polygamous countries, and wherever the civil laws of the place of their sojourn did not forbid it? Is it " to be imagined that God should suffer his own chosen people to have continued in the open and avowed practice of living with more wives than one, if the first positive law was intended to forbid or prevent such a practice? As little is it to be conceived, that He should make laws for the regulation of it, if He had forbidden the thing itself to be done at all."

DISCIPLINE says, that Deut. xxi. 15, 16, "takes no cognizance of the right or wrong of polygamy, but merely institutes a wise and just regulation as to the birth-right of the eldest son." But if the eldest offspring were a bastard and not a son"-and son, was never the appellative of an illegitimate offspring, in Hebrew phraseology, as St. Paul's argument in Hebrews xii, 5-8, is in proof,-he could have no birth-right, and legislation upon a non-entity were nugatory and absurd. Ergo-both sons, whether of the first or after-married wife of the same man, might inherit. The law in question directed, that the first-born (of whichever wife) should be the heir, and should not be injured by parental prejudice, or possible partiality for a second and younger wife, or for her children.

Again St. Paul ordains, 1 Tim. iii, 2, that "a bishop be the husband of one wife." From this DISCIPLINE would infer, that polygamy is absolutely forbidden to every Christian, lay as well as clerical! The best commentators have thought otherwise, and inferred the exact reverse. Thus the pious Doddridge, to allege perhaps the strongest opponent of the practice in question, says, "Upon the whole, it seems to me most reasonable to believe, that (as there is no express precept in the Bible requiring a man, who had several wives at the time of his embracing Christianity, to divorce or dismiss all but one), the Divine Wisdom might judge, that it was a proper medium between encouraging polygamy, and too great a rigour in condemning it, to fix such a brand of infamy on this irregular practice, by prohibiting any man, let his character be ever so extraordinary, to undertake the ministry, while he had more than one wife, and to discourage it in those already converted." I would remark, by the way, that the irregularity' is yet to be shewn, and that it is not stated as a qualification for the ministry, that a candidate is to put away one of two wives-nay, but that having more than one, he is positively disqualified; every fair inference is, that he is to abide by his regularly married wives, but not to think of the ministry.

Analogous to this passage is that in 1 Tim. v. 9, where St. Paul also directs, that no widow should be placed among the number of those supported by the Church, and probably employed in some department of female diaconate or ministry, unless she were sixty years of age, and had been "the wife of one man," or husband! Now admit, that in the former passage, the requisition, that a Bishop should not be a polygamist, is an argument to prove polygamy unlawful to all, and in itself, and therefore, sinful; then it follows, that here also, the similar direction that a widow, to be taken on the lists of Church servants and pensioners, must have been the husband but of one man, condemns second marriage in all widows; while yet the Apostle, in v. 14, directs the younger, Tas vEwTepas, (widows, for of widows only he speaks, women' being an interpolation in our version,) to marry, i. e. to enter into a second matrimony. As then the rule in reference to Church widows having claim to gratuitous support, and engaged to peculiar offices, regarded them only, so that which respected bishops, in like manner, applies to them alone as ministers engaged to public services, and determines nothing as to other persons. 'As for the practice of polygamy among the first Christians, what occasion for the Apostle's caution, if none had more than one wife? That the election was

to be made from amongst the Christian believers, there can be no doubt. To suppose that none of these had more than one wife, is to suppose the Apostle giving a needless rule in the election of bishops and deacons.' 'DISCIPLINE' writes, "the fact of the Apostle's requiring (bishops.or) deacons should be the husbands (each) of one wife, does not necessarily imply that polygamy was generally tolerated in the primitive churches.' I confess, to me the direct contrary appears the natural and unavoidable inference, whether I view the grammatical propriety of the passage, or the argument and reason of the thing. There was a manifest propriety in the religious teacher becoming an example, not of merely lawful conduct, but of hightoned spirituality and moderation, as well as in his being guarded from the distractions of too large a family, the necessity of caring and providing for which would too much interfere with his higher duties, as a minister of Christ; while the possible, if not, probable, jealousies, and domestic disagreements, consequent on his polygamy, would greatly tend to disturb and unsettle his mind, and injure his devotion, and so his usefulness; while too the example of such evils would be out of harmony with the sacredness of his function, and the conspicuousness and influence of the pattern of himself and of his household.

