, does not amount to such evidence we have tried to show. We now turn to consider other reasons, worthy of careful consideration we think, why such candidates should not be baptized. I. And, first, because the testimony of the Church against polvgamy will thus be neutralized. From the beginning of her history, the Church has stood as the witness for monogamy. She has raised her voice everywhere against every attempt to impair tho sacredness and indissolubility of the marriage between one man and one woman. Nor has her testimony been in vain. C 17 ) She has entered country after country, and by her teacli- ing and example and discipline, created public opinion against polygamy ; she has taught the people to regard it as a shameful sin. Moie than this, she has imjn’essed her convictions upon the State, and engraven tliem on the statute book, so that the law of every Chi istian land pi o- nounces bigamy a crime and prosecutes the offender. We claim that this public opinion and these laws against bigamy and polygamy are the results of her teaching. But strange to say, this same Church, entering a non-Christian country, is asked to lower her standard, and to qualify her dissent, by admitting bigamists and polygamists to her membership. In other lauds, chiefly through her teaching and ■ uncompromising attitude, bigamy has been stigma- tized, not merely as a sin against God, but as a crime against woman to be severely punished by the State. iSow, the Church is asked by the bigamist and polygamist to condone his sin, and to shield Inm from reproach by giving him her name. Shall she do so ? We answer again and again. No. We answer No in the name of her historical record, which bears the name of no polygamist so far as the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles show. We answer No in the name of her Master, Who has en- trusted to her His words to keep, and given her His name to adorn. She must be true to Him : else she cannot be true to herself, true to souls, or a true witness before the world. We have come to India not only to hold up Christ as the Saviour of sinners, but also, in His name and as His representatives, to witness against every form of sin. Poly- gamy is a sin, it degrades woman, destroys the marriage bond, and defiles the family life. Christ affirmed* this. The Church has again and again affirmed it. Now let her admit polygamists, few or many, the principle is the same, to her membership, and what is the result ? There can be but one result. Henceforth her testimony on this subject is contradictory : — With the mouth she condemns, with the hand she receives. How can she speak one way and act another. A Missionary in North-India who, a few years ago, baptized a Muhammedan gentleman, allowing him to retain his two wives, writes to me on this point : — “ Of course he ,the baptized polygamist) would know, and all tlie world would know, that we do not approve of a man’s Mark x ; 6-12. ( 18 ) marrying more than one wife.” Bat how would the world know our disapproval of such marriages when they saw polygamists in our Churches in good and regular standing, perhaps the wealthiest and most reputable members too, the headman of the village perhaps. It would be hard to convince them, under such circumstances, that we really thought it to he a sin and a shame for a man to have two wives. I venture to say that che voice of the Church, harbouring such a man, would be practically hushed on this subject. Nor is this a mere surmise. Recently I put to a Missionary, who has in his congregation a baptized poly- gamist, both of whose wives live with him, a man in a good worldly position, the following question : — “ Could you from the pulpit preach against polygamy as a sin without giving offence ?” and received this reply : — “ Under the circum- stances, I should not preach against polygamy from the pulpit ; or if I did, I should be guarded in my language, let- ting it be understood that there might be exceptional cases, and why.” And so, under the circumstances,” the voice of every Missionary in India would be silenced in the Church, and his witness, inside or outside the Church, would be worthless, because contradicted by the presence of the biga- mist among his members, perhaps the best known and most prominent among them. No, the Church ought not thus to barter her liberty to protest uncompromisingly and con- sistently everywhere against this sin, Alas, that here and there, her standard has been lowered. The current of the age in Christian lands is setting strongly in a direction, which threatens to sweep before it, the teaching of the Scriptures as to the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage. Divorce is allowed on the most trivial grounds, and in one Christian country, at least, polygamy has been taught by a large sect as in harmony with the will of God. It is for the Church, the guardian of the truth, to set up a bulwark to stem this flood and turn it back. She will be sadly crippled in her efforts, if her Missionaries, in the very face of those who claim a divine sanction for polygamy, compromise in this matter. She will