Reply to the Memorial of the Synod of India to 
 the General Assembly asking leave to baptize 
 ‘converts who have more than one wife, together 
 with their entire families.’ 
 
 The question of baptizing polygamists was considered by 
 the Synod of India at-its meeting in Lodiana, November 
 1894. Some years ago a Mohamedan with two wives was 
 admitted to the communion of one of our churches, he 
 being allowed to retain both the women in his house as his 
 wives. Another case is now before the Session of one of our 
 churches. Hence the settlement of the question could be 
 postponed no longer. After a protracted discussion the 
 Synod adopted a Memorial to the General Assembly which 
 closes with a request that the Assembly leave the ultimate 
 decision in all such cases tothe Synod of India. “It is the 
 almost unanimous opinion of the members of Synod that 
 under some circumstances converts who have more than one 
 wife, together with their entire families should be baptized. 
 On a call for the ‘‘ yeas and nays’’ on the adoption of this 
 overture, 43 votes were recorded in the affirmative and ten in 
 the negative.” I wish to state briefly some of the reasons 
 which led some of us to vote against this overture. 
 
 (1) The Synod has asked the Assembly to sanction a 
 violation of the organic law of the church as contained in 
 Chapter XXIV of the Confession of Faith. Thisis beyond 
 the power vested in the Assembly. The Confession declares 
 that ‘‘ Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: 
 neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, 
 nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the 
 same time.” 
 
 (2) No other church in India, so far as I know, permits 
 the baptism of polygamists. The two largest Missions in 
 North India forbid it. A Committee of Bishops of the 
 Church of England reported to the Lambeth Conference 
 against the baptism of polygamous converts. In their 
 report they say that ‘‘ they cannot find that either the law 
 of Christ or the usage of the early Church would permit 
 the baptism of any man living in the practice of polygamy, 
 even though the polygamous alliances should have been 
 
 ( 
 
( 2) 
 
 contracted before his*conversion.”” The North India Confer- 
 ence of the American Methodist Mission has adopted an 
 equally strong paper, saying not too strongly that ‘if we 
 allow polygamy a place among us, there is reason to fear that 
 it will long remain a source of trouble and weakness to an 
 infant church which can ill afford to contend with such an 
 element.”’ 
 
 (3) The testimony of the church against polygamy will 
 be neutralized by the admission of polygamists and their 
 wives. Irom the beginning of her history the church has 
 stood as the witness for monogamy. She has raised her 
 voice against every attempt to impair the sacredness and 
 indissolubility of the marriage between one man and one 
 woman. Nor has her testimony been in vain. She has 
 entered country after country, and by her teaching and 
 example and discipline, created public opinion against poly- 
 gamy ; she has taught the people to regard it as a shameful 
 sin. More than this, she has impressed her convictions 
 upon the State, and engraven them on the statute book, so 
 that the law of every Christian land pronounces bigamy a 
 crime and prosecutes the offender. ‘This public opinion and 
 these laws against bigamy and polygamy are the result 
 of her teaching. But strange to say, this same Church, 
 entering India, is asked to lower her standard, and to qua- 
 lify ber dissent, by admitting bigamists and polygamists to 
 her membership. In other lands, chiefly through her teach- 
 ing 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. Now 
 the church is asked by the bigamist and polygamist to 
 condone his sin, and to shield him from reproach by giving 
 him her name. Shall she do so P 
 
 (4) By baptizing polygamists we put a subtle temptation 
 in the way ofsome enquirers. Ifthe enquirer knows that he 
 cannot take a second wife after baptism he may be tempta- 
 ed to do so before he applies. The human heart is desperately 
 wicked and deceitful above all things, and in dealing with 
 diseased souls we canvot wisely forget this.. We are not 
 to forget that we are dealing with a people who have not 
 been trained from youth to regard polygamy as a great and 
 shameful sin, but on the contrary see nothing wrong in it. 
 The refusal to baptize such men will be a blessing to their 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 souls ; if will arouse them to a sense of their sin, the very 
 thing they are slow to recognize, and which they certainly 
 will not recognize if we admit them to church membership, 
 allowing them to retain their wives. 
 
 (5) Polygamists should not be admitted to the Church, 
 because we thereby constitute two classes of Christians. So 
 long as the number of 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 by wealth and family influence, might make serious 
 confusion in the Church, engendering such contention, bit- 
 terness and heartburning, that a schism might be the result. 
 Nor is this danger an imaginary one. ‘The Indian Metho- 
 dist Watchman some years ago had the following editori- 
 al:—* A native Christian writes us to say that, some time 
 not long past, a body of native Christians debated and 
 decided that a heathen man at conversion should leave all 
 but his real wife. Butif that wife be barren, he might, un- 
 der Gen. XVI marry another. Our opinionis asked. We 
 say emphatically, No!’ Some Christians, perhaps mission- 
 aries, in every Christian community, would refuse to recog- 
 nize the polygamous converts, though baptized and received 
 regularly into the Church, and this non-recognition by even 
 a few who thought a principle at stake, might lead to very 
 serious controversy and wide spread discussion. ‘The stu- 
 dent of Church History knows that bitter controversies, 
 resulting sometimes in serious schism, have sprung from 
 less serious questions than this. It is easily conceivable 
 that among village people, unaccustomed to Christian 
 thought and morality, especially in reference to monogamy 
 and the sacredness of marriage, it would not be difficult for 
 teachers of the scripturalness of polygamy, except for the 
 clergy, to find a large following; and as a result, we might 
 be saddened by the sight of a large community called by the 
 name of Christ, and yet allowing and practising polygamy. 
 This may appear now an imaginary fear, but the Scriptures 
 and History warn us to beware of the slightest departure 
 from true doctrine and pure morality. ven in the Apos- 
 tolic Church a sect called the ‘ Nicolaitan’ sprang up, whose 
 teachings and lives the Apostle Jobn denounces as hateful. 
 They taught, among other things, according to Dollinger, 
 that Christians might have a community of wives without 
 