It is argued from Matt. xix. 9, that our Saviour absolutely prohibits polygamy. If this be established, the question is at an end. But the clear tendency of the argument is not to such a conclusion, but is, I conceive, coincident with the design of Deut. xxi. 15, i. e. to prevent partiality and injustice in husbands, and to prohibit a man, not simply from marrying a second wife, a first still living and cohabiting with him; (for that was both law and usage in his day;) but when he could not, or would not, support two wives together, from unjustly putting away or divorcing one, that he might indulge his caprice or lust, by marrying another, not to her, but in her room. This interpretation is the only one that will satisfy the context, and form any conceivable answer to the question put to our Lord; which was, whether it was lawful, not for a man to marry one wife, having another; but to put away a wife for any cause. One, and the most prevalent at that time, of such causes, was that which our Saviour therefore explicitly condemns, viz. the love of variety, and the wish to possess a desirable object, without the inclination or ability to continue to do justice to a prior claim at the same time. So too "the ancient Romans did not indulge in polygamy, though permitted-they chose not to have two wives in the house at the same time, and therefore repudiated one, before they took another, and this they did as often as they pleased." Moreover, Christ was here understood only to speak of divorce, not of polygamy, as may be seen from the observation of the disciples. "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry;" i. e. evidently, "if a man cannot get rid of his wife when he pleases, he had better not marry at all," than oblige himself to retain for ever a woman no longer loved, and in the way of his indulgence of another attachment. They could not possibly mean "that a man had better have no wife at all, if he could not have more than one at once;" but, that it were wiser to refrain from marriage, if it perpetuated its obligations even to the endurance of a disagreeable partner, whether one or more.

46

Such is the judgment of the critics, and it has been clearly shewn, that our Saviour could no more, by the Mosaic law, have called polygamy adul tery, than we can now, by the law of England, term it high treason.'

[To be concluded in our next.]

VII.-Note of Explanation regarding the English School at

Banaras.

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

DEAR SIRS,

In your last number, there is an article, headed" New English School at Banáras," in which is given an extract from a private note of mine to a Missionary friend in Calcutta. I confess I was quite surprised to see it, and, still more so, the comments which have been appended to it. I can assure you, that whatever bearing my own remark may have on the state of the English School here, in reference to Christianity, the comments have none whatever. Of course I had my reasons for the opinion I expressed; and on another occasion, when personal feeling in any breast may not be involved, I may give them you at length; but I write now, to express my regret that a private note of mine should have been inserted, however innocently, without my consent being obtained, and to state, that the opinion expressed referred, not to the manner of conducting any particular school, but to the system itself, as existing and carried out in all;—and moreover, that I have not a word to say against the character and conduct of Mr. Nicholls, whose name is incidentally mentioned, but whom I had not at all in my mind, when I penned the passage.

to

"J. T.'s Banaras Correspondent."

VIII. Additional Note of Explanation on the same subject. To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

GENTLEMEN,

I am sorry to find that the observations I was induced to make, on the paragraph I communicated from my friend's letter, have been considered personal in their bearing, and have given offence. I beg leave to state, that they were not intended to be personal, but to apply to what I was led, by the purport of my correspondent's letter, combined with what I had been given to understand, had taken place elsewhere, to consider the system on which all Government schools were conducted, and which, so far as acted on, must prove prejudicial to Christianity. What that system really is, and how far it is deserving of this character, or otherwise, it might be well for some person qualified for the task, by a knowledge of its theory, tendency, and working, to make known. Not a few will be delighted, and none more so than myself, to learn, that it is free from the very serious objection of in effect stigmatizing the religion of the Saviour of mankind, by subjecting the youthful inquirer into its nature and evidences, to rebuke, and persecution, if not actual exclusion from the advantages those seminaries are expected to afford.

June 20th, 1835.

J. T.

REVIEW.

CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER, No. VI.-The Bishop and the Missionaries.

[From a correspondent.]

