sequacity-being first enunciated by some stupid blunderer and then passively acquiesced in by others, intolerance on the one hand blinding to the tolerance on the other hand.

CHAPTER XIII.

LESSONS FROM MISSIONARIES AFRICA.

It is now proposed, before conclusion, to view this subject to some extent through the eyes of modern missionaries, as. the accounts they have given us of their experience and observation as workers among the heathen will enable us to do so. I am about to submit the proof that the great burden of mission work is borne by those who are intolerant of polygamy, and that the polygamists are a faction who are impeding mission work.

The subject of this discourse is polygamy, not as a matter of history nor of ethnology, but in its relations to the Christian church, and especially our Southern Presbyterian Church. In Exeter Hall, London, 1888, there was held, from June 9th to 19th, "The Centenary Conference on the Protestant Missions of the World." It consisted of 1,519 delegates from 139 societies in Great Britain, Ireland, and the colonies, Europe, Canada, and the United States. These delegates represented missions in all parts of the world. Their perfect freedom of utterance gave a marvelous variety and interest to every topic considered. And among the topics considered, no one was deemed more important and interesting than that of polygamy. The topics assigned for the third day, June 12 were: (a) Caste; (b) Slavery; (c) Polygamy; (d) Indian Marriage Law, etc. But the topic which absorbed the occasion, hardly admitting the mention of the others, was polyg

amy. The record of the deliverances on this subject, written and oral, by the interlocutors, is found in vol. 2: 49-81-over thirty pages-and over thirty persons participated in the animated discussion.

The Ecumenical Missionary Conference of 1900 was almost a sequel to that of 1888. It was held in Carnegie Hall, New York City, from April 21 to May 1. In the fall of 1854 the first of these missionary conventions was held in the United States, in order "to unite in cordial love and sympathy the friends of missions;" and the special occasion thereof was the presence of Dr. Alexander Duff, the most distinguished missionary of his day. That was over fifty years since, and quite a number of like assemblies have been held since that, but the two largest and most influential were those of 1888 and 1900. In 1900, 2,000 representatives or delegates from more than 200 societies were convened, and the President of the United States (McKinley) and the Governor of New York State extended to them a sympathetic welcome.

There were more than seventy (70) sessions of this Congress, members being detailed to address audiences simultaneously in different churches and halls. The program of discussion bristles with topics and speakers, and about six pages of the second volume report are occupied with the subject of polygamy. The discussion is by no means so extended and full as at Exeter Hall, 1888, but the same earnestness and divergence of opinion appear.

1. Some lessons should be learned from the discussion of this subject in these various assemblies. And one conspicuous lesson is that there is a great lack of unanimity on the subject.

2. Certain of the advocates of the admission of polygamy

pleaded that the course respecting it should be the same as in the apostolic church with slavery. As the influence of the church abolished slavery so it would polygamy. (So Rev. Hugh White argues in his letter for our Presbyteries.) Hence, admit polygamy into the church as a reform school. But it seems to be perfectly certain that the constitution of the Presbyterian Church fails to provide for such a reformatory, and uncompromisingly condemns polygamy as a sin and in violation of the law of God. Besides, we know that the relation of bondservant and master was in the apostolic church (Eph. vi: 5-9; Col. 3: 22-iv: 1), but there is absolutely no proof that polygamy was in that church, and the conclusive proof is against it.

3. It is pleaded that though the polygamous relation is sinful, it would be sinful to break it up. But as applied to a sinful relation this is a misleading fallacy. It is stated thus: "It is an admitted principle that there may be relations which it was sin to form, and which yet it is sinful to break when formed." Within certain limitations this is true. But this does not hold true at all where the relation formed is sinful, and may be voluntarily terminated. It never can be a sin to quit sin. This is the case with polygamy. A word farther may be allowable.

I will illustrate. A man's relation to an illegitimate child was formed in sin; but it would be sinful in him not to recognize his obligation to that child, for neither he nor it, nor both, can dissolve that relation and the consequent obligation. The child is innocent of any guilt. Reciprocal duties arise from the relation. The father cannot absolve himself from the obligation consequent upon his voluntary and sinful deed. The part of the child is passive, but the relation is abiding and binding.

For example. The law of China is monogamous. The code has been already quoted (p. 63). Parental and family custom allot to him his lawful wife. He cannot claim on that account exemption from obligation to cherish her when he has recognized her, nor can a child plead no obligation to unchosen parentage. Every concubine is taken by the man's own choice and also by her choice, for no woman, the code provides, can be compelled to become a concubine. Both parties are voluntarily in the relation; and both are capable of terminating it. It is an unlawful and sinful relation whose continuance between them is voluntary. Evidently the voluntary continuance in sin is an aggravation of the sin. The obligation of a real legal husband and wife is different, for the relation is right.

The case is different with the innocent children. The father and the concubine mother sinned in forming that relation of parentage to those children; and they would both sin in ignoring or attempting to break it up, were it possible to do so; in fact they cannot break it up. The existing relation to the children is formed in sin, but is insuperable and not subject to their will. The children are innocent, but the parents are both guilty. Hence the duty of breaking up the sinful relation between themselves, whose continuance depends on their own choice, but not between them and their innocent children. The principle appealed to, it must be apparent, does not apply to the formation of a sinful relation by a sinful act; and there can be no such thing as the virtuous or innocent formation of a sinful relation, nor can a sinful relation be innocently continued.

The inference is drawn by Dr. Dabney: "There appears, then, no evidence from the passages under comment—that polygamy was allowed in the laws of Moses." Undoubtedly,

by parity of reasoning, the conclusion should be, no evidence that polygamy was allowed in the Christian Church. It would be a shocking absurdity to infer from this argument that there is no polygamy in the Pentateuch, but that there is polygamy allowed in the New Testament. It is no compliment to Dr. Dabney to suppose him guilty of such an absurd, illogical crotchet (Exodus xxi: 7-12, and Deut. xxi: 15-17).

I deny that a case can arise where it would be a sin to abandon sin, under any circumstances whatever. Such a case would necessarily involve self-contradiction. It would be the precise equivalent of the position, that circumstances may exist or arise where it would be right to do wrong, i. e., right to commit sin.

4. All who hold-and, surprising as it may appear, some do hold that it is sinful to separate from plural wives, do so on the false assumption that these so-called plural wives are sure-enough or real wives. The law of monogamy is that "Marriage is between one man and one woman: and 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." The Koran allows four wives; the Bible one. In a recent divorce convention in Washington City of delegates appointed by the governors of all our States, except South Carolina, in which State no divorce has ever been granted. an eminent lawyer, the chairman of the committee on resolutions, Hon. J. Walter Smith, gave forth an accepted definition of marriage, as standing over against all schemes of divorce or separation, that marriage is the permanent union for life of one man and one woman. This was put forth, not as a Bible doctrine, but as a doctrine of reason, or an expression of the natural law of marriage and was unquestioned.