(2) 
 
 sin. The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water, 
 therefore, says the wise man, leave off contention before it 
 be meddled with. 
 
 (6) While the sincere convert may think it a hardship to 
 be kept out of Church fellowship on account of an alliance 
 which he contracted in ignorance of its sinfulness, and from 
 which he cannot now free himself, yet we are not to consi- 
 der his feelings and wishes, or even spiritual welfare, solely. 
 The Church is one. Whatever hurts one part of it, hurts 
 every part. ‘The whole Church, by the admission of even 
 one polygamist, suffers in name, in purity, in power to tes- 
 tify, in consistency of record, in fitness to discipline those 
 within her pale who plead the presence of bigamists as a 
 justification of their taking another wife. Hence we say, 
 far better that one suffer than many be injured, perhaps led 
 into sin. Better that one stand without than that his pre- 
 sence within should be misinterpreted by the world as an 
 unspoken acknowledgment on the part of the Church, that 
 bigamy is not such a grievous sin as she has ever affirmed. 
 Better that a few be denied the privilege of God’s house 
 than that their entrance should bring dissension and danger 
 of contamination to many within. Hence we are, in consi- 
 dering this question, to remenber that it is not wise to sac- 
 rifice the larger interests of the whole Church, and the good 
 of a great company of believers, for the sake of a few con- 
 verts, however sincere they may seen to be. 
 
 (7) It was contended by members of the Synod that there 
 were polygamists in the Apostolic Churches, and the passage 
 in Timothy was cited in proof of this, viz ‘ A bishop must 
 be blameless, the husband of one wife” I Tim. 3:2. The 
 inference was drawn from this verse that there were men in 
 the Church who had more than one wife, and the Apostle 
 tells Timothy to exclude them from the office of bishop. To 
 this I reply :— 
 
 (1) That as this is admitted to be an inference, it ought 
 to be sustained and confirmed by other passages before we 
 open the door of the Church to polygamists on the strength 
 of it. | 
 
 (2) It is not so sustained, but on the contrary is in the 
 face of the whole spirit and trend of New Testament teach- 
 ing on the subject. 
 
(755) 
 
 (3) As there is not a single hint of a polygamist being a 
 member of the Apostolic Church, barring this expression, 
 is it reasonable to suppose that the Apostle found it neces- 
 sary to put among the first qualifications of a bishop and 
 deacon that he should not be a polygamist? Were poly- 
 gamists so common or prominent in the Church that it was 
 necessary to enact a law like this to exclude them from 
 high office ? For this reason it seems to me that this 
 inference proves too much. 
 
 (4) But we are not shut up to this inference, and if we 
 can find one, warranted by the words as well as in full 
 harmony with the teaching and spirit of the New Testa- 
 ment, we ought gladly to accept it. Dr. Charles Hodge 
 interprets the passage ‘“ If any is at this present time, the 
 husband of one wife,” it is the present state and character 
 of the maa that are to be taken into account. He might 
 before have been unmarried, or even a polygamist, but 
 when ordained, he must, if married at all, be the “ husband 
 of but one woman.” LBretschneider interprets the ‘one’ as an 
 indefinite article, “ that the Apostle means, a bishop should 
 be the husband of a wife.’? Others interpret the expression 
 to mean that a candidate for office in the Chuch should be 
 a man of a chaste life,—of unbroken fidelity to the marriage 
 vow,—a man blameless in this relation of life, that ‘“‘neither 
 polygamy, nor concubinage, nor any offensive second mar- 
 riage’’ should be able to be alleged against him. The inter- 
 pretation, however, which satisfies me is briefly this. Among 
 both the Jews and Greeks of Paul’s day, a man could put 
 away wife after wife, and that for the most trivial causes, 
 giving her a bill of divorcement. Our Lord alludes to this 
 in Matt. 19: 8-9. The Apostle Paul devotes the 7th chap- 
 ter of 1 Cor. to a consideration of some of the causes of 
 divorce. There were those in the Churches who had divor- 
 ced more than one wife. They may not have been blame- 
 less in this. Hence he tells Timothy and Titus that the 
 candidate for bishop or deacon must be ‘ blameless,’ not a 
 man who had divorced wife after wife, but one who had been 
 faithful to his wife. This interpretation puts a stigma not 
 merely on the polygamist, but it goes farther and says that 
 the man who has put away wife after wife, in accordance 
 with the lax law and loose custom of the day, shall not be 
 a ruler in the Church. | 
 