We had hoped that this unhappy subject would have terminated with the paper which appeared in the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER for May. In this hope, however, we have been disappointed. In the June number of the CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER an article has appeared, which professes to be a Review of the Bishop's Charge, but which is in reality an attack upon the Missionaries in Calcutta. We have, therefore, no other course left open to us, however painful it may be, than to lay the whole transaction before the public, briefly reviewing the Reviewer, and leaving the community to draw its own conclusions.

We would preface our remarks by observing, that this subject is not in any way connected with the disputed point of Church and Dissent; it is simply a question of character, which would have been as promptly met, had the paragraph in question been written by any other individual than the Bishop of Calcutta.

The circumstances which gave rise to the present discussion are as follows: Bishop Wilson delivered a charge to his clergy in the south of India, which was printed and circulated amongst his clerical and other friends. In it a paragraph appeared, that cast an imputation on the sincerity of the motives of a large portion of the Missionary body. At a meeting of the Missionaries this passage was read, and as but one construction could be put upon its meaning, but one feeling pervaded the meeting, and that a feeling of regret. It was deemed by some advisable to deny the charge at once, without any intercourse with the Bishop; it was however suggested by others, that it would be more courteous and Christian to communicate with his Lordship by deputation, before any public steps were taken. A deputation was appointed, and the persons composing it forwarded the following note to his Lordship:

MY LORD,

To the Right Rev. The Lord Bishop of Calcutta.

In one of the two charges recently published by your Lordship, there occurs the following passage, which we have read with surprise and regret.

"Very few Missionaries have fallen into open vice, and profligacythough three or four, alas! in a century and a quarter, as I before stated, have-but into secularity, into inactivity, into anxiety after petty objects of their own, into jobs for their families, multitudes have been betrayed. PERHAPS not one in twenty of those who come out from Europe in all the Protestant Societies, with the best promise, and who go on well for a time, persevere in the disinterestedness of the true Missionary."

At the request of our brethren, we, the senior Missionaries of our respective societies, beg leave to inquire, whether, in this heavy and unexpected charge, your Lordship intended to include the Missionaries of our several denominations, residing in Calcutta; and, if so, to call upon you, for the grounds on which you have thus publicly accused us. Justice to the Societies with which we are connected, and to our own usefulness, requires that we should have an opportunity of vindicating ourselves as speedily as possible.

We have the honor to be, &c.

To which the accompanying answer was returned.

MY DEAR SIR,

TO REV. W. YATES.

I beg to address you on behalf of the three Reverend Missionaries who have addressed a somewhat formal letter to the Bishop on one topic alluded to in his charge to his clergy. You will perhaps have the kindness to communicate to them the reply which his Lordship has directed me to write.

I need scarcely say, and yet it is necessary I presume, how sorry the Bishop is, that any thing, which he may have felt it his duty to deliver, should have wounded the feelings of any one, but especially any of those whom he truly honors for their works' sake. It was very far from his intention. I might instantly have answered your inquiry by a few words of course; but the Bishop is anxious to remove from your minds any feelings of a personal or unpleasant character : he therefore directs me to beg that you will do him the favour of calling, with Mr. Lacroix and Mr. Mackay, to-morrow morning, or Saturday morning, at 10 o'clock, if quite convenient to you. He will gladly see you, and give you any explanation in his power, as to the bearing of the paragraph, the effects of which you so much deprecate.

Bishop's Palace, Thursday, 9th April, 1835.

}

I have the honor to be,

Yours very truly,
(Signed) J. BATEMAN.

In compliance with the request expressed in the note, the Rev. Messrs. Yates, Lacroix, and Mackay waited on his Lordship, and held a conversation of some length on the subject in dispute. Not wishing to misrepresent his Lordship, even to their brethren, they drew up a précis of what occurred at the interview, and sent it to the Bishop for his correction, informing him, that they should submit it, when corrected, to their associates, who would act as they thought proper with regard to its publication. He returned the précis unread, accompanied by the following statement !

To the Reverend Messrs. YATES, LACROIX and MACKAY.

REV. SIRS,

Bishop's Palace, Calcutta, 14th April, 1835.

1. I have had the honor of receiving your letter of April 8th, complaining of the bearing of a passage in one of my late Charges delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Calcutta.

2. I immediately directed my Chaplain to assure you, that no personal reflection was, or could be, intended by the passage complained of, and