with death. And even now it is practically impossible to con- vict a husband of murder who kills the man who has committed adultery with his wife. This comes from human laws being in conflict with the laws of nature and of God. The law of God re- gards marriage as identifying a man and his wife ; the laws of the state too often regard it as merely a civil contract, and give an injured husband no redress but a suit for damages for the pecun- iary loss he has sustained by being deprived of the services of his wife. The penalty for adultery, to be in any due proportion to the magnitude of the crime, should be severe and degrading.
6. The relative duties of husband and wife arising out of their relation, may be expressed in a few comprehensive words. The husband is to love, protect, and cherish his wife as himself, i. e., as being to him another self. The duties of the wife are set forth in the time-honoured Christian formula, " love, honour, and obey."
Converted Polygamizts.
The question has been mooted, Whether a polygamist, when converted to Christianity, should be required to repudiate all his wives but one, as a condition of his admission into the Christian Church ? The answer to this question has been sought from three sources : First, the Scriptural doctrine of marriage ; sec- ondly, the example of the Apostles when dealing with such cases ; and thirdly, from a consideration of the effects which would follow from making monogamy an indispensable condition of admission to the Church.
As to the first point, it is admitted by all Christians, that it is the law of God, the law of Christ, and consequently the law of the Christian Church that polygamy is sinful, being a violation of the original and permanently obligatory law of marriage. As every man who enters the Church professes to be a Christian, and as every Christian is bound to obey the law of Christ, it seems plain that no man should be received into the communion of the Church who does not conform to the law of Christ concern- ing marriage. The only question is, Whether Christ has made a special exception in favour of those who in the times of their ignorance, contracted the obligations of marriage with more than one woman? It is of course possible that such an exception might have been made. It would be analogous to the temporary suspension of the original law of marriage in favour of the hard- hearted Jews. Has then such an exception been made? This is the second point to be considered. It concerns a matter of fact.
888 PART m. Ch. XIX. — the law.
Those who assume that such an exception has been made, are bound to produce the clearest evidence of the fact. This is neces- sary not only to satisfy the consciences of the parties concerned, but also to justify a departure from a plainly revealed law of God. It would be a very serious matter to set up in a heathen country, a church not conformed in this matter to the usual law of Chris- tendom. Missionaries are sent forth 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. They ought not to be allowed to bear false testimony. It is cer- tain that there is no clear and definite expression of the will of Christ, recorded in the New Testament, that the case contem- plated should be an exception to the Scriptural law of marriage. There is no instance recorded in the New Testament, of the ad- mission of a polygamist to the Christian Church. It has, indeed, been inferred from 1 Timothy iii. 2, where the Apostle says, a bishop must be " the husband of one wife," that a private mem- ber of the Church might have more wives than one. But this is in itself a very precarious inference ; and being inconsistent with Christ's express prohibition, it is altogether inadmissible. The meaning of the passage has been much disputed. What the Apostle requires is that a bishop should be in all respects an exemplary man : not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; the husband of one wife, i. e., not a polygamist. This no more implies that other men may be polygamists, than his saying that a bishop must not be greedy of filthy lucre and not a brawler, implies that other men may be covetous or con- tentious. According to another and widely accepted interpreta- tion of the passage in 1 Timothy iii. 2, and the corresponding pas- sage in Titus i. 6, the injunction of the Apostle is that a man who has been married more than once, must not be appointed a bishop or presbyter. If this be the true meaning of the Apos- tle, his language affords still less ground for the argument drawn from it in favour of the lawfulness of polygamy in church mem- bers.. If even second marriage was forbidden to presbyters, a for- tiori must polygamy be regarded as inconsistent with the law of Christ.
This interpretation was very generally adopted in the early Church, during the Middle Ages, and by Romanists, and is sus- tained by many of the recent commentators. Bishop Ellicott de- cides in favour of this interpretation. His reasons are, — (1.) The