(36%) 
 
 The argument from the Scriptures against the baptism of 
 polygamists may be summed up in a few words. ‘The law 
 of marriage, as instituted by God, forbids a man to have 
 more than one wife. God has never annulled this law. Our 
 Lord most solemnly affirmed it. His Apostles nowhere 
 teach that this law is to be suspended in any case. Nota 
 single instance of its suspension under their sanction cap be 
 given. Nota single reference to polygamy can be found in 
 the whole New Testament, unless it be the expression, ‘ the 
 husband of one wife,’ which is admitted to be only an infer- 
 ence, which is unsustained by any other passage in the New 
 Testament, and which proves too much. 
 
 (8) The Synod was led to present this memorial to the 
 Assembly on account of “the grave practical and moral 
 difficulties which emerge if we insist that, as a condition of 
 baptism, a polygamist shall put away all his wives but one.” 
 These difficulties relate chiefly to the hardship supposed to 
 be inflicted on the wife or wives put away at baptism. ‘To 
 this I reply that in most cases the husband has a favorite 
 wife and it would be a relief to the other wife to be set free 
 from her bondage, the convert being required to support 
 her so long as she remained unmarried.* As to which wife 
 he should be required to put away, that must be settled in 
 each case according to varying circumstances and concern- 
 ing which the Church is not called to legislate. Often the 
 first marriage was not the free choice of the man, but he 
 was bound when a child, and the element of choice and con- 
 sent, so necessary to constitute marriage in Christian lands, 
 
 * «Tt is often urged that a separation inflicts great injustice on 
 the wives who are put away. Financially there can be none, as the 
 convert is required to support them comfortably. As to marital 
 richts, it is begging the whole question to raise such an objection, 
 It might, with infinitely more reason, be urged that it is wronging the 
 woman to allow her to be kept in astate of concubinage. Better far 
 that she be allowed to contract an honorable Christian marriage, and 
 escape from a life in which she can never know what domestic hap- 
 piness is. It is further urged that many painful separations must 
 occur, and that to avoid this temporary polygamy should be tole- 
 rated. If all claimed here were admitted, it is only what might be 
 urged in multitudes of cases to Justify men in delaying their con- 
 version. How many happy families are forever broken up by sim- 
 ply preaching the truth? All this has been foretold by our Saviour, 
 and is inseparable from the faithful preaching of truths which admit 
 of no compromise.”” (North India M. E. Conference Minutes.)  . 
 
(oF) 
 
 is entirely wanting. On this question Dr. Charles Hodge 
 gave it as his opinion that ‘‘ the relation of a heathen poly- 
 gamist to his numerous wives is so different from the con- 
 jugal relation as contemplated in Scripture, as to render it 
 at least doubtful, whether the husband’s obligation is exclu- 
 sively or pre-eminently, to the woman first chosen.”* 
 
 In conclusion, how can the Church declare on the autho- 
 rity of the Scriptures that polygamy is a shameful sin, a 
 violation of God’s law, forbidden by our Lord, destructive 
 of family life, a cruel wrong to every true wife, and yet at 
 the same time baptize a polygamist, allowing him to retain 
 his wives? How can she encourage every Christian Go- 
 vernment in treating polygamy as a criminal offence and 
 yet condone it in her own members! How can she bear 
 testimony against it while at the same time she is receiving 
 polygamists as members in good and regular standing P_ IL 
 trust the General Assembly will not lower the standard of 
 discipleship and Church membership in India. To do so 
 would be, in the words of the Lambeth Conference, ‘* to in- 
 flict an irreparable wound on the morality of the Christian 
 Church in its most vital part.’’ I believe these to be words 
 of truth and soberness, and hence though I love and honor 
 the brethren of the Synod of India, I am constrained to lift 
 up my voice against their memorial to the General As- 
 
 sembly. 
 J.J. LUCAS. 
 SAHARUNPUR INDIA : 
 
 March 23rd 1895. 
 
 *« The North India M. E. Conference recommend that the follow- 
 ing rules be observed. (1) Where a convert is to select his wife 
 from among two or more of his previous partners, all other claims 
 being equal, the first wife shall be allowed the preference. (2) In 
 cases where the marriage in childhood has been practically involun- 
 tary on the part of both parties, resulting in unhappiness and lead- 
 ing to other alliances, the preference allowed to the first marriage 
 may be materially modified. (3) In all cases where all the parties 
 involved amicably consent to any definite arrangement for separa- 
 tion, their wishes shall be allowed. (4) The question shall always 
 be considered in its relation to the interests, wishes, and feelings of 
 all the parties, the man in every case being put ona par with the 
 woman. (5) The convert in every case shall be required to contri- 
 bute for the support of his former wives, in such amount as the 
 Committee called in his case may decide, so long as they may re- 
 main unmarried.’’ 
 
ie 
 
 Uae