A REVIEW OF DR. COLENSO’S REMARKS <9u polggamg, AS FOUND EXISTING IN CONVERTS FROM HEATHENISM, PRINTED & PUBLISHED BY J. CULLINGWORTH, MARITZBURG,-MAY & DAVIS. 1856. >BY-111E REV. H. A. WILDER, -- %-s\\aT^£RICAN MISSIONARY. VS fflOM THE NATAL STAR. b - 1 $ l^urfcan: V REVIEW OF u Remarks on the proper treatment of cases of POLYGAMY as found already existing in Converts from Heathenismby John William Colenso , D.D., Lord Bishop of Natal. The above-named pamphlet, lately issued from the press of May and Davis, is from a prolific pen ; and it bears marks of the active sympathies, the earnestness and boldness characteristic of its author. We are sorry that we are obliged also to say that it no less distinctly exhibits, no great depth of research or thought, but rather of haste and precipitancy in arriving at conclusions. His boldness and humanity are strongly manifested in the few last pages of the pamphlet, in which he denounces the inhuman and cowardly policy of those who advocate the delivering up to their tyranical master, the trembling fugitives which seek the protection of English power, to save themselves, and wives, and children from the bloody cruelty of Umpandi. “ God bless the Lord Bishop of Natal" gushed up from our heart and lips, as we read his noble, eloquent words—worthy of a Prelate of the English Church —uttered so indignantly against the dastardly policy of those who would send back to certain death'—men, women, and children, innocent of crime—who have fled for life to our protection. Let God be blessed by every English soul that He has sent a man to Natal, high in official station, who has humanity, and fears God rathar than man. 3 But while we agree with our whole soul with the sentiments expressed by his lordship on the subject of pro¬ tecting refugees from Zululand, and for his noble utteran¬ ces would hail him our “brother beloved,” though we differed ten times as widely as we do on other points ; scrip¬ ture and history, reason and expediency, compel us to 4 dissent from the sentiments respecting Polygamy, which it is the chief object of his pamphet to advocate. The depreciating opinion he expresses of the researches of those writers, who are so unfortunate as to differ from his lord¬ ship’s views on the question under discussion, is not well calculated to conciliate their self-esteem, however much it may prejudice those against their sentiments, who are ac¬ customed to accept the dictum of an ecclesiastic as the voice of God, on all matters pertaining to morality and religion. His opening sentiment is certainly self-compla¬ cent :— “ Having observed in the Natal Journals of late some articles on the subject of Polygamy, which require, I think, a reply from those who have given more serious attention to the question, than the writers of the said articles appear generally to have done, I have thought it proper to set on paper, the following observations. ” Again he says :— “ I could wish that the communications hitherto made upon the subject (with the exception of one by my friend, Dr.Bleek, in the ‘Natal Mercury,’) had contained less of declamation, and more of argument.” That is to say, all who have written against the views of the Bishop,—for he excepts only his friend Dr. B.,— have not given serious attention to the question, and have dealt in declamation instead of argument. Verily, we are strongly tempted to repeat the words of Eliphaz to self-complacent Job : “Art thou the first man that was born ? Or was thou made before the hills P Hast thou heard the secret of God ? And dost thou retain knowledge to thyself. What knowest thou that we know not? What understandest thou which is not in us ? ” We are compelled to ask if his lordship has, by virtue of his Bishopric, any patent right mode of investigation, of which it is not lawful or possible for others to avail themselves ? Before we proceed to the investigation of the subject before us, let us say not boastingly, but that the public and his lordship may be informed, that we have at hand means to investigate the subject of Polygamy in all its relations and bearings; that we are not uninstructed in the principles of correct interpretation of scripture, and that we, feeling the importance of the subject, have a disposition to inves¬ tigate according to the ability God has given us. We fully agree with Dr. Colenso, when he says:— “ It is most desirable that a question of such importance to the pro¬ gress of our Missionary work among the heathen, and through that to the whole Colony should be dispassionately considered.” 5 If we know what this means, it is, that our prejudices, 4 our partizan feelings, nor our active sympathies with sup¬ posed or real suffering or wrong, should not influence our interpretation of the word of God, nor warp the discussion of reason. It would be interesting to trace the history of this subject in the Bishop’s own mind. If what he has pub¬ lished gives us a true clue to its psychological development, we are compelled to think that passion, or his active sym¬ pathy with the supposed cruelty and suffering occasioned by the course which most missionaries have hitherto adop¬ ted, is the impelling motive which has caused him to investigate the subject, and which influenced his decision. We can hardly conceive what else but passion could drive a mere tyro, as his lordship is, in the missionary work, to a decision on so momentous a subject, contrary to the theory and practice of so many men of grey hairs, of equal learn¬ ing with himself, and whose opinions have been fortified by the experience of more than a score of years. It is not the first time we have known new missionaries, who had not jet “ cut their eye teeth,” precipitately leap to a conclusion on important subjects, respecting which,years of experience and labour taught their seniors knowledge and wisdom. The Bishop disclaims all design to “Invalidate the sanctity of marriage, or to represent the state of Polygamy as in any way desirable or commendable ” :— “ I believe, of course, that the practice is at variance with the whole spirit of Christianity, and must eventually be rooted out by it, wherever it comes. ” [Page 1.] Again he says, (page 13):— “ 1 believe it to be an offence against morality and Christianity ,—a thing to be deprecated, denounced, and done away ; but though an offence, not necessarily therefore, a sin in the sight of trod. ” We shall see in the sequel that there is need that he make these earnest disclaimers, lest he should bethought by simple readers to prove Polygamy an institution of Heaven, and sanctioned by the example of holy men of old, and pronounced a blessing by the Almighty. Some honest people who are not casuistic enough to “split a hair between the south and north-west corner, ’’ may not be able to see how a given act can be an offence to he deprecated, denounced, and done away with, as contrary to the whole spirit of Chris¬ tianity, and yet be “ no sin in the sight of God. ” We confess that we ourselves are so obtuse that we cannot see how such a thing can be. Where are we commanded to “dc- 6 nounce deprecate and do,away with a custom which is “ yet no sin in the sight of God ? Is man of purer eyes than His Maker ? Shall he condemn, when the Holy One who in- habiteth Eternity sees no sin ?—condemn us not P The position his lordship assumes is stated in the following paragraph, (page 1) :— “ But I certainly expressed a doubt in my published Journal, whether the method at present adopted by the Missionaries of requiring a man, who had more than one wife, to put away all but one, before he could be re¬ ceived to Christian Baptism, was the right way of accomplishing this end. I have since given much closer consideration to this question, and 1 have now no hesitation in saying that I believe the above-mentioned rule to be unwarranted by Scripture, opposed to the practice of the Apostles, con¬ demned by common reason, and altogether unjustifiable,” A careful analysis of the pamphlet before us, will reduce all he says in support of his views under the four following heads, viz :— 1. Polygamy was tolerated and sanctioned among the Jews, while their government was a theocracy 2. Christ’s words respecting divorce, adultery, and the^ marriage relation, in Matth. v. and 19 v., and kindred passages, were directed against Divorce, and not against Polygamy , 3. A Bishop is forbidden to be a Polygamist, 1 Tim. iii, 2 v.; therefore in laymen. Polygamy was tolerated by the Apostles. 