opinion of the early writers and of some councils. (2.) The special respect paid among pagans to a woman who was " univira." (3.) The propriety, in the case of eTrCa-Koiroi and Slolkovoi, of a greater temperance. (4.) And the manifestation of a greater sanctity (ye/WT77s) of a single marriage, which he thinks is indicated even in Scripture (Luke ii. 36, 3T). The objections to it are, —
In the first place, that it rests on an unscriptural view of mar- riage. According to the Bible, marriage is a better, higher, and holier, because the normal state, than celibacy. It was only in the interest of the doctrine of the peculiar sanctity of celibacy, that this interpretation was adopted by the fathers.
In the second place, it rests on the no less unscriptural assump- tion of the superior holiness of the clergy. No higher degree of moral purity is required of them than of other men, for the simple reason that every man is required to be perfectly holy in heart and life. The interpretation in question gained the stronger hold of the Church as the doctrine of "the grace of orders," and of the priesthood of the clergy gained ascendancy. When the Reformation came and swept away these two doctrines, it removed the two principal supports of the interpretation in ques- tion. It is not to be admitted that there can be anything unholy in second marriages, which an infinitely holy God declares to be lawful (Rom. vii. 3), nor can it be conceded that the clergy are holier than other believers, seeing that the only priesthood in the Church on earth is the priesthood common to all believers.
In the third place, the interpretation which makes the Apos- tle interdict second marriages to bishops and deacons, is con- trary to the natural meaning of the words. The parallel passage in Titus i. 5, 6, reads thus : " That thou shouldest, .... ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee : if any be blame- less, the husband of one wife, etc ; " «" ns l<rr\v . . . /uas ywcu/cos, avrjpy « if any one 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 the account. He might before have been unmarried, or even a polygamist, but when ordained, he must, if married at all, be the husband of but one woman. " Qui sit : non autem, Qui fuerit," says Calvin in his comment on 1 Timothy iii. 2. And on Titus i. 6 he says, " Qui defuncta uxore alteram jam coelebs inducit, nihilominus unius uxoris maritus censeri debet. Non enim eligendum docet qui fuerit maritus unius uxoris, sed qui sit." Whichever of these interpretations of 1 Timothy iii. 2, be adopted, whether we understand the Apostle to forbid that a
890 PART m. Ch. XIX. — THE LAW.
polygamist, or that a man twice married, should be admitted to the ministry, in neither case does the passage give authority to receive a polygamist Into the fellowship of the Church. Consid ering, then, that monogamy is the undoubted law of Christ considering that we have no evidence that He made an exception in favour of heathen converts ; and considering the great impor- tance that churches, founded in heathen lands, should bear true witness of the doctrines and precepts of Christianity, it would seem clear that no man having more than one wife should be admitted to Christian fellowship.
The third aspect of this question concerns the effects of enfor- cing the Christian law of marriage in heathen lands. It is urged that this would result in great cruelty and injustice. For a man to cast off women whom he had engaged to protect and cherish, to abandon not only them but their children, it is said, cannot "be reconciled with any right principle. To this it may be replied, — (1.) That in many heathen countries it is not the husband who supports the wives, but the wives who support the husband. They are his slaves, and sustain him by their labour. There would be no great hardship in his setting them free. (2.) But when this is not the case, it does not follow that because a man ceases to re- gard several women as his wives, he should cease to provide for them, and for the welfare of his children. This in any event, as a Christian, he is bound to do.
It is also suggested, as a difficulty in this matter, that it is hard to determine which of his several wives a converted polygamist should retain. Some say, that it is the one first married ; others say, that he should be allowed to make his own selection. 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. But in the Christian sense of the word there has been no marriage in any case. There has been no promise and vow of mutual fidelity. The relation of a hea- then polygamist to the women of his harem, is more analogous to concubinage than to Christian marriage. The relation of a heathen polygamist to his numerous wives, is so different from the conjugal relation as contemplated in Scripture, as to render it at least doubtful whether the husband's obligation is exclu- sively, or preeminently, to the woman first chosen. This is a point of casuistry to which those who expect to labour in heathen countries should direct their attention. The Romish Church de-