indeed be wounded in the house of her friends, if her enemies can point to Church after Church in non-Christian lands, yielding the principle, she has so long preached, by admitting bigamists and polygamists to membership. Hence, we earnestly urge that such candidates be not, under any circumstances, baptized. ( 19 ) II. But again, we would not receive such candidates, because we thereby put temptation to take two wives in the way of weak men, who may be, or may become sincere enquirers ; knowing that this will not be a bar to their baptism. One fact is worth many theories, so let me give a case. A young man was interested in the truth at one of our Mission stations years ago. He had then only one wife, and no children. Years passed, and he took a second wife, who was at the time he asked for baptism, the mother of his children. The Mi.ssionary baptized this man, both of his wives living with him, and both very much attached to him, though not willing to be baptized. Now, it is hard to read the deep hidden springs of action. Even in analy- sing our own motives, we may be mistaken, some little hidden one moving us more than we are aware, after more than we are ready to confess even to ourselves. And yet that we are unconciously, or half consciously, thus moved, there can be no doubt. Now, it is not for me to enter this man’s heart and weigh the various motives which con- trolled him in the years which intervened between his finst knowledge of the truth and his final request for baptism, and yet, as spiritual physicians, we are to remember that it is not impossible, perhaps not improbable, that the question of his taking a second wife, for reasons known to liimself, may have been before his mind, when first he began to study the Scriptures, and learning, that after becoming a Christian, there would be no hope of his being able to take a second wife, he concluded to do so before presenting himself as a candidate for baptism. The human heart is desper- ately wicked and deceitful above all things, and in dealing with diseased souls we cannot wisely forget this. Hence, I contend that the admission of even a very few polygamists, will place a very subtle, and not always easily detected temptation in the way of some enquirers, leading them now and then to defer application for baptism until they have se- cured another wife, younger, healthier, or more congenial than the first. We are not to forget that we are dealing with a people who have breathed a tainted moral air all their lives, and who have not been trained from youth to regard polygamy as a great and shameful sin, but on the contrary have been taught to regard it as a right. Such men will find no difficulty in agreeing with some Missionaries* that * In the life of Bishop Wilson of Calcutta, pp. 364, it is stated that a number of Missionaries of different religious denominations met in con- ference and resolved, “that if a Hindoo, having many wives, became a Christian, it was proper that he should retain them all.” ( 20 ) there is no passage in the Bible forbidding polygamy, and the interpretation of the verses in 1 Tiinotliy and Titus, we have been criticizing, will he a never-failing opiate fer an accusing conscience. "We believe that the refusal to baptize such men will be a blessing to their souls : it will arouse them to a sense of their sin, the very thing they are slow to recog- nize, and which they certainly will not recognize, if we admit them to Church membership, allowing them to retain their wives. Such has been the case. Some j'ears ago a well- known Maulvi of Ghazipur applied for baptism, but was refused, because he had two wives. Recently he saw his dut}' and presented himself with only one wife. The Missionary wdio baptized him, writes to me : — “ He himself believes now that we were light in not admitting him to our Church as long as he retained his wives.” III. But third, we believe polygamists should not be admitted to the Church, because we thereby constitute two classes of Christians. Of course, so long as the number of such polygamous members was small, this evil would be minimized. Still the evil would exist, and with it the danger that, at some future time, such members, backed b}' wealth and family influence, might make serious confusion in the Church, perhaps engendering such contention, bitter- ness and heart-burning, that a schism might be the result. Thus, we would reap as we had sown. Nor is this danger a mere imaginary one, perhaps also not a very distant one. In a recent number of the Indian Methodist atchman is the following among the editorials: — ‘A native Christian writes us to say that, some time not long past, a body of native Chri.stians debated and decided that a heathen man at conversion should leave all hut his real wife. But if that wife be barren, be might, under Gen. xvi, marry another. Our opinion is asked. \Ve say emphatically. No.” In view of such facts ought we not to resist the begin- nings. Some Christians, perhaps Missionaries, in every Christian community, would refuse to recognize the poly- gamous converts, though baptized and received regularly -^\'^