4. It is unjust and cruel to make a man put away part of his wives. It does them a wrong,—sunders affections— breaks obligations, &c. These positions we will examine in order. On the first we will let his lordship speak for himself :— “ There is, of course, no question, that the practice of Polygamy was not only tolerated among the Jews, but even sanctioned by the examples of eminent and pious men ; and, in one instance, by the words of a Prophet uttering a direct message from the Almighty. ” He refers to the cases of “ Abraham the father of the faithful,” and “David the man after God’s own heart.” An examination of the facts in each case will demonstrate the truth or falsehood of his lordship’s proposition*. The history of the polygamy, or rather concubinage of Abraham, is recorded in the xvi. chap, of Genesis from the first to the fourth verses inclusive. The Hebrew word used in this passage is in several other places translated concubine; and Sarah’s and Abraham’s whole treatment of her, shows that neither of them regarded her as a law¬ ful wife. Sarah’s motive in inducing Abraham to take her, as expressed in the second verse,—“It may be that I may obtain children by her,’’ showed that she lacked r faith in God, and devised this expedient, in despair of God’s fulfil¬ ling in His own time, His promises to obtain an heir to Abraham,—which should be in a sense her own child. Her child was to be Sarah’s, not its mother's, for she was Sarah’s slave. Mr. Williams, author of the “ Cottage Bible,” says :— “ Here we have the origin of concubinage, and it is founded on the principles of slavery; for it was upon the principle that the slave and all her produce belonged to her owner, constituting part of the private patrimony of a wife, ‘That Sarah claimed the offspring of Hagar as her own.”’ (See notes in loco.) Dr. Justin Edwards, an eminent American divine, and author of the “Family Bible,’’ published by the Ameri¬ can Tract Society, and sanctioned by all the Evangelical denominations, says of this act of Abraham’s :—“ This was a violation of the great law of marriage, and was fol¬ lowed by great domestic troubles.’’ Dr. Kitto says:— “The miseries naturally consequent upon it, are amply portrayed in the history of the Patriarchs.” (See Gen. xvi. 4 and 10 v., and chap. xxi. 9 and 16 v.) Andrew Fuller, says:—“The father of mankind sinned by hearkening to his wife ; and the father of the faithful follows his example.” Dr. Edwards, above quoted, says, in notes on Gen. xvi :— “ Abraham was not perfect. In all things he came short, and in many things offended. It is not wise, safe, or right for us to imitate any mere man in all things. There is but one perfect example.” Professor Bush vividly describes the evil consequences which flowed from Abraham’s con¬ cubinage with Hagar :—“ The more the incidents are con¬ sidered, the more strikingly do they show into what disorder and turmoil, one ill-advised measure may plunge a happy well-regulated family. Abraham’s ill-judged compliance with the rash counsel of his wife, has created an unpleasant state of feeling between him and her, (see verse 5), and it constrains him to connive at her cruel treatment of an unhappy woman, who is at least to be as much pitied as blamed ; and renders the prospect of the promised seed a heavy affliction instead of a blessing. Sarah is betrayed by the eagerness of her spirit into a culpable expedient; 8 then into unkindness and undutifulness towards her lord; then into impiety and irreverence towards God, (verse 5) ; and finally, by an easy transition into barbarity towards the helpless hand-maiden, whom her own scheme had brought into a condition that claimed her earnest compas¬ sion and kindness. * * * A thousand volumes written against Polygamy, would not lead to a clearer conviction of' the evils of that practice, than the story under review.’’ Alas ! for logic, when with the sad story of the evils naturally flowing from Abraham’s rash act, to himself, his wife, and most of all to the hapless slave, in the day of her utmost need ; driven into the wilderness by a cruel and jealous mistress; and finally by command of God divorced and sent away—never to return—with but a loaf of bread and a bottle of water;—alas for logic, and moral sense, when it is boldly affirmed by a Bishop of the English Church, that the example of Abraham sanctioned Polygamy. Keturah, the second wife of Abraham, was not taken till after the death of Sarah. (Compare Gen. xxiii. 2 v., and Gen. xxv. 1 v. The other eminent and pious man, mentioned by the Bishop, as sanctioning Polygamy by his example is “David the man after God's oivn heart." The phrase “ A man after my own heart,’’ is found in 1 Samuel xiii. 14 v., and in Acts xix. 22 v.—the last a quotation of the first. Rev. A. Barnes, a distinguished commentator on the New Testa¬ ment, says, (in loco) “The connexion shows that it means simply a man who would not be rebellious and dis¬ obedient as Saul was, but would do His will and keep His commandments. This refers doubtless to the public, rather than to the private character of David ; or to his character as a King. But whether applied to his private or public- character, it evidently does not mean to affirm that David was a perfectly holy man ; and that whatever he did, had the sanction of the Almighty. He certainly vindicated the law of Moses, in Deut. xvii. 17 v., “Neither shall he mul¬ tiply, or increase wives to himself.” He certainly had, including his concubines, not far from a score of wives. And not satisfied with those, he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah ; and to conceal his crime, deliberately planned and consummated the murder of as noble a man, and brave a soldier as he had in his armies. Who is not ashamed to quote such a man, as sanctify¬ ing by his example a doubtful practice, not to say a pro- 9 hibited crime ? That David was an eminently good man in the age in which he lived, we do not doubt, but that he sinned more deeply than most men, is equally clear. But let us look a little more closely to the Bishop’s assertion that “ Polygamy was tolerated among the Jews.’ Tolerated ! How p Did God approve it by revelation or act P The record of such approval is not to be found in the Bible. Is it said that the passage quoted by his lord- ship, (Deut. xx. 15 and 16 v.) “ distinctly recognizes Poly¬ gamy, as freely permitted among the Jewish people.” This inference we deny, and challenge proof. Without giving weight to the remark, that the Mosaic system was a civil, as well as a religious code of laws; and that as a civil ruler, their great law-giver legislated for people as he found them ; it is a sufficient refutation of the Bishop’s assertion to say, that legislation in Church and State, to mitigate the evil consequences of vice, does not of course approve or sanction the evil practice. Dr. Edwards says in the Family Bible on this passage :— “ One beloved and another hated." “ This regulation did not imply that it was right for a man to have two wives, or to hate either; but like the regulation, (verse 14,) was designed to lessen the evils of a wrong practice, while men were so ignorant, debased and cruel, as to practice it. ’’ The same author says, on verse 15 of the xvii chapter of Deuteronomy :—■“ The giving directions for the regula¬ tion of the conduct of men, by no means proves that the conduct which needs such regulation is right. ’’ If so, then all the benevolent efforts of Chistian lands to ameliorate the misery of the direct or indirect victims of vice, give countenance to crime, and sanction it. Then her asylums—her hospitals—her schools of charity—the glory of England,—are but monuments erected to vice, and they sanctify intemperance, licentiousness, and crime. If legislation by God or man, to mitigate the disastrous and deserved consequences, which are the necessary or inciden¬ tal results of sin ;—give free permission to commit that sin, then Adam was tolerated when he partook of the forbidden fruit,—Cain was tolerated when he slew his brother,—and Christ who gave himself to become a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, is “ become the minister of sin.” What more vividly shows the desperate depravity of the human heart, than the fact that the forbearance and mercy of God should be construed into the sanction of sin, and be 10 made an excuse for plunging more deeply into iniquity. “ Tolerated,” indeed, Polygamy was among the Jews, if by “ toleration ” be meant that in every instance God did not thunder in articulate words, his condemnation of it from hea¬ ven—did not send down quick into the pit unrepentant and unforgiven, every one guilty of violating the one great law of marriage proclaimed in Eden ; and so in this sense was murder and incest, and blasphemy tolerated. But if the evil consequences flowing from the practice, which are recorded in the Scriptures, in the case of Abraham, of Jacob, of David and Solomon ; the latter, the most glorious mon¬ arch who ever sat on the throne of the people, and who was directly inspired with wisdom from on High, being drawn into dreadful, if not final apostacy by this practice alone ; if these do not teach that Polygamy and concubinage was not approved in Old Testament time, then history has no voice, and God does not teach by His Providence. But his lordship says in one instance. Polygamy was “sanctioned by the words of a Prophet uttering a direct message from the Almighty ; ” and he quotes 2 Samuel ii. 8 v., “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, / gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives unto thy bosom.” We are not told that David’s predecessor had more than one wife, nor does the Hebrew word rendered “wives" ne¬ cessary, nor Usually, have that signification. But if our translators have not erred in its rendering in this place, the passage by no means proves that for which Dr. Colenso adduces it. Has he never read the following sentence quoted from James’s Biblical Archaeology :— “ The successor to the throne, although he came into the possession of the Harem, teas not at liberty to have any inter¬ course with the members of it” Has Bishop Colenso never read what Bishop Patrick, an eminent commentator of the English Church, says respecting the above words of Nathan the Prophet to David :—“ Thy master's reives unto thy bosom.” “For the wives of a king went along with his lands and goods unto his successor; it being unlawful for the widow of a king to be the wife of any but a king ; as appears by the story of Adonijah. But this does not signify that David married any of them, but only that they were delivered into his possession as all other things belonging to Saul were.” * Maimonides as quoted by Dr. Patrick, says:—“The wife of a king is to be married to none else; for even the king cannot legally marry the widow of his predecessor, or one * ] i divorced by him. 5 ’ Bishop Patrick, acids :—“ But there are those who interpret the word nase, not wives, but mere women belonging' unto Saul.” It is a sufficient refutation of the assertion that Polygamy was “ sanctioned by the words of a Prophet, uttering a direct message from the Almighty ” to produce the united testimony of Jahn, of Bishop Patrick, and of Maimonides, the most celebrated Jewish Rabbi of the Christian era, that it was unlawful for a king to marry the wife of his predecessor; and that the above words of the Prophet only assert that the women of Saul, including, perhaps, his mother and sisters, and chil¬ dren, and maid-servants, came into the possession of David, as did everything else pertaining to the monarchy. We have now shown that Polygamy was neither tolera¬ ted, in the sense of being approved among the Jews, nor ‘‘sanctioned by the examples of eminent and pious men among them,” nor by “ the words of a Prophet, uttering a direct message from the Almighty.” That it did “ co-exist with a very high degree of moral excellence and holiness of life,’’ we not deny. But so did concubinage, adultery, deliberate murder, slave-holding, and drunkeness. Admit his lordship’s premises, and if they prove any thing on the question at issue, they prove too much for his purpose. They prove that unlimited concubinage, like that of Solo¬ mon, who had 700 hundred wives and 300 concubines, is no bar to membership in the Christian Church ; for nowhere in the law of Moses is it prohibited even so distinctly as is Polygamy; that lying, like Abraham,—that, drunkeness, like that of Noah,—that countenancing idolatry, as did Aaron,—that slave-holding as did the Patriarchs,—that de¬ nying Christ, like Peter,—are no obstacles to the adminis¬ tration of Holy Baptism, even when persisted in, and are not to be prohibited in those who before conversion were habituated to those practices. And if the continued practice of Polygamy, and the refusal to abandon it, is no obstacle to being received into the Church, by what rule of Scripture is a man prohibited from commencing anew the practice ? What words of our Divine Lord teach that long habit sanctifies what is other¬ wise sin ? Has Dr. Colenso never heard of those who by wilful persistence in sin “ treasure up wrath P ’’ Before we leave this branch of the subject, it will be profitable for us to pass in review the teaching of the Old Testament on the subject of Polygamy. No one will doubt B 12 that the original law of marriage promulgated to our first parents in Eden, contemplated the union for life, of one man to one woman—and to one only. The exposition of it given by Malachi, and by Christ, confirm the view ; as well as the fact that throughout all subsequent ages tbe relative members of the sexes have been substantially equal. Thus nature has taught to all men, savage and civilised, the perpetuity of the original law. Lamech, a descendant of Can, was the first to violate it, and was condemned to an infamous notoriety in consequence. Ever since, where it has been practised, it has depended upon war and sla¬ very for its support, and the evil consequences which God has connected with it, have uniformly borne testimony against it. Every one will be convinced of this who stu¬ dies carefully, with reference to this subject, the histories of Abraham,—of Jacob,—of David,—of Elnathan,—and Solomon. The jealousy and cruelty growing out of it in the family of Abraham,—the domestic feuds in the house¬ hold of Jacob, resulting in the selling of Joseph into Egypt, —the most melancholy events in the reign of David,—the apostacy of Solomon—all are traceable to polygamy and concubinage. But besides all this teaching by Providence, God did not fail to bear direct testimony against it. In the vi. chap¬ ter of Genesis the one sin above all others which is repre¬ sented as deciding God to destroy man by a flood from off the earth, was the one under consideration. “ The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all ivhich they chose . And the Lord said my spirit shall not always strive with man,” Genesis vi. 2-3. Dr. Wall renders this passage:— “When men began to multiply on the earth the chief men took them wives of all the handsome poor women they chose.” Bishop Patrick says :—“Made matches with them and took perhaps more than one apiece.*’ The chief men, the princes who had the power took as many wives as they chose without being restrained by the law of God, and this it was more than any other sin that filled up the wrath of God, and brought the flood upon the world of the ungodly. But besides the emphatic reprobation of Polygamy which God has always proclaimed by his Providence and the laws of nature,—in the Mosaic economy it was positively prohibited. Leviticus xviii. c. 18 v. “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness 13 besides the other daring her life time.’’ The marginal read¬ ing, “Neither shall thou take one wife to another , fyc. Bishop Patrick acknowledges that a great many eminent writers follow the marginal reading and interpret this passage as a prohibition of Polygamy, though he himself gives a different interpretation. Dr Edwards, says :—“the Hebrew phrase— flshah el-achotah) —here translated a wife to her sister, is found in eight other instances only in the Hebrew bible ; in none of which is it applied to a natural sister. * * ’’ Thus it is twice used in Exodus xxvi e.3 v. The five curtains shall be coupled together one to another, &c. The literal translation of the Hebrew is this, the five curtains shall be coupled a woman to her sister, and five curtains shall be coupled a woman to her sister. The same phrase in the fifth verse of the same chapter, ‘ that the loops may take hold one of another.’ The literal translation of the Hebrew is, the loop receiving a woman to her sister. Again the sixth verse, 'and couple the curtains together;’ in the Hebrew, and couple the curtains a woman to her sister. So in the seventeenth verse, * two tenons shall be in one board set in order one against ano¬ ther;’ in the Hebrew, set in order a ivoman and her sister. Ezekiel i c. 9 v. ‘Their wings were joined one to another;’ in the Hebrew, the wings were joined a ivoman to her sister. Verse twenty-third of the same chapter, ‘and under the fir¬ mament their wings were straight, one toward another ;’ in the Hebrew, were straight a woman to her sister. Chap¬ ter iii. 3 v. ‘I heard also the noise of the wings of the living creatures, that touched one another;’ in the Hebrew, that touched a ivoman to her sister.” If then in the passage un¬ der consideration the phrase be not different from what it is in all other places of its occurrence in the Hebrew bible, the marginal reading is the correct one,—thus a wife to another thou shalt not take, to vex her, to uncover her naked¬ ness, besides the other, in her lifetime. Another reason for adopting the marginal reading and the exposition we have given of it is, that if it means that a man shall not marry a sister of his wife while his wife is living, it implies permis¬ sion to marry her when his wife is dead, which is forbidden in the 16 v. of the xviii c. of Leviticus, and in the 21 v. of the xx c. In these texts there is a positive, direct, and repeated prohibition of marriage between those who stand in the same relation to each other, as a man and his wife’s sister. When a man marries his wife’s sister, he marries 14 two sisters. And when a man marries his brother’s widow., the same woman marries two brothers. Keep in mind that in all other places when the phrase a woman to her sister is used, it signifies the uniting of like things, and remember the original law of marriage, as ex¬ pounded by Malachi and by Christ, and the conclusion is inevitable, that Moses commanded, “a toife to a wife thou shalt not take during her lifetime', thus he positively prohi¬ bited polygamy. That subsequently eminent and pious men, practiced polygamy, is no evidence against this inter¬ pretation, for they practised other things with apparent impunity, which were strictly forbidden by the laws of Moses. One quotation more and we have done with the teachings of the Old Testament on this subject. Malachi ii. 14-15. “The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously ; yet she is thy companion and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one l Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one ? That he might seek a godly seed.” Lowth, a learned and distinguish divine of the English Church in his commentary on this Scripture says:— “Among various interpretations of the words, this seems most probable, that the prophet put the Jews in mind of the first institution of marriage in Paradise, and tells them that God made but one man at first, and made the woman out of him, when He could have created more women if he had pleased : to instruct men that this was the true pattern of marriage, ordained for true love and undivided affection, and best serving the chief ends of matrimony.” Dr. Edwards, a distinguished American divine says on this same passage :—“ AH are forbidden by it to deal trea¬ cherously with the wives of their youth. And what was meant by dealing treacherously with them is explained in these words, “ and did He not make one ?" i. e. one woman for one man. “ Yet He had the residue of the spirit/’ and was abundantly able to have created more women for one man, if it had been best and lawful for him to have more. And did He make but (, one' > woman P “ That he might seek a godly seed ,” that is, because monogamy, or the having but one wife, is subservient to godliness, and polygamy is not. Thus does this prophet clearly decide against the unlawfulness of Polygamy under the Old Testament. 15 Timothy Dwight, D. D., L.L. D., President of Yale College, in his interpretation of Malachi, ii. 14, 15, says :— “ Of the union of one husband with one wife the Prophet declares God to have been witness, and thus plainly indi¬ cates that this union lawfully extended to no more. * * He created one man and one woman, and united them, and them only, in the marriage institution ; because one husband and one wife thus united, would, by religious education and example, promote piety in their offspring.” Bishop Hopkins, a distinguished prelate of the Eng¬ lish Church in the 17th century, in his exposition of the seventh commandment, says:—“ Here likewise is forbidden Polygamy , or a tahvig a wife to her sister ; that is, to another. Levit. xviii. 18. God indeed seemed to connive at this in the holy men of old, yet it never was otherwise than a sin from the foundation of the wold. And therefore, the Pro¬ phet Malachi refers us to the primitive institutions of mar¬ riage, to shew the obliquity of this practice. Mai. ii. 15. * Did not he make one P ’ That is did he not create one woman for one man? ‘Yet had he the residue of the Spirit;’ that is, the same Spirit and power whereby he created all things in the world, resided still in God, and therefore he could easily have formed more women as well as one, had he not proposed to oblige them one to the other solely, and to teach them by being paired at first, not to seek a multiplication of wives afterwards. Therefore, Poly¬ gamy was unlawful in the beginning, even when the necessity of increasing the world might seem to plead for it; and how much more unlawful now when that necessity is ceased ! Besides this, the Apostle hath commanded, (1 Cor. vii. 2), ‘Let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.’ ” Here we close our argument, so far as the Old Testa¬ ment is concerned. We think that we have proved, that under it Polygamy was not “ tolerated ” in any such sense as to approve the practice ;—that it was not “ sanctioned by the example of eminent and pious men ” any more than was drunkenness, incest, adultery, or murder ;—that it was prohibited by the original law of marriage, promulgated by God himself, that this prohibition was re-enacted in explicit terms by Moses;—that an inspired Prophet “uttering a direct message from the Almighty,’’ pronounced it sinful;— and that the evil consequences uniformly flowing from it, and the teachings of Providence constantly declared its wickedness. f 16 But, if all the Bishop of Natal asserts were true, it would prove nothing to his purpose. “The law made no¬ thing - perfect, but was a shadow of good things to come.” Was there nothing which the law of Moses allowed which would unfit a man for being a member of a Christian Church ? Would the being a member of the Jewish Com¬ monwealth in “good and regular standing,’’ practising all its rites, and uttering to all, its traditions, be no bar to his initiation by baptism into the privileges and blessings of the Christian dispensation P We have dwelt thus long on this point of our subject, because it is the strongest position which is assumed by those who advocate Bishop Colenso’s views, and is at the bottom over every other argument. Let it once be shown that Polygamy never was approved by God—but that by His laws and Providence, he always treated it as sinful— and there can be no reason found why now, and among this people, it'is not in all circumstances sinful to be forbidden in the Church of Christ. We come now to the Bishop’s second argument, which for brevity we will state in our own words— Christ's words hearing on the subject in question were directed against Divorce and not against Polygamy . Speaking of the latter he says, page 8th :—“ He (Christ) does not condemn it.” “He pro¬ nounces no judgment whatever upon it.” Page 6th, he says : “ But though among those addressed by our Lord, there must have been men with more than one wile, He never condemns this as sinful and displeasing in God’s sight.” In direct opposition to this position of his lordship, we assert, and will prove, that Christ, and the Apostles, did expressly condemn Polygamy, and pronounce it adultery ; and that therefore, it is in all cases, a continued state of adulterg in the sight of God. The origin and nature of marriage is distinctly an¬ nounced by Christ in the xix. chapter of Matthew, from the 3rd to the 6th verses, inclusive. “The Pharisees also came in to him, tempting him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And, He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that at the beginning God made them male and female; and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his w ife, and they twain shall he one flesh. Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” 17 These words prove that marriage, as thus constituted, is a Divine Institution. He pronounced that every lawfully married pair were joined together by God himself. This text also contains an expression of the true nature and constitution of marriage. In commenting on this Dr. Dwight, says :—“ Marriage is an union between two persons of different sexes . The ordinance of God, which gave birth to it, limits the union to two. God said for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his ivife ;— not Men shall leave their fathers and mothers, and cleave unto their ivife ;—nor a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his W ives. And they twain shall be one ; not they indefinitely, without declaring how many ;—nor they three, or four, or five, but they Twain. The ordinance, therefore, on which alone marriage is lawfully founded, limits this union, in the most express and definite manner, to two persons." It is the joining of tivo persons, and two only by sanction of Deity, in a loving, perpetual, indissoluble but for one cause only. —most solemnly covenanted union. The exposition of Malachi already referred to,—the repeated declaration of it by Christ, and by the Apostles, (see Eph. v. 31, l Cor. vi. 16, Rom. vii. 2, 3, and 1 Cor. vii, 39), and the concur¬ rent testimony of nearly all commentators, confirm the the above views of the sacred character—the limitations, and nature of the institution of Matrimony. “ There is not a text in all the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which the institution of marriage or the re¬ lation which it creates, is spoken of in the form either of doctrine, or precept, which gives even a remote hint of the lawful union of more than two persons. Husband and ivife, not wives, are the terms invariably used in every case of this nature.” All of Christ’s remarks seem to be made on the suppo¬ sition that there can be no marriage between more than two persons at the same time. No reader would ever get the idea, from anything said by Christ, or his Apostles, that such a thing as Polygamy was existing in the world in their day. Dr. Kitto, says :—“ It would seem that the outward manners of the Jews had become improved about the time of our Lord’s advent, since there is no case recorded in the New Testament of Polygamy or concubinage among them.” Dr. Paley, says :—“ The state of manners had probably undergone a reformation in this respect before the time of Christ, for in the New Testament we meet with no trace or 18 mention of any such practice being tolerated. For which reason, and because it was forbidden among the Greeks and Romans, we cannot expect to find any express mention of it in the Christian code. The words Matth. xix. 9, may be construed by an easy implication to prohibit Polygamy ; for if' whoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery,’ he who marrieth another, without putting away the first, is no less guilty of adultery ; because the adultery does not consist in the repudiation of the first wife.—for however unjust and cruel that may be, it is not adultery—but entering into a second marriage during the legal existence and obligation of the first. The several passages in St. Paul’s writings which speak of marriage, always suppose it to signify the union of one man with one woman." Paley’s Mor. Phil. Dr. Augustus Neander, in his “ Life of Christ,” says:— “ Polygamy was not yet wholly forbidden among the Jews as appears from Josephus. Still we may infer that the Jewish schools in Christ’s time recognized Monogamy as the only Lawful Marriage, from his saying nothing expressly on the subject, while the precepts he delivers pre-supppose it. It will be manifest in the light of the foregoing remarks, that the great error which Dr. Colenso makes in his intre- pretation, of the words of Christ is, his assumption that law f ul marriage can exist between more than two individuals at the same time. This false assumption vitiates his whole reasoning. All we have said converges to prove that mar¬ riage, from its very nature can exist between only Uvo persons, and that a third person can, by no possibility, be admitted into the union, so that in the sight of God it is marriage. A second wife, contemporaneous with the first, is no wife in God's sights nor can all the enactments or customs of nations, savage or civilized, make her anything more than a mistress—a concubine—an adulteress, and the husband an adulterer. We most heartily agree with his lordship in his views of the impossibility of divorce but for one cause only, when it is admitted, that a man, according to the nature of true marriage, can have but one wife at a time. Divorce, whether sanctioned by individuals or by states, but for adultery, is “ no divorce in the sight of God,” and can by no human possibility be made so; and it is because the man is still before God the real husband of one woman, that his connexion with another is pronounced by our Lord to be 19 adultery. Not because he treats her cruelly in sending her away, but because be marries another , he, therefore , commits adultery against her, for she is still his wife by Heaven’s ordinance. Confirmatory of these views are the words of St. Paul in Rom. vii 2, 3 :—“ Foi the v. oxnan which hath an hus¬ band is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth ; but if the husband be bead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another m. n, she shall be called an adul¬ teress ; but if her husband be dead she is free from that law, so th. I the is no adulteress though she be married to another m . Now,it i an admitted principle,that, in determining the limits, with! which, marriage between relatives is forbid¬ den—“ that a given prohibition extends to all who bear the same relation to each other, though not expressed or named.'’ “ For instance, a man is forbidden to marry his son’s daugh¬ ter, or his daughter’s daughter; therefore, we infer, that a woman is forbidden to marry her son’s son, or her daugh¬ ter’s son, though it be not expressly mentioned,—and so in all cases. ” In the above passage change places in the construction with husband and wife, and it reads—“ So then if while his wife liveth he be married to another woman,he shall be called an adulterer, ” 8fc., which words of an inspired Apostle confirm the views we have already proved, for the principle is evidently the same whether the husband or wife be the offender. Hence the conclusion inevitably follows, that no man among the Kafirs has more than one lawful wife in the sight of God, and that if he has intercourse with other women, under the sanction of no matter what human law or custom, he is an adulterer . And, therefore, it again follows, that, not to require a convert to put away his concubines, as a condition of being received into the communion of the Church of Christ, is to make a continual state of adultery no sin. Do any still wonder at the position the American Missionaries and others assume on this subject? It may increase their amazement to be told that American churches which sent them here, and make prayer for them continually, universally regard flagrant and persistent violation of the seventh commandment, an insuperable obstacle to being received to the blessings and privileges of Christ’s house¬ hold. c * 20 But against this conclusion, the Bishop advances the assumed fact that Polygamy was permitted in the primitive churches, in the case of those who were Polygamists before conversion. As the strength of the Bishop’s argument depends much on the practice of the primitive church and the teaching of the Apostles, it will be necessary to examine the texts of Scripture, he adduces, somewhat in detail. He quotes first, the 12th verse of the vii. chap, of 1 Cor. :— “ If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” His lordship says :— “ If the state of Polygamy were, in any sense, tolerated by the Apos¬ tles, when they found it existing in those they converted to Christianity, these would seem to be very serious words for those who command every brother that hath more wives than one to put them all away, whether they be believers for not. ” Without pretending to give a critical interpretation of this text, I)r. Colenzo hinges his conclusion on “If Polygamy was in any sense tolerated which assumption we have al¬ ready shown to be