Then, again, in their sobriety, they seem to us to
adopt unin- telligible compromises. On the subject of the polygamy of heathen converts, the Bishops recommend that "persons living in polygamy be not admitted to baptism, but that they may be accepted as candidates, and kept under Christian instruc- tion until such time as they shall be in a position to accept the law of Christ." That means that a heathen who has married more wives than one before he became a Christian shall, if he earnestly desire Christian communion, be put under pressure to treat all but one of them with creel injustice, and one with unjust favour,—or else that he shall be advised to suppress his desire for Christian communion until such time as all but one of them have died. Which of the two pieces of advice is the Church to press upon him P The Bishops do not say. Again, they tell us that the wife of a polygamous marriage may be admitted to communion, but not the husband. But if the husband is living in sin,—and sin is the only justi- fication for refusing him communion,—all but one of the wives must be living in adultery, and the Bishops do not determine which one of the wives is not so living. We cannot regard this compromising decision of the Encyclical with any respect. Had Christ come in Jacob's day, for instance, do the Bishops suppose that he would have enjoined on Jacob to put away either Leah or Rachel? And if so, which of the two? Or would he have advised Jacob to defer his baptism till one of the two had happily died P Yet most of the African poly- gamists are in a stage of moral civilisation far below that of Jacob.
