Reply to the Memorial of the Synod of India 
 the General Assembly asking leave to baptize 
 1 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 Mohomedan with two wives waa 
 admitted to the communion of one of our churches, he 
 being allowed to retain both wives. Polygamous enquirers 
 were reported and members of the Synod asked for guidance 
 in dealing with them. Hence the settlement of the question 
 could be postponed no longer. After a protracted discussion 
 the Synod adopted a Memorial to the Gieneral Assembly 
 which closes with a request that the Assemby leave the ulti- 
 mate decision in all such eases to the 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 bap- 
 tized. On a call for the “ yeas and nays” on the adoption 
 of this overture, forty-three votes were recorded in the affir- 
 mative and ten in the negative.” I wish to state briefly 
 the reasons which led some of us to vote against this 
 overture which is now before the Assembly. 
 
 (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. This is 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 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 the baptism of aDy man living in the practice of polygamy, 
 even though the polygamous alliances should have been 
 contracted before his conversion.” The Bishop of Lahore 
 has decided that polygamists shall not he baptized. The 
 North India Conference of the American Methodist Church 
 takes the same ground, saying, not too strongly, that “if we 
 allow polygamy a place among us, there is reason to fear 
 that it will loug remain a source of trouble and weakness to 
 an infant church, which can ill afford to contend with such 
 an element.” 
 
 (3) The Synod say that “ the chief question is not what 
 other Missions or some Bishop or Conference may have 
 ruled in the matter, but what is in reality the policy which 
 is most in accord with God’s Holy Word. And in the 
 mind of the majority of Sj'nod, the Apostle’s words in 1 Tim. 
 3 : 2, 12, distinctly imply, as many of the most eminent expo- 
 sitors have believed, that iu the primitive Church, gathered 
 like that in India from among gentile idolaters, there were 
 some instances at least, in which men with more than one 
 wife had been admitted into the Church, who were on that 
 account disqualified from holding any office therein.” 
 
 This then is the chief question: Were men with more 
 than one wife admitted to the Church with the approval of 
 the Lord J esus and of his Apostles ? If so, then the Church, 
 neither in America nor in India, has the right to refuse 
 admittance to such men, whether they be Mohomedans 
 or Mormons, it matters not, the principle is the same, pro- 
 vided only they formed these alliances when they were 
 “ gentile idolaters,” or believed that a divine revelation 
 through Mohomed or Joseph Smith gave them the right 
 to have more than one wife. Let them prove ignorance of 
 God’s law, and Christ’s teaching, that “ marriage is to be 
 between one man and one woman” — or let them prove 
 failure to understand it, because surrounded from childhood 
 by those who taught differently, and then, according to the 
 Synod, these are instances in which men with “ moi'e than 
 one wife, together with their entire families, should be 
 baptized.” If the Mohomedan convert may claim that Christ 
 exempts him from obedience to one of his commands, be- 
 cause of his residence in India, and because he thought he 
 was not sinning in taking a second, a third or a fourth wife, 
 why may we not apply this standard to the African chief, 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 who according to the law and oustom of his country has 
 taken as man}' wives as he can buy ? Is his ignorance of 
 God’s law and Christ’s teaching to be a sufficient ground 
 for his admission to the Church together with his entire 
 family.” And if not, why not ? If the ground of ignorance, 
 or of being a “gentile idolater or a follower of Mohomed, 
 be a sufficient ground for allowing him to retain his 
 wives, though professing now to be a disciple of Christ, on 
 what ground can the Church refuse baptism to the African 
 polygamist, or on what ground did she refuse the Utah 
 polygamist, say 40 years ago before light began to shine 
 brightly in that dark territory. I fail to see why the law 
 of Christ as to marriage is not binding equally on all his 
 disciples, whether living in Africa, Utah or India ? 
 
 I think then we may approach the New Testament with 
 the presumption that our Lord has made the same door of 
 entrance to his church for all the members of his body the 
 world over, and that all alike, and everywhere, are to be sub- 
 ject to the same moral law, not one law for one and an 'indul- 
 gence' for the other, no matter whether formerly they were 
 ‘ gentile idolaters,’ or followers of Mohomed and Joseph 
 Smith, or led about by the lusts of the flesh. The teaching 
 of our Lord is so clear and unmistakable, that the Church 
 today, everywhere, regards polygamy in one of her mem- 
 bers as deadly sin. 1 need not stop to prove this. Says Dr. 
 Warfield of Princeton, “ No one doubts that the New Tes- ♦ 
 