baseless. The context, as any one will see, who will be at the trouble to read it, gives not the slightest hint that Paul was discussing the subject of Polygamy directly. It seems from the first verse of this chapter that the Church at Corinth had written, and asked Paul’s opinion on certain questions,—which he proceeds to discuss in order. The first question which they asked was, whether it were lawful and proper for Christians to enter into the marriage relation at all. Paul, in the 9th verse, gives his views on this point, and of the mutual rights and duties of those who were married. And this question which had arisen among the believers of Corinth was, whether it was proper for one who had been converted, to continue to live in the married state with one who was unconverted. This is answered from the 10th to the 21st verses, and it was in reference to this second query that Paul wrote the words of the text, which he pre¬ faced by “ But to the rest speak I, not the Lord ; If any brother, &c.” In the 10th and 11th verses he answers those who in order to attain a higher state of holiness, thought it necessary to dissolve the marriage relation. In the 12th and onwards he points out the proper course for those, of which one partywas a convert, and the other a heathen. Theophylact, as quoted by Whitby, says :—“ That this verse speaks of those who were both infidels when they 21 were married, but one of whom had since become a Chris¬ tian, for it was not lawful for a Christian to be joined to an Infidel Whitby remarks still further on the following verse :—“ This caution was needful, because the primitive Christians were sometimes in doubt of this, as finding that the Jews did null all marriages of the holy seed with infi¬ dels, and hence conjecturing that they might be obliged to do so, and thinking it ‘ an impious thing' 1 to cohabit with a heathen, * * * and that being ‘ bed fellow ’ to such an one, they communicated with him in his iniquity, and his idolatry ; and concluding that as he who was joined to a harlot ‘ was one body with her so he who was joined to an idolater was one body with him.” Other authorities might be quoted to the same effect, but enough is said to show that Paul was answering the question whether the heathenism of a husband, or wife, was a sufficient ground of divorce. If the inference, the Bishop wishes to have drawn from the 12th verse is correct, what will his lordship say, if he is reminded that, by parity of reasoning, the 13th verse,—“ And the woman which hath an husband that be- lieveth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him,”—proves that a woman who is the common wife of half-a-dozen husbands, should not put away any of them as a preliminary to the acceptation of holy baptism, but should continue the common property of all, lest for¬ sooth “ affections should be sundered ” “and injustice done” to those whom she has sworn to love and cherish ? The woman of Samaria had had five husbands; and Bishop Colenso is no doubt aware, that the women of Thibet in¬ dulge in such luxuries at the present day. Will he say, that it would be “ cruel injustice and outrage on the highest principles of morality and religion, 5 ’ if she were, by her spiritual adviser “ recommended to put away ” by a “sum¬ mary process ’ 5 if need be, these attached lovers, and thus end her adulterous course of life p Let us recapitulate a little : Paul’s answer to the question, “ Shall a man who has become a convert put away his wife because she is a heathen ? or a wife her husband because he his an unbeliever P is No; not if the imconver- ted party be pleased to remain. Now, we venture to say, that no missionary in South Africa ever recommended a man to put away his lawful wife because she teas a heathen ; nor would we have a man put away his wives, had he a dozen, because they are heathen ; but for all that Paul teaches here, 22 there may be “ yoocl unci sufficient reasons ’’ why, a man may put away his one wife, or his half-dozen. The text quoted proves nothing’ on one side or the other of the question at issue. The remaining Scripture which is relied on to prove the views of his lordship is 1 Tim. iii. 2, “ A Bishop must be.blameless, the husband of one wife and verse 12, “ Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife.” We will refer the reader to the 9th verse of the v. chap, of 1 Tim., and to Titus i. 6, for a repetition of the same sentiments respecting the qualifications of Bishops, Deacons, and Deaconesses. Commentators have been disagreed on the proper interpre¬ tation of these texts, but so far all Protestant commentators are agreed, that, “ They understand the words to speak of not admitting to Church offices any who had more than one wife at a time.” Bishop Colenso remarking on these texts, says, (page 9th) From this it would appear that some were admitted to Baptism, who hail more wives than one, and yet were not required to put away all but one on embracing Christianity. For, if it had been laid down as a distinct and positive rule, that no Polygamist should be received to Baptism, the direc¬ tion in the text would be futile and absurd. * * * Whoever, then, admits that these words of St. Paul are intended to exclude from the ministry those, who, according to the practice of the Jews, and almost all Oriental nations (and he was here writing to Timothy, at Ephesus) were then actually living with more wives than one , must admit also, that the practice of Polygamy however objectionable, was not yet absolutely forbidden among laymen, for those who had more than one wife when first converted. ” We admit the Bishop’s premises, but we emphatically deny that the conclusion he draws follows of necessity or of course. But before we proceed to our analysis and dis¬ cussion, let us notice for a moment the somewhat formidable array of great names he quotes as favourable to his views. He gives extracts from Rev. Thomas Scott, M. A., Dr, James Macknight, John Calvin, and Peter Martyr who conjecture, that in the primitive churches, those who were Polygamists when converted, might have been permitted to live with all their wives without censure. If one reads carefully the words of these eminent men, he will see, that with them it is a mere matter of conjecture and opinion, that such might possibly have been the case, and not one of them has stated a single fact to sustain his fancy. And we venture to say there cannot be a positive case produced, of Polygamy being allowed for an hour in a member of the Apostolic Church. The opinion of each one of these commentators is based on 23 the supposed injustice of sundering a domestic relation once assumed, or, on an apprehension of the evil consequences which they suppose would How from putting away all their wives but one. “ Domestic troubles and causeless divorces ” says Macknight; “ But such a repudiation icould not have been without wrong and injustice ” says John Calvin. “They contracted with each other in good faith. Nor must a wrong be done to their wives for each of them have a claim on the husband ’’ says Peter Martyr. These opinions it is evident have no direct bearing on the Bishop’s inference from 1 Tim. iii. 2 and 12 ; and hence they may be dismissed till we come to the fourth division of our subject; Whitby, John Wesley, and Scott, he quotes,—and he might have quoted half-a-dozen others to the same effect,—to prove that in the text under consideration, Paul designed to pro¬ hibit Polygamy in a Bishop and Deacon, and did not speak of those, who, had put away a wife, or had married a second alter the bonds of the first were dissolved by death or other¬ wise. As on this phase of the fnterpretation we are not at issue—these last witnesses may also go their way, as having nothing to say relevant to the subject. Some of them we shall, however, recall as we proceed, to testify for us. We now then stand alone with his lordship’s proposi¬ tion and inference. Analyse what he says, and it stands thus,— The Jews and Gentiles in Paul’s time practiced Polygamy. Bishops and Deacons in the Christian Church were pro¬ hibited having more than one wife at a time. Therefore, Polygamy was not prohibited among the laity in the Christian Church, but was allowed to those habituated to it before conversion. A parallel syllogism would be,— The Jews and Gentiles were notorious in Paul’s time for hatred of good men,—for injustice, unholiness, and intem¬ perance. (See Matth. xxiii., John