 tament law/h this subject brands polygamy as deadly sin.” i 
 
 (Presbyterian Messenger, June 20th 1895). If this be so, " 
 then we must approach the words of Paul to Timothy, 
 cited by the Synod, with the presumption that they will not 
 contradict the clear teaching of our Lord, and the united 
 voice of his church, that polygamy is deadly sin in a Chris- 
 tian. Unless these words of the Apostle shut us up to the 
 interpretation that there were polygamists in the early 
 Church, and that with the sanction of the Apostle, we are 
 bound to find a meaning for them in harmony with the 
 teaching of our Lord, and with the teaching of the 
 Apostle elsewhere. The words in Timothy relied on 
 to justify the admission of polygamists to the Church 
 are — “ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of 
 one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospita- 
 lity, 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 bouse, having his children in 
 subjection with all gravity.” 1 Tim, 3: 2-4. It is inferred 
 from these words that because the Apostle enjoins as one of 
 the qualifications of a bishop, that he should be the “ hus- 
 band of one wife,” therefore there were polygamists in the 
 Church, with the sanction of the Apostle, such men only 
 being forbidden to hold office. And it is claimed, on the 
 basis of this inference, that the Churoh in India to-day should 
 receive Hindu and Mohomedan polygamists into member- 
 ship on the same terms. To this there are many replies, 
 
 (1) That it 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 Dame of a 
 single polygamist member of the Apostolic Church could be 
 given, or if elsewhere there were references to such members, 
 or reference of any kind in the New Testament to polygamy, 
 then the inference from this verse would not be so hard to 
 accept. Considered as a mere inference, we can not accept 
 it unless shut up to it by other passages. 
 
 (2) This interpretation is not only an inference unsup- 
 ported by other passages, but it proves far too much : it 
 proves not only that polygamists were members of the Apos- 
 tolic Church, hut that there were women in the Church who 
 bad formerly been polyandrists, for in giving the qualifica- 
 tions of deaconesses in this same Epistle to Timothy, Paul 
 says she should have been ‘the wife of one man.’ 1 Timothy 
 5:9. If the words ‘ the husband of one wife’ can only 
 mean that there were polygamists in the Church, then, by 
 parity of reasoning, we may say that the words ‘the wife of 
 one man’ mean that there were women in the Church who 
 had been polyandrists, but of such marriages there is not a 
 trace of evidence. 
 
 (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 
 
 * Polygamy “ was not Iterated under Roman laws, 
 appear to have been common amongjJews of the time. 
 
 It does not 
 It was not 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 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) The inference sought to he drawn from these words 
 is in the face of the cleat teaching of our Lord. He teaches 
 that marriage can be between two, and only two , Math. 19 : 
 4-6 ; Mark 10 : 6-8. Did theApostle then mean to set 
 aside this law of our Lord and allow a Christian to continue 
 to live with two or three or more women as his wives ? 
 Did he concede this ‘indulgence’ to certain Christians, with- 
 out a word of explanation or reference to the law of our 
 Lord on this subject ? Did he mean to allow a member of 
 Christ’s body to continue in sin uninterruptedly, sin regard- 
 ed by the whole church as deadly sin in a Christian ? He did, if 
 this interpretation of the verse be correct. In other Epis- 
 tles the Apostle treats of marriage, giving minute directions 
 concerning various complications. H6 refers to the law of 
 our Lord on the subject, “and unto the married command I, 
 yet not I, but the Lord, I Cor. 7 : 10 ; but when he comes 
 to speak of marriage complications not covered by our 
 Lord’s words, he expressly states this,” “ But to the rest 
 speak I, not the Lord,” 1 Cor. 7 : 12. The interpretation 
 under consideration, however, makes the Apostle set aside 
 our Lord’s teaching without a reference to it, or a word of 
 any kind by way of explanation. Surely this fact ought to 
 cast suspicion on such an interpretation. 
 
 (5) Nor does this interpretation fit in with the fact that 
 the Apostle in all his writings assumes that a Christian can 
 have but one wife. In 1 Cor. vii, he is answering questions 
 and resolving practical difficulties relating to marriage, some 
 of them not covered by our Lord’s teaching, and here, if 
 anywhere, we would expect a reference to the case of poly- 
 gamous Christians, had there been such in the Church, In- 
 stead of such reference, the very contrary is assumed, e. g., 
 “ Let every man have his own wife and let every woman 
 have her own husband,” v. 2 ; — “ Let not the husband put 
 
 a Greek custom,” Dr. Warfield. “ Among the Homeric Greeks we 
 have not the slightest trace of polygamy.” — Gladstone’s Juventus 
 Mundi, p. 406. “ After the Exile it was a thing unknown among 
 
 the Jews.” “ The Laws and Polity of the Jews,” by E. W. Eder- 
 sfieim, page 101. 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 away his wife” (not wives), v. 11 : — “ If any brother hath a 
 wife (not wives) that believeth not, and she be pleased to 
 dwell with him. let him not put her away,” v. 12 : — “ Art 
 thou bound to a wife (not wives) seek not to be loosed, v. 
 27 : — And in Eph. v. “ The husband is the head of the 
 wife,” v. 23. “He that loveth his wife loveth himself,” v. 
 28. “ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mo- 
 
 ther, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall 
 be one flesh *** Nevertheless let every one of you in parti- 
 cular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that 
 she reverence her husband,” v. 31, 33. Do not these words 
 show that the Apostle, as his Master, recognized marriage 
 between only one man and one woman, and that for the all 
 sufficient reason that “they two,” v. 31, and no more, can fulfil 
 the relative duties of this blessed relationship. To require 
 a husband to love two, three or four women as his own 
 body, as Christ loved the Church, with that peculiar, exclu- 
 sive love which the relationship demands, and to ask two or 
 three or four women to love and reverence one man as their 
 husband, — well, the Apostle knew too well the heart of man 
 and woman to ask even a bishop to undertake this, and the 
 tongues of those wives he could not quell even should he 
 come with a rod. And so we are shut up by the teaching 
 of the Apostle himself to look for some other interpretation 
 of his words. Dr. Charles Hodge interprets them thus: — 
 “ 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 polygamist, but when ordained, he must, if mar- 
 ried at all, be the “ husband of but one woman.” Bret- 
 schneider 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 can- 
 didate for office in the Church should be a man of a chaste 
 life, — of unbrokon fidelity to the marriage vow, — a man 
 blameless in this relation of life, that “ neither polygamy, 
 nor concubinage, nor any offensive second marriage” should 
 be able to be alleged against him 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 : 3-9. 
 The Apostle Paul devotes the 7th chapter of I Cor. to a 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 consideration of some of the causes of divorce. There were 
 those in the churches who had divorced more than one wife. 
 They may not have been blameless in this. Hence he tells 
 Timothy 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 In favor of this 
 interpretation are the following considerations. 
 
 (1) It fits in with the meaning of 1 Tim. v. 9, where the 
 Apostle says that great care should be takeu in enrolling 
 widows. Such widows should have been “ the wife 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.* 
 
 (2 It fits in also with Paul’s words in 1 Cor. vii. We learn 
 from this chapter that men and women in becoming Chris- 
 tians, found it difficult to live with their heathen wives and 
 husbands. Wiiat were they to do ? Leave them, said some, 
 and no doubt, many acting on this advice, left their heathen 
 wives 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 from 
 I Cor. vii. 1. His advice was this: — “Let not the wife 
 depart from her husband : but, and if she depart, let her 
 remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband ; and let 
 not the husband put away bis wife. . . .If any brother hath a 
 wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with 
 
 * “ The true interpretation seems to us to be as follows : — In the 
 corrupt facility of divorce allowed both by the Greek and Boman 
 law, it was very common for man and wife to separate, and marry 
 other parties, during the life of one another. Thus a man might 
 have three or four living wives ; or, rather, women who had all 
 successively been his wives. An example of the operation of a 
 similar code is unhappily to be found in our own colony of Mauri- 
 tius ; there the French Revolutionary law of divorce has been suffer- 
 ed by the English government to remain unrepealed ; and it is not 
 uncommon to meet in society three or four women who have all 
 been the wives of the same man, and three or four men who have 
 all been the husbands of the same woman. We believe it is this 
 kind of successive polygamy, rather than simultaneous polygamy, 
 which is here spoken of, as disqualifying for the Presbyterate. So 
 Beza.” Life and Epistles of St. Paul : by Conybeare and Howaon, 
 Yol. II. page 452. 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 him, let him not put her away. And the woman who hath a 
 husband that believeth 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 bad 
 left or been left by their heathen partners, and who had 
 contracted other marriages. Such men would, in some cases 
 at least, have with them the children of former marriages, 
 perhaps the heathen wives and mothers of these children 
 living in the 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 
 who have not had such entanglements, men who have not 
 divorced wives, men blameless in this matter, to use his 
 words, “ without reproach, the husband of one wife.” 
 1 Tim. 3 : 2 R. V. 
 
 (3) This interpretation stamps the divorces and separa- 
 tions, so common at that time, as contrary to the teaching 
 of the Lord, as contrary to the special instruction of the 
 Apostle years before, as causing good ground of reproach, 
 and as a consequence, disqualifying . fro m office. 
 
 It is said, however, that the same reasons which weigh 
 against admitting a polygamist to Church membership weigh 
 equally against admitting a man divorced for other causes 
 than those sanctioned in Matt. 19: 4-9 and I Cor. vii. 15. 
 There is this difference : the man (or woman) divorced, contra- 
 ry to the Scriptures, does not justify his sin or seek to exte- 
 nuate it because it was done in the days of his ignorance 
 and hardness of heart, but is penitent and ready to make all 
 the reparation possible after the lapse of years to the wife 
 or wives divorced, not, it is true, by offering to take them 
 all back into his home, and becoming a polygamist, but in 
 every way the spirit of the Gospel may suggest He re- 
 cognizes his sin, and on account of it, and in accordance 
 with the teaching of the Apostle, seeks no office in the 
 Church, but with penitance and confession casting himself 
 on the mercy of God in Christ, asks the Church to receive 
 him. Is not this a case quite different from that of the 
 man who appears at the door of the Church with two or 
 three wives, asking to be allowed to live with all of them 
 in a relationship which is contrary to nature, as well as to the 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 written law of God, a relationship in which he oannot render 
 the exclusive love, honor and fellowship to any one of them 
 to which each of them is entitled as a wife ? 
 
 Many of the brethren in the Synod were moved to vote for 
 the admission of the polygamist, with his wives, because of 
 the hardship involved in the putting away of one or two of 
 them. In some cases there would be hardship, but so there 
 is when the Hindu or Mohomedan with one wife becomes a 
 Christian, knowing as he does that this act of his will cause 
 her greater sorrow than his death and lead to her leaving him 
 for life. We all know such cases in our churches in North 
 India, men who have learned obedience by the things they 
 have suffered. And so the penitent polygamist must suffer. 
 
 The sins of the past are forgiven him, but he cannot escape 
 suffering because of them, nor can he continue in them and 
 receive the comfort of the Holy Spirit. So for his sake, 
 
 I would urge him to conform to the law of Christ. For the 
 sake of the wives too, I would urge the same course. No 
 two women can be happy as the wives of one man. They 
 were not made to be so. The fires of anger and jealousy, 
 not causeless, constantly must break forth into a flame in t •* 
 
 such a household. And all the baptismal waters of the 
 Church cannot quench that flame. It was not made to be 
 quenched thus. “ Jealousy is cruel as the grave : the flashes 
 thereof are flashes of fire, a very flame of the Lord. ” The 
 Song of Solomon, viii. 6 R. V. What word of Sorip- 
 ture will the Church give the Pastor with which to 
 quench that “ very flame of the Lord.” Send him not 
 then to the wives of one man unless he can take a 
 message from the Lord, from which they, as his disci- 
 ples, may find comfort in their bitterness of spirit . The 
 heart of woman is the same the world over. Miss Green- 
 field in “ Five years in Lodhiana” tells us the one bitter 
 cry of tens of thousands of the poor women of India — “How 
 many miserable homes and unhappy women have I not seen, 
 made miserable and unhappy by this very cause (polygamy) 
 
 A poor woman, who is in dread lest her husband should 
 bring home another wife, said the other day, * I have no one 
 but my father, who is very old, and if my lord (her husband) 
 forsakes me too, what shall I do ? She wrung her hands, 
 and the tears rolled down her face as she said, ‘ My prayer 
 to Allah is this, 0 merciful God, Thou knowest the hearts 
 
 2 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 of us poor women. Do Thou put it into the heart of the 
 good Queen of England, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, to 
 make this rule, the rule her English subjects have to obey, 
 that every man hqve one wife only. Ob, blessed rule, let it 
 be sent out to our ''Hindustan too, and thousands of our 
 hearts, our women’s hearts, will love her, and call for bless- 
 ings on her name. That is my one prayer to God that never 
 changes.” And Miss Greenfield adds. “Her prayer will 
 be echoed by tens of thousands of Mobommedan wives.” 
 
 Says that veteran missionary, Dr. E. W. Parker of the 
 American Methodist Episcopal Mission, Lucknow, “ I have 
 had and have known of enquirers who had more than one 
 wife. I have always told the man that he must live quite se- 
 parately from all his wives but one, and that he must arrange 
 in some way for their comfortable support. In every case 
 thus far, I have found the women ready to separate, leaving 
 one with the man, when the case was clearly explained by 
 a Christian woman, and when they found they were to have 
 a comfortable support Hence, after a few days the parties 
 would settle the matter among themselves. I have had but 
 few cases, but my opinion is, that in nine cases out of ten 
 the woman will be found willing to be separated from the 
 husband if assured of a home and support.* The trouble, 
 if any, will be with the man.” 
 
 As to which wife the convert should put away that, 
 must be settled in each case according to varying circum- 
 stances, concerning which the Church is not called to legis- 
 late. On this point Dr. Charles Hodge says : “ If marriage 
 among the heathen were what it is in Christian countries, 
 there would be no room for doubt on this subject. Then 
 the first contract would be the only binding one, and all the 
 rest null and void. The relation of a heathen polygamist 
 c to his numerous wives is so different from the conjugal 
 relation as contemplated^ Scripture, as to render it at least 
 
 doubtful, whether the husband’s obligation is exclusive or 
 pre-eminently, to the woman first chosen. ”f 
 
 * “As to marital rights, 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 a state of 
 concubinage.” Minutes of North India M. E. Conference. 
 
 f Cases might be quoted of Kulin Brahmans marrying sisters on 
 the same day. A correspondent of the Sanjibhaiv gives an account 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 It is not to be forgotten that when the Mohomedan took 
 his first wife, he entered into no contract with her not to 
 take a second, as is the case in Christian marriages ; but 
 she knew that he might take a second, a third, and even a 
 fourth according to Mohomedan law.^ ' 
 
 The North India M. E. Conference recommend that the 
 following 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 marrige in 
 childhood has been practically involuntary on the part of 
 both parties, resulting in unhappiness and leading 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 
 separation, 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 on a par with the woman. (5) The convert in 
 every case shall be required to contribute for the support of 
 his former wives, in such amount as the Committee called in 
 his case may decide, so long as they may remain unmarried. 
 
 I think that in a question of detail like this viz : which 
 wife shall be regarded as the true wife, the Church Courts 
 in India ought to be left free to act. But the decision of 
 the larger question, whether polygamous converts with their 
 wives shall be baptized, as requested by the Synod, should 
 not be left to the Church Courts of each country. This is a 
 question which ooncerns the whole Church. It is a question 
 which must be answered from the New Testament. The 
 Church has again and again given the answer that polygamy 
 is a shameful sin. If it is, then why not treat it as such in 
 India ? If the Assembly grants the request of the Synod, 
 then the answer of the Church in every Christian land is re- 
 versed. And more than this, the contagion of such a sin will 
 spread and spread among the masses, now being brought 
 into the churches, who have been taught from child- 
 hood not to look upon it as a sin at all, and there will arise 
 
 * It is objected that the polygamist convert by putting away all 
 but one of his wives breaks his contract with those put away. But 
 he sinned in making a contract the fulfilment of which is impossible 
 without sin. Matt. 14 : 7. A man engages to marry two women. 
 When converted he must break the contract with one of them, no 
 matter what the suffering to her, nor what the damages for breach 
 of promise. To cease from sin cannot be sin. 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 teachers from among them proclaiming the lawfulness of 
 marriage for all save the clergy. This may seem a ground- 
 less fear to some, but Church History warns us to resist 
 the first departure from true doctrine and pure morality. 
 “ Missionaries are sent forth, says Dr. Charles Hodge, to 
 teach not only Christian doctrines, but Christian morals. 
 And the Churches which they found profess to be witnesses 
 for Christ as to what He would have men to believe, and as 
 to what He would have them to do.” How can the mis- 
 sionaries and the Churches in India declare on the authority 
 of the Scriptures that polygamy is ‘ deadly sin’ in a disci- 
 ple of the Lord Jesus, contrary not only to the teaching of 
 the Lord, but to nature also, the just cause of constant and 
 irrepressible jealousy, a cruel wrong to the heart of every 
 wife and destructive of family life, and yet baptize the poly- 
 gamist with his wives ? Believing as I do that to baptize 
 him is to allow him to continue in sin, and to become a par- 
 taker in his sin, and that thereby I do him a wrong, and 
 “ inflict an irreparable wound on the morality of the Chris- 
 tian Church in its most vital part,” to use the not too strong 
 words of the Bishops of the Lambeth Conference on this 
 subject, I am constrained to lift up my voice against the 
 memorial of my brethren of the Synod of India, much as I 
 love and honor them. 
 
 J. J. LUCAS. 
 
 Saharanpur : \ 
 
 April 2nd, 1896. j 
 
 PRINTED AX THE ALLAHABAD MISSION PRESS: — 1896.