viii. and ix., and Rom. i. and iii.). A Bishop was required to be “ a lover of good men?' "just," “ holy?' and “ temperate?' Therefore, laymen, who, before conversion had been accustomed to these vices, for which the Jews and heathens were notorious, were not required to be “ lovers of good men,’’ ‘just,” “holy,” “temperate,’’ but were allowed to be the opposite of all these virtues. Or, as Thomas Scott 24 \ says, as quoted by the Bishop :—“ To argue hence, as has been done, that Polygamy was lawful in other Christians, else it would not have been needful to restrict pastors from it, would prove, (if it proved anything,) that it was also lawful, and common for them to be drunkards, coveteous, brawlers, or strikers ” ;—especially, we add for his lordship’s sake, if before conversion they had been accustomed to these vices. Again, among the Jews and Mahomedans of the present day there is much irreligion and impiety,—but it is required that a minister in the Baptist Church give evidence of being religious and pious, therefore, according to his lordship’s style of reasoning, whoever admits the above, must admit also, that irreligion and impiety are “ not yet absolutely forbidden among laymen’’ in the Church,—“ for those who were ’’ irreligious and impious “ before they were con¬ verted. The truth is the Bishop indulges here in manifest sophistry. In his impetuosity to reach his favourite con¬ clusion ; he has leaped chasms, that can neither be bridged over, nor filled up. Between the Jews and heathen, and the Christians at the time Paul wrote, the difference was as wide as the gulf between heaven and hell. The practices, the spirit, the religion of the former all tended to death ; of the latter to life. From the one to the other there can be no reasoning. Because certain practices were common among Jews and heathens,—is not the slightest evidence, that those practices were permitted in any circumstances among Christians. And when we find the practice in question, was prohibited by the original law of Paradise,—by Moses, “ and a Prophet uttering a direct message from the Almighty,”— and by Our Lord himself in most emphatic terms—even for¬ bidding the desire ,—when we find that it is “ a practice at variance with the whole spirit of Christianity,”'—“an offence against morality” “ to be deprecated, denounced, and done away” ;—who can for a moment believe that it was tolerated in laymen, for no other reason than because it was prohibited in Church officers P But,if it is possible for any man, in his reason, to stand upon such an inference, then there is other evidence, which, independent of its intrinsic absurdity proves the position assumed by his lordship and his “friend. Dr. Bleek ” in the highest degree improbable. 25 Turn to the 2nd verse of the vii. chapter of 1st Cor. “ Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Note, this does not say “ let every man have his own ivives," but, “ his own wife," which restricts him to one only ; and there is here no exception made in favour of him or her, who,before conversion had more wives, or husbands than one. Albert Barnes, says, on this text:—“ Have his own wife, and one wife to whom he shall be faithful. Polygamy is unlawful under the Gospel ; and divorce is unlawful. Let every man and woman, therefore, honour the institution of God, and avoid the evils of illicit indulgence.” “ In strictness,’’ Dr. George Campbell, observes, “ I have no right to call that my own which I enjoy in common with others ; and no woman call any man ‘ her own husband,’ whom she has in common with other women. In the Greek of the New Testament we have always * her own husband,' never ‘his own wife,’ but literally the ‘ wife of him’(ten heauton yunaika) which is the more remarkable as no such expression occurs in the Septuagint. For, during that dispensation, things were on a different footing. The words rendered ‘ his own ivife’ is a much less strong and restrictive expression, than the words rendered ‘ her own husband,' ‘ for there was not the same reason for an explicitly strong restriction on the side of the wife as on that of her husband.’ The word ren¬ dered * every woman' is ‘ hekaste, whch is restrictive,— each particular woman. The adjective idion is also very definite in its signification, and is often rendered ‘pecidiar,’ ‘par¬ ticular.' Adverbially it is rendered ‘exclusively,' ‘respectively,' * separately,' ' by one’s self, 1 alone.' The Greek literally translated reads: ‘And let each woman, have her own par¬ ticular individual husband’;—‘by herself, alone.’ This is absolutely decisive against Polygamy ; and places the hus¬ band and wife entirely on the same ground ; and as much forbids him to take another woman, as it does her to cohabit with another man.” (See Bagster’s Comprehensive Com¬ mentary, Dr. Geo. Campbell, Thomas Scott, &c.) Whitby comes to the same conclusion from the 4th verse of the same chapter. The obvious inference, then, from these explicit words of the Apostle, is, that if any have hitherto lived in viola- lation of this rule of Christ’s house, they should immedi¬ ately repent and sin no more. The fact that they, for many years have been accustomed to it,—“ have practised it on 2G a large scale,” and their heart’s affections have become bound up in it, cannot possibly justify its continuance in the sight of God and man. If so, then the same reasons will justify “ a permanent state ” of rebellion against any other of the Ten Commandments, as surely as the seventh. And lienee we must also infer that the Apostles did not in any circumstances suffer Polygamy in the primitive churches. That they did not appears from the celebrated dialogue of Justin Martyr with Trypho the Jew. The former casts into the face of the latter as a reproach,—“ Some of you Jews even i 1 the present time have as many as four and five wives each ” ;—evidently implying, that the Christian Church tv pis -free from the practice here condemned as a reproach to :) Jews. Justin Martyr, in the same dialogue, speaks agiiii. of the Jews taking to themselves as many women as .he .vould “under the name of matrimony," which seems t indicate that he thought, as we do, that matrimony cannot exist except between two persons at the same time, and that other women taken are retained only under its “ name ’—no real marriage does, or can exist. The absence of any mention of actual cases of Poly¬ gamy in the Epistles, and of any instructions to those practising it, is strong presumptive evidence that it did not exist in any circumstances in Church members. Instruc¬ tions were given to regulate the relations of masters and slaves, of husband and wife, of parents and children, but never is any direct, or indirect mention made of those sustaining the anomalous position of polygamists, who be¬ came so before conversion, and therefore continued 'the practice. Because Polygamy did exist among the Jews, therefore, Moses legislated to prevent some of the evil conse¬ quences likely to flow from it; and it seems very remarka¬ ble, that, if it was in any sense allowed, or did in fact exist, in the Churches planted by the Apostles, that there is not the least recognition of the supposed fact. Surely from the nature of the case, if it was suffered to enter the Church, it required special directions as much as the parental relation, monogamy and slavery. And what makes it still more probable that in no cir¬ cumstances was a Polygamist tolerated in the Christian Church, is the fact, that a plurality of wives had been for ages forbidden among the Romans, (see Paley’s Moral and Political Phil., also Goguet’s Origin of Laws), and was, at 27 the time the Kpistles were written, unlawful. The truth is, that the influence of the Roman laws and manners in the time of Christ, had greatly contributed to make, even among the Jew's, Polygamy disgraceful in public opinion ; and so disreputable was it that he who would take a second wife, was obliged to put away the first before he could respec¬ tably do it. Hence, indirectly, the principle of monogamy was the cause of the frequent divorces which Christ reproves. Therefore, Herod was obliged to divorce his first w'ife, the daughter of the King of Arabia, before he was allowed by Roman law* to marry “ his brother Phillip’s wife.” He, surely, was able to “support two wives.’’ * Against the conjectures of certain commentators, un¬ supported by facts, and condemned by the nature of the case, we set. off the opinion of the Rev. John Wesley, for which quotation we have to thank his lordship, who intro- ducee it with great candour. “ It must be confessed,” says he, speaking of a former quotation from Wesley, “ that John Wesley’s view's on the subject of Polygamy were much stronger than Whitby’s. He here calls the practice a ‘ sin ’; and thirty years later, in one of his letters, he writes :—‘ I totally deny that (supposed) fact, that Polygamy ivas alloived among the primitive Christians, or that converts who had many wives, ivere not required to put any of them a\oay .” “ Thirty years later ” as his opinions give no signs of approaching the fossiliferous state, we venture to hope Bishop Colenso’s views will change more than did Wesley’s. We will close this part of the subject by an extract from a publication of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions ; and we do so the more readily because it seems to contain an exposition of the views, theoretical * So far from it being true that Polygamy was practised by the Romans’ in the days of the empire, it was with the greatest difficulty men could be induced to marry at all. Young men could not be induced to marry by the greatest rewards on the one hand, or penalties on the other. “ To enforce marriage the Emperor Augustus imposed new penalties on such as were not married, and increased the reward both of those who married, and of those who had children. Notwithstanding all these laws, the Roman knights, on account of their aversion to marriage, insisted on their repeal.” “Marriage was not popular in the declining days of Rome, and it was with the utmost difficulty population could be kept up.” (See Mansfield’s Legal rights of women. Spirit of Laws, vol. ii. Montesquien, Book xxiii. Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of Rome.) Divorce became exceedingly common in the days of the empire, but Polygamy, never. Cleopatra—the “JEgyptia conjux ” of Virgil,—and Berenica were condemned by public opinion, to live the concubines of Mark Anthony and Titus. D 28 n i and practical, entertained by American missionaries throughout the world :—“ Polygamy stands on a somewhat different footing from slavery. Little difficulty is appre¬ hended from it in gathering native churches. The evidence that Polygamists were admitted into the Church by the Apostles, is extensively and increasingly regarded as incon¬ clusive by the patrons of the Board. Nor is there evidence of the practice having existed in any of the Churches sub¬ sequent to the Apostolical age. The Committee believe, that no positive action by the Board in relation to this subject, is needed or expedient. Unsustained as the prac¬ tice is by any certain precedents in the Apostolical Church¬ es, and unauthorised by a single inspired injunction, the- native convert will early be able to prove the reality of his piety, should he persist in clinging to it, or refuse to provide, for the education of his children ; or the support of their mothers (when they need such provision) if he may not be permitted to regard the mothers as his wives.’’ In the light of the foregoing remarks, we are now prepared to examine the concluding paragraphs of the pamphlet before us, so far as they relate to Polygamy and divorce. All his lordship says, abating the declamation and story-telling, in which he seems very much at home, is contained in the following lines from page 15 :— “ I say then with Calvin, [Calvin, by the way, does not say so. He, indeed, uses the word “wrong,” but notin such a connexion as does Dr. Colenso.j that, in compelling a Kafir husband to put away his wives, we are doing a positive “ wrong,” perhaps to the man himself, but certainly to the woman he is compelled to divorce. AVe do wrong to the man’s own moral principle —his sense of right and justice—his feelings as a husband and a man. He knows that he is under a solemn obligation, ratified by the laws [and cus¬ toms of his people, to those whom he has taken for wives. He j knows that they have lived and laboured for him—it may be, for years—have borne him children—have shared in the joys and sorrows of family life.” Page 16, he says :— “ But I boldly assert that this is not such a sacrifice as the Gospel requires.” So far as we can understand, from subsequent remarks, we gather that Dr. Colenso means by “ the man’s own moral principle, his natural conscience,—his intuition of what is just and right. That the Kafir has a conscience,—perceives the difference between right, and wrong,—we do not ques¬ tion ; and that this moral sense is exceedingly perverted, by 29 the traditions of his fathers,—by his ignorance,—by his evil customs, and his own corrupt heart cannot be doubted by any but a novice in knowledge of human nature. And hence, that his conscience is not a perfect rule of moral conduct is certain. For ought that appears, the Kafirs may be obnoxious to the curse pronounced by an inspired Prophet on those who “call evil good, and put light for darkness.” It may be that wallowing’in sensuality, they have refused to receive instruc¬ tion from the light of nature, which cries out against Polyga¬ my, no less emphatically than the word of God. It may be that like “ other Gentiles,” whom Paul describes, (Eph. iv., 18,19) this people “ walk in the vanity of their mind,”—their “ very mind and conscience being '‘defiled —“ their under¬ standing darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the iguorance which is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who being past feeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness to work all uncleanness, ivith greediness.''’ It may be, that on the very subject under consideration their conscience needs to be enlightened, before they are capable of discerning what is just and right in the premi¬ ses. One thing is certain, as everybody knows, that the continued practice of any sin, hardens the conscience, and blunts the moral sensibilities ;—and of no sin is ihis more true than licentiousness. Has it then come to this, that we are to throw away our old standards of right and wrong taught us by the Bible, and the experience of nearly six thousand years, and adopt those of a degraded heathen, who has never been instructed, and who, till he has become old, has lived in a state of debasing sensuality P And be¬ cause he thinks it is wrong to forsake a practice which nature condemns, and the word of God declares adultery, and Bishop Colenso confesses is an “offence against mo¬ rality and Christianity, to be deprecated, denounced, and done away ” ; are the missionaries in Natal, the true “ suc¬ cessors of the Apostles/’ exhorted to lower the demands of the Gospel, and receive to the bosom of the Church those old hardened sinners, unrepenting of their sins, and un¬ washed from their pollution ? Does conscientiousness in any course of conduct excuse it, and justify its continuance ? And does it fit one to receive Holy Baptism P Then are the Mormons, indeed, the “ Latter-day Samis," and Brigam Young^ their chief, might come reeking from the sty of bis worse than beastly 30 sensuality, straight into the English Chnrch of Natal, and bring liis hundred wives with him,and establish his harem in its holy precints. Why not? fie is conscientious,—he thinks it would be unjust to himself to oblige him to separate from them, that it would be doing them a “positive wrong” since he acquired them all before he made application for baptism. What crime so atrocious, that it has not been justified by its perpetrators in the name of conscience? Yea, also, of religion ? What permanent state of life has not been sanctioned at the same high tribunal ? The Thugs of India, plead conscience—education—custom of their fathers —commands of their bloody goddess,—to justify incessant robbery and murder. No doubt hundreds of sincere curses are uttered, in the name of Kale, against the British offi¬ cers, whose efficiency and humanity, have done so much to rid Hindoostan of these professed murderers. Would the author of the “ Remarks, &c.’ 5 receive these also into the Church, and permit them to still pursue their bloody trade, because they think it unjust and wrong to compel them to forsake it! Shall the perpetrators of the Meriah sacrifices in the hill-tracts of Orissa, as they apply for baptism, be told that the“ Gospel requires no such sacrifice” as the forsak¬ ing the custom of killing, roasting